Reverend John Damascene was born around 680 in the capital of Syria, Damascus, into a Christian family. His father, Sergius Mansur, was the treasurer at the court of the caliph. John had an adoptive brother, the orphaned youth Cosmas, whom Sergius took into his house. When the children grew up, Sergius took care of their education. At the Damascus slave market, he ransomed the learned monk Koemu from Calabria from captivity and instructed him to teach children. The boys showed extraordinary abilities and easily mastered the course of secular and spiritual sciences. After the death of his father, John took the post of minister and city governor at court.

At that time, the heresy of iconoclasm arose and quickly spread in Byzantium, supported by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717 - 741). Standing in defense of Orthodox icon veneration, John wrote three treatises Against Those Who Blame Holy Icons. The wise, inspired writings of John infuriated the emperor. But, since their author was not a Byzantine subject, he could neither be imprisoned nor executed. Then the emperor resorted to slander. On his orders, a forged letter was drawn up on behalf of John, in which the Damascus minister supposedly offered the emperor his help in conquering the Syrian capital. This letter and his hypocritically flattering answer to it Leo the Isaurus sent to the caliph. He immediately ordered that John be removed from office, cut off his brush right hand and hang it in the town square. On the same day, by evening, John's severed hand was returned. The monk began to pray to the Most Holy Theotokos and ask for healing. Falling asleep, he saw the icon of the Mother of God and heard Her voice informing him that he was healed, and at the same time commanding him to work tirelessly with his healed hand. When he woke up, he saw that his hand was unharmed.

Upon learning of the miracle that testified to John's innocence, the caliph asked his forgiveness and wanted to restore his former position to him, but the monk refused. He distributed his wealth and, together with his adopted brother and fellow student Kosma, went to Jerusalem, where he entered as a simple novice in the monastery of Savva the Sanctified. It was not easy to find a spiritual guide for him. Of the monastic brethren, only one very experienced elder agreed to this, and he skillfully began to cultivate in his disciple the spirit of obedience and humility. First of all, the elder forbade John to write, believing that success in this field would cause pride. Once he sent the monk to Damascus to sell baskets made in the monastery, and instructed them to sell them much more than their real price. And so, having made a painful journey under the hot sun, the former nobleman of Damascus found himself in the market in torn clothes of a simple basket seller. But John was recognized by his former housekeeper and bought up all the baskets at the appointed price.

Once one of the monks died in the monastery, and the brother of the deceased asked John to write something to comfort him. John refused for a long time, but out of mercy, yielding to the requests of the dejected by grief, he wrote his famous funerary troparia. For this disobedience, the elder expelled him from his cell. All the monks began to ask for John. Then the elder entrusted him with one of the most difficult and unpleasant tasks - to remove impurities from the monastery. The monk here showed a model of obedience. After some time, the elder was instructed in a vision by the Most Pure and Most Holy Virgin Theotokos to remove the ban on John's writing. The Jerusalem Patriarch found out about the monk, ordained him a priest and made him a preacher at his cathedra. But St. John soon returned to the Lavra of St. Savva, where until the end of his days he spent time writing spiritual books and church hymns, and left the monastery only to denounce the iconoclasts at the Council of Constantinople in 754. He was subjected to imprisonment and torture, but he endured everything and, by the grace of God, remained alive. He died about 780, at the age of 104.

The Monk John of Damascus was born around the year 680 in the capital of Syria, Damascus, into a Christian family. His father, Sergius Mansur, was the treasurer at the court of the caliph. John had an adoptive brother, the orphaned youth Cosmas, whom Sergius took into his house. When the children grew up, Sergius took care of their education. At the Damascus slave market, he ransomed the learned monk Cosmas from Calabria from captivity and instructed him to teach children. The boys showed extraordinary abilities and easily mastered the course of secular and spiritual sciences. After the death of his father, John took the post of minister and city governor at court.

At that time, the heresy of iconoclasm arose and spread rapidly in Byzantium, supported by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717-741). Coming to the defense of Orthodox icon veneration, John wrote three treatises “Against Those Who Blame Holy Icons.” The wise, inspired writings of John infuriated the emperor. But, since their author was not a Byzantine subject, he could neither be imprisoned nor executed. Then the emperor resorted to slander. On his orders, a forged letter was drawn up on behalf of John, in which the Damascus minister supposedly offered the emperor his help in conquering the Syrian capital. This letter and his hypocritically flattering answer to it Leo the Isaurus sent to the caliph. He immediately ordered that John be removed from office, cut off his right hand and hang it in the city square. On the same day, by evening, John's severed hand was returned. The monk began to pray to the Most Holy Theotokos and ask for healing. Falling asleep, he saw an icon Mother of God and heard Her voice, informing him that he was healed, and at the same time commanding him to work tirelessly with the healed hand. When he woke up, he saw that his hand was unharmed.

Upon learning of the miracle that testified to John's innocence, the caliph asked his forgiveness and wanted to restore his former position to him, but the monk refused. He distributed his wealth and, together with his adopted brother and fellow student Kosma, went to Jerusalem, where he entered as a simple novice in the monastery of Savva the Sanctified. It was not easy to find a spiritual guide for him. Of the monastic brethren, only one very experienced elder agreed to this, and he skillfully began to cultivate in his disciple the spirit of obedience and humility. First of all, the elder forbade John to write, believing that success in this field would cause pride. Once he sent the monk to Damascus to sell baskets made in the monastery, and instructed them to sell them much more than their real price. And so, having made a painful journey under the hot sun, the former nobleman of Damascus found himself in the market in torn clothes of a simple basket seller. But John was recognized by his former housekeeper and bought up all the baskets at the appointed price.

Once one of the monks died in the monastery, and the brother of the deceased asked John to write something to comfort him. John refused for a long time, but out of mercy, yielding to the requests of the dejected by grief, he wrote his famous funerary troparia. For this disobedience, the elder expelled him from his cell. All the monks began to ask for John. Then the elder entrusted him with one of the most difficult and unpleasant tasks - to remove impurities from the monastery. The monk here showed a model of obedience. After some time, the elder was instructed in a vision by the Most Pure and Most Holy Virgin Theotokos to remove the ban on John's writing. The Jerusalem Patriarch found out about the monk, ordained him a priest and made him a preacher at his cathedra. But St. John soon returned to the Lavra of St. Savva, where until the end of his days he spent time writing spiritual books and church hymns, and left the monastery only to denounce the iconoclasts at the Council of Constantinople in 754. He was subjected to imprisonment and torture, but he endured everything and, by the grace of God, remained alive. He died about 780, at the age of 104.

Saint John of Damascus is the defender of icons, theologian and preacher of the word of God, who is deeply revered in Orthodoxy. His icons help believers in the most painful and painful moments of their lives.

The icon of St. John of Damascus, which has miraculous power, has gained special respect and reverence from Orthodox believers. The holy righteous is a faithful and infallible clergyman who has devoted his entire life to serving the Lord and pious deeds.

History of the icon

John of Damascus lived in the 9th century on the territory of the Caliphate of Damascus, holding a high position at the court. The saint professed Christianity. His heart was overflowing with kindness and boundless compassion. A Christian helped anyone who needed help, without attaching importance to the religious views of people.
Saint John devoted his entire life to the struggle for Orthodoxy, fighting the persecution of Christians by pagans and preaching the Word of the Lord. A supporter of Jesus Christ was one of the first who called for the worship and veneration of sacred icons, constantly entering into confrontation with the Christian church because of this. Despite the cruel oppression of Orthodox believers, the faithful preacher never hid his true faith and love for Christ.

The Byzantine emperor, having received a letter about the defense of Christianity by John of Damascus, became furious and ordered the novice of the Lord to be severely punished. But it was impossible to do this: the theologian was a citizen of another country. Therefore, in order to punish the supporter of Christianity, the ruler decided to slander John, accusing him of helping in the conquest of Damascus. The saint was called to court, where they cut off his hand, with which he allegedly wrote a confession about the perfect betrayal of power. The severed brush was hung out on the square as a lesson to others. After some time, she was returned to the preacher - so that he would look at her and remember his betrayal.

According to legend, John, tormented by pain, did not stop reading prayers to the Mother of God, and Her help was not long in coming. The day after the severed hand was returned to him, it reattached to his hand. In gratitude for this, the theologian made a cast of a hand from silver and attached it to the icon of the Mother of God, which is now known as the "Three-handed".

Where is the holy image and relics of John of Damascus

The image of God's saint adorns many Orthodox and Catholic churches. According to historical sources, he died at the age of 104, around 755.
AD, however, the data differ, and somewhere you can find later references to the death of the protector of icons, dating back to 780. The thing is that historians know little about the life of the righteous man, because he lived in a very turbulent time, when a war broke out in Byzantium between Muslims and the followers of Christ.

In Russia, the icon and the ark with part of the relics of St. John are stored in the Zachatievsky stauropegial convent. Also, the holy image is kept in the Armenian church of the city of Rostov-on-Don.

What helps the icon of John of Damascus

The icon of St. John of Damascus is an irreplaceable image that must be in every home. He helps literally in everything related to finding one's destiny, strengthening faith and gaining spirituality. A prayer for the forgiveness of sins in front of such an icon will help you get rid of serious illnesses of the soul and body. The help of John of Damascus is comprehensive. Prayer to the reverend is a reliable defense of your personal happiness. Such an icon can be presented to a man with the name Ivan, since the saint is the patron and intercessor of people with that name.

Memorial Day and years of the life of the Reverend

Accurate data on the life and death of the saint are unknown. Historians build only assumptions, being content with indirect signs: with whom John met, in what events he took part, which of the historical figures was familiar with him. To date, it is generally accepted that the saint was born in 625, and died no later than 754.

Description of the icon

The holy image of John is very easy to distinguish from other icons of the great martyrs. On the icon, the preacher is depicted not in classical attire, like most of the saints, but in an Arab turban. So, when painting the image, the icon painters decided to emphasize the origin of St. John. The saint is depicted as an old man, in whose hands is the holy scripture as a symbol of faith and the commandments of God.

Prayer to Saint John in front of his icon

"Reverend John! Be merciful to all people who ask for Your help. We cry out to Thee, O pious saint of God, for we are sinners and have strayed from the path of the righteous. Enlighten us, O Saint John, guide us on the true path and convey our words to the Lord. Ask for sinful salvation and wisdom for everyone now, in order to hold back all the blows of fate and not fall under the influence of the devil. Help with Your intercession to gain strong faith, affirmation in good deeds, healing in illnesses, consolation in sorrows, intercession in offense, help in trouble. Do not leave us, who have resorted to You in faith, for we are weak and need help. Defender of Christianity, follower of Christ, hear our prayers and pray before the Lord for our transgressions. Get rid of passions and show the right path. We trust in your strength and ambulance Yours, continuing to praise Your name day and night. Amen".

Our whole life is a series of accidents, which sometimes have bad consequences. Troubles await us everywhere, regardless of age, gender and religion. God is one, and only in His hands is our whole life. When faced with problems, it is important to understand what He wants to convey to you and try to correct your mistakes. Only then can you get rid of all the troubles once and for all. We wish you peace of mind, take care of yourselfand don't forget to press the buttons and

1. We know little about the life of St. John. His lives known to us were compiled late (already in the 11th century), and it is not easy to single out the indisputable and reliable in them.

John was originally from Damascus, bore the hereditary nickname Mansura (which means: "victorious"). The year of his birth is indeterminate, it was the end of the 7th century. John's father, named Sergius (Ibn-Serjun), served at the court of the caliph, in the rank of "great logothete," i.e. tax collector (or rather, a farmer or publican). Subsequently, he was replaced by John himself ... John received a good education. According to legend, he studied with Cosmas (later Mayumsky) with a certain captive monk from Calabria (also named Cosmas). His theological interests awakened very early. We do not know exactly when John retired from the court and shut himself up in the monastery of St. Sava. It can be assumed that already before the start of the iconoclastic turmoil. The wonderful words of the monk in defense of the holy icons attracted everyone's attention to him. The lives of the monk tell about slander and persecution against him at the court of the caliph, about cruel punishment and miraculous healing. In the monastery, the monk led a strict and closed life, in humility and obedience, which is so vividly and touchingly described in the well-known hagiographic tale. Most of all, the Monk John was engaged in writing here, sensitively responding to the theological topics of the day. And at the same time composed "divine hymns." By his own direction, he was ordained a presbyter by John of Jerusalem (V), i.e. at least not later than 734. He did not stay long in Jerusalem. We do not know the year of the reverend's death. One can think that he died even before the iconoclastic cathedral of 753.

2. In the history of theology, the place of the Monk John is determined primarily by his systematic works. This is his "Source of Knowledge" (dedicated to Kosma Mayumsky). This extensive dogmatic code consists of three unequal parts. The first, "philosophical chapters" or dialectics, is compiled according to Aristotle (compare the interpretations of Porphyry and Ammonius). Here we are talking about the definition of basic concepts. And at the same time it is a kind of natural theology, "knowledge of beings as such"... The second part is entitled: "About Heresies in Brief." This is a short list of heresies and delusions (103 in total), compiled mainly from literary sources (starting with Epiphanius). Of interest are the texts cited about the error of the Messalians and quotations from Philopon (on essence and hypostasis). This brief hereseological essay concludes with a theological confession of faith... The third part is "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." This is the experience of the system. However, the material is collected very unevenly, and many members of the faith are not mentioned at all (there is no special chapter on the Church). There is no strict order in the presentation. Most of all, it has been said on Christological topics - it is felt that quite recently these were combative and disturbing topics ... In the presentation, Damaskinus follows, often literally, the previous fathers, especially Gregory the Theologian and "the great Dionysius," less often to other Cappadocians, Cyril and Leonty . He refers to other fathers very rarely, of the Western ones he mentions only Pope Leo, he does not refer to the ante-Nicene writers at all. Damascene does not claim independence; on the contrary, it seeks to express precisely the general and accepted opinion or belief. And at the same time, he freely and creatively understands the theological tradition, distinguishes between the main and the secondary, does not go into controversial reasoning, but does not close the problems ... Platonist, under the influence of his paternal authorities (Gregory the Theologian or Dionysius).

The influence of this dogmatic code (rather than the system) was great both in the East and in the West. However, Damaskinos did not have creative successors in Byzantium either. Already at the beginning of the 10th century, the Damascus code was translated into Slavonic. Perhaps, even during the life of Damaskinus, he was translated into Arabic. In the 11th century, the "Exact Exposition" was translated by order of Pope Eugene III into Latin (1150) and this very faulty translation was used by Peter Lombard, and after him by Aquinas.

3. Of the dogmatic works of private content and predominantly of a polemical nature, first of all, the famous words "Against those who reject holy icons," should be named - there are three of them and they were written in 726-730. Damascene reinforces his theological reasoning here with a set of paternal and other testimonies.

Of interest is the book of John "against the Jacobites" (known in two versions), - it adjoins a number of separate dogmatic-polemical essays, against the Monophysites, Monothelites and Manichaeans.

Of particular note is the well-known collection of "Sacred Comparisons" ("Sacred Parallels"). This is a collection of texts and patristic sayings on various issues of faith and piety, arranged in alphabetical order, by subject. However, initially all the material was presented systematically - in three sections: about God, about man, about virtues and vices. Lists of this original edition have also been preserved - it is precisely this that can be assimilated by John himself; and then his code was processed more than once, as he himself continued the work of his predecessors.

4. The works of Damaskinus, as a songwriter, require special attention. Theophanes already called him "Golden Jet," - "according to the abundance in him of the grace of the Holy Spirit, flowing in his words and in life." It is very difficult to determine exactly the scope of John's song creation. It is hardly possible to attribute to him the compilation of the "Octoechos," as his personal affair - this is the work of a number of generations, in which there is also a share of Damaskin. And one can think that it was Damaskinus who reduced the already established order of service to a certain scheme. It is probable that the Sunday dogmatists belong to him, and perhaps also the Sunday canons, of a Christological content. Of particular note is the Paschal service (in general, not only the canon) and a number of holiday canons (Nativity, Theophany, Transfiguration, Ascension, Annunciation, Assumption, etc.); in addition, the famous funerary "self-voiced" and antiphons. In Damaskinos (as well as in Kosmas of Mayumsky), the influence of Gregory the Theologian is very felt (cf. scholia to his poems, compiled by Kosmas). The influence of Damascus in the East in liturgical poetry was decisive, and it is felt in the West as well.

5. Comparatively little Damaskinus was involved in exegesis (see his non-independent explanations to the epistles of Paul, which Icumenius and Theophylact Bolg seem to have used). Several sermons have been preserved, of which the words on the day of the Assumption and on the Transfiguration are especially interesting. It is necessary to note a number of separate articles of ascetic or ethical content.

Undoubtedly, the life of Barlaam and Joasaph does not belong to Damascus (compiled in the middle of the 7th century, in the monastery of St. Savva, by a certain John).

II. Theological system

1. Damascene, as a theologian, was a collector of paternal traditions. In the fathers he saw "God-inspired" teachers, "God-bearing" shepherds. There can be no contradiction between them, - "the father does not oppose the fathers, for they were all partakers of the one Holy Spirit." And Damascene collected not the personal opinions of the fathers, but precisely paternal tradition. "An individual opinion is not a law for the Church," he says and repeats after Gregory the Theologian: one swallow does not make spring. "And one opinion cannot overthrow the tradition of the Church from the limits to the limits of the earth" ... Damaskinus is closest to the Cappadocians, to the Areopagitics, in Christology he repeats Leontius and Maximus. The connection with the Cappadocians and with the "great Dionysius" manifests itself primarily in the very formulation of the question of the knowledge of God in the very first chapters of the Exact Exposition. Damascene begins with the confession of the incomprehensibility of the Deity and limits theological inquisitiveness to "eternal limits," to the limits of Revelation and "God's tradition." And not everything cognizable is expressible and easily expressible. The truth of the existence of God has an immutable and natural evidence, it is comprehended from the consideration of the world itself. But what God is “in essence and nature,” is completely incomprehensible and unknown. However, from the contrary, we can see with some obviousness that God does not exist. First, negative definitions are possible, "through the denial of everything" that is said about the creature, - "and one thing in Him is comprehensible: His infinity and incomprehensibility." Secondly, the knowledge of what is not the very essence of God, but "what belongs to nature" - such are the definitions of God as the All-Wise and Good. This kind of positive names mean God as the Author of everything, i.e. in His creative Revelation to the world, and are transferred to Him from His works (or deeds). Thus Damascene distinguishes between apophatic and cataphatic theology. Cataphatically speaks only of the actions of God ("energies"), unless the cataphatic form covers the apophatic meaning. And the theological cataphasis must always be based on the direct evidence of Revelation.

2. In the presentation of the Trinity dogma, Damascene repeats again the Cappadocians, and most of all - Gregory the Theologian. He emphasizes the inexpressibility and ignorance of the Trinity mystery. "Believe that God is in three hypostases. But how? - above any "how" ... For God is incomprehensible. Do not say: as the Trinity is the Trinity. For the Trinity is inseparable." And you can not even find a suitable image or example for comparison. "But there is a Unity and a Trinity - and it was, and is, and will be forever. It is known and worshiped by faith, - by faith, not by research, not by research, not by proof. And the more it is investigated, the more it is not known, and the more it causes curiosity, all the more hidden"... This does not mean, however, that the truth of Divine unity is indistinct or dumb for the mind. On the contrary, it is precisely in the Trinitarian revelation that the contradictions of natural thought, powerlessly oscillating between pagan polytheism and the inert monotheism of the Jews, are resolved - the antinomy is removed in the synthesis: "from the teachings of the Jews - the unity of nature, from Hellenism - differences in hypostases" (compare with the Cappadocians).

Following the Cappadocians, Damascene speaks most of all about the difference in hypostases. In the one being of God, the three hypostases are inseparably united and inseparably divided—and this is precisely the mystery. This is the incommensurable difference between the Divine being and the creature. In created being, we immediately and actually see the difference of hypostases, or "indivisible"; and only then "by mind and thought" we see community, connection and unity. For in the world there are only indivisibles, individuals, hypostases, - and in them the general is realized, which does not exist in itself, but only in many. This is according to Aristotle. And therefore, we here ascend to the general for the second time, highlighting the same, recurring properties. In other words, creation is an area of ​​real multiplicity, in which, by reason and reflection, we discover the common, similar, identical, one. This is the area of ​​separate existence, the area of ​​number in the strict sense of the word: two, three, many... Otherwise, one must speak of God. God is one in essence, and as one is revealed. We believe in one God - one principle, one essence, one power, one power, one desire, one action, one kingdom. We perceive the unity of God immediately and realistically. "We know the one God, but by thought we understand in the Godhead a difference in properties," i.e. according to hypostatic features. In one God we "understand" Trinity differences, the very Trinity of hypostases. We we come to the hypostases, and do not proceed from them, and mentally we come to them, not as separate, "individuals" or "indivisible," but as inseparably inseparable "beginningless images of eternal existence." We distinguish hypostases only "in thought"(or in "inventing), έπίνοια, but this does not detract from their ontological irreducibility. Επίνοια ξ means for Damascus, as for the Cappadocians, first of all "a certain reflection and deepening, simplifying and clarifying a holistic and undivided perception into the knowledge of things," - opening in what at first and for the senses seemed simple, complexity and diversity - but diversity is really existing ... From Unity we descending to the Trinity. The trinity is very real. But it is real in a different way than any multiplicity in creation. In the Godhead, the Trinity is given and revealed in the inseparability of the One Being. "In the Holy, transcendent, and of all the highest, and incomprehensible Trinity, community and unity are seen in fact (and not in reflection), - because of the coevality of persons and the identity of their essence, action and will, because of the unanimity of thought and the identity of power and strength, - I did not say: similarity, but identity ... For one essence, one goodness, one strength, one desire, one power; one and the same, not three similar to one another, but one and the same movement of three hypostases, μία καί ή άυτή. For each of them is one with the others no less than with itself"... Therefore, the distinction only conceived, - distinction never passes into dissection, just as difference does not pass into separateness. Inseparable division, - for the hypostases of the One God are not only similar, but precisely essentially the same. It is not the commonality of properties that unites them, just as the commonality of properties and attributes unites created hypostases into a single genus or species, nothing more; on the contrary, the difference in properties ("peculiarities") only denotes in the essential unity of Divine life the trinity of incommensurable and irreducible "images of existence." God is "one simple essence in three perfect hypostases, above and before all perfection." Divine unity is not made up of hypostases, but There is in three hypostases, is in Three and have three. And each of the Three has a “perfect hypostasis, i.e., the perfect fullness of existence, just as each stone is “perfect”, and is not only a part of its kind. “We call the hypostases perfect so as not to introduce complexity into the Divine nature, for addition is the beginning of discord," - addition will never give real continuity, continuity and unity ... "And again we say," continues Damaskinus, "that the Three Hypostases are located in each other"... The One Divinity is not only not composed of hypostases, but is not distributed among the hypostases, so that in all and in each of them equally and identically contains all the fullness of the Divine nature. And the distinguishing "features" do not have (as happens in created individuals) an "accidental," accidental character. "The Deity is inseparable in the divided"; and what is common in those who are separated is inherent in them "singly and together" ... The Father is light, the Son is light, the Holy Spirit is light; but there is only one tri-shining light. Father - Wisdom, Son - Wisdom, Holy Spirit - Wisdom; but there is one Divine Wisdom, three-light and three-solar. One God, not three. There is one Lord - the Holy Trinity ... Consubstantial means precisely this concrete identity of essence, - not an abstract community, but singularity. For the "origin" of the Second and Third Hypostases from the First does not introduce any division or distribution - there is no fluidity in the Trinity (Damascene constantly repeats the word: "non-fluid," άρρευστξς). The Father is not poured out, is not exhausted in the Son and the Spirit; but everything that the Father has, the Son has and has the Spirit (of course, apart from incommensurable hypostatic differences). "Hypostases abide and are affirmed one in the other," - are inseparable and inseparable from one another, inextricably fitting one into the other "without any destruction or confusion or fusion." - Divine hypostases differ from each other in that which in no way relates to the essence itself, for, according to the constant reminder of Damascus, "the entire Divine nature is perfectly located in each of the hypostases, all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit." The names of the Father, Son and Spirit, denote the mode of existence and mutual relationship of hypostases. What do these "relationships" mean, σχέσεις; Β ξςλθχθε ξς ξςνξψενθι μεζδσ ςβΰπνϋμθ θοξρςΰρμθ, ρΰμξε ρσωερςβξβΰνθε κξςξπϋ οπεδοξλΰγΰες νεξαυξδθμξ νΰυξζδενθε θμεννξ β ξοπεδελεννϋυ ξςνθψενννθυ δπσγ κ δπσγσ, - Αξζερςβεννϋε θοξρςΰρθ νθχεμ κπξμε ρβξθυ ρξξςνξρθςελόνϋυ ρβξιρςβ μεζδσ ρξαξώ νε πΰηλθχΰώςρ; θ οξύςξμσ θμεννξ ύςθ ρβξιρςβΰ θ νε "ρλσχΰινϋ." Ξνθ ρξβοΰδΰώς ρ ρΰμθμ αϋςθεμ Θοξρςΰρει. Αξζερςβεννϋε Θοξρςΰρθ θμεώς νεπΰηδελόνξ θ πΰβνξ-ςξζερςβεννξ ξδνσ, ΰ νε ςξλόκξ ξδθνΰκξβσώ οπθπξδσ...

3. B ξχερςβξ αϋλξ αϋ χσζδξ λώαβθ... β ροεκσλςθβνξε πΰρκπϋςθε πξθχνξρςθ. Ξν ξγπΰνθχθβΰεςρ οξβςξπενθεμ οπεζνθυ ξςεχερκθυ δξβξδξβ.

By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their strength(Ps. 32:6). This Psalm verse and other similar places were more than once the subject of a trinitarian interpretation by the Eastern Fathers before Damascus, and with this is connected a typical feature of the Eastern conception of the relationship of the Second and Third Hypostases: as the Word, and the Breath, the Son and the Holy Spirit "together" (άμα) οare from the Father, "co-originate" with Him, ξυμπρξεϊσι. In this respect, the Eastern image of representation is essentially different from the Western one, by analogy with the human soul (cf. Augustine). For the East, the ancient image of the presentation of the Trinity mystery has always remained typical - based on the contemplation of the First Hypostasis, as a single principle and source of the Divine. In the West, since Augustine, a different type of thought has been established, for which it is characteristic to begin with the contemplation of the general "nature" of the Deity. Damascus entirely belongs to the eastern type. And if he says that in theology we start from unity in order to arrive at a trinity, this does not mean at all that we start from the contemplation of a common "nature." This means to recognize in God the Father, thereby the Father of the Only Begotten Son and the beginning of the Holy Spirit, co-emanating with the begotten Son. We believe in the One God, which means at the same time: in the One God the Father... The Son and the Spirit are some hypostatic "powers" of the Father and come (or rather, "co-emerge") from Him. Co- are happening, but in such a way that, at the same time, the birth of the Son is mysteriously and unknowingly, as it were, the first, - there is a kind of "Godly condition" for the co-descent of the accompanying Spirit, " through the Son outgoing and in German resting" (άναπαυόμενξν). For there is a certain mysterious godly "order" (τάξις) of the Divine Hypostases, signified by the unchanging order of the names themselves, which does not allow permutation. The One, having originally moved into the two, stopped at the Trinity. And this is with us - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit "... The Father, as the name of the First Hypostasis, denotes Her in relation to the Second; and, it must be added, precisely and only to the Second, for the "Patronymic" and "Soniality" (cf. Basil the Great) are correlative, - and the Father does not give birth to the Holy Spirit, but "The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father, but the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father." The Holy Spirit has being from the Father "not in the image of birth, but in the image of procession ," although the difference between the image of birth and procession is unclear for us ... In any case, the name of the Father refers to the First Hypostasis, as to the beginning of the Second ... At the same time, following Gregory the Theologian, Damascene calls the First Hypostasis "unborn," - in order to shade the intra-Troic beginninglessness of the Father (i.e., that the Father is first and the initial hypostasis, "the beginning of the Divine," the "only" and "primordial cause" of the Divine life - the root of the Divine). Beginningless, the Father is the beginning (of course, "beginningless," that is, the eternal and timeless beginning of the "co-eternal") of the Second and Third Persons. Only the Father is the beginning or "natural" cause in the Trinity life, - "We do not call the son the cause," for He from Father... The main name of the Second Hypostasis is the Son, and, accordingly, the hypostatic property is birth. Birth is timeless and beginningless, birth "from the Father's nature," i.e. by virtue of the "natural productivity" of the Deity. As the "action of nature" following the ancient fathers, Damascene also opposes birth to creation, "the work of the will," or desire. Divine birth is beginningless and endless, it is above all change and emergence. "There is nothing created, nothing first or second, nothing master-slave" in the Holy Trinity... The Son is the advice, wisdom and strength of the Father. And there is no other Word, wisdom, power or desire in the Father than the Son... The Son is image of the Father, a living, "natural" and "non-different," image "by nature," in all things similar to the Father and in all things identical with Him, "carrying in Himself the whole Father"...

For Damascene, the name of the Holy Spirit indicates rather a certain Divine breath (πνεύμα ξт πνεΐν) than spirituality - and in this sense there is a certain given name Third hypostasis. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, εκπξρεύται. The father "brings out" the Spirit (πρξβάλλει), ε is the Producer (πρξβξλεύς, πηγή πρξβλητική), ΰ the Spirit is the work, πρόβλημα. Holy Spirit, according to the confession of Damascus, proceeds from the Father, εκ τξυ πατρός, νo through the Son, δι" Υιού. Δuh the Holy One, he defines, "is the power of the Father, manifesting the hidden Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son as He Himself knows." It can hardly be doubted that Damascene has in mind not only a temporary message or descent of the Holy Spirit into the world for the revelation and sanctification of creatures. He is the Spirit of the Son. In the explanation of the Trisagion, Damascene directly says: "from the Father, through the Son, and the Word proceeds, but not filial." The Word is His Spirit, proceeding from Him." But at the same time, the mysterious "mediation" of the Son affirmed by Damascus in the eternal, intra-trionic procession of the Spirit from the Father ("through the Son") is in no way equivalent to that "causing" from the Father, which is the beginning of hypostatic being Spirit, so that any thought of any kind of "co-causation" "from the Son," is absolutely excluded. "Of the Holy Spirit we say that He is from the Father, and we call Him the Spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Spirit is from the Son but we call Him the Spirit of the Son... and we confess that He has also been revealed to us and is taught to us through the Son" (cf. John 20:22)... The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, not as from Him, but as through Him from the Father For there is only one culprit (i.e. "causing," μόνξς άίτιξς) - Ξtets "... Damascene firmly distinguishes εκ θ διά, θ "διά" δ does not contain any causal moment for him. “Through the Son” expresses some very special relation of the Second and Third Hypostases, - a kind of “mediation” of the Son, as “preceding” in the Trinity order, as the Second before the Third, whatever that means ... The Holy Spirit is from the Father, the Spirit of the Son, but not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of God, the announcer of the Word. The Spirit is the image of the Son, just as the Son is the image of the Father. This means that the Word is revealed in the Spirit, just as the Father is revealed in the Word. For the Word is the messenger of the Mind, and the Spirit is the revelation of the Word. The Spirit, proceeding from the Father, rests in the Son as His manifesting power...

Speaking about the phenomenon, "passage," "radiance" of the Spirit through the Son, the fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. they had in mind, first of all, to reveal and affirm the truth of the Trinitarian consubstantiality and the essential and most sincere eternal unity of the Spirit with the Word and the Father, and therefore it is no longer possible to limit “through the Son” only by the fact of the descent of the Spirit in time onto the creature. In this sense, the teaching of the Cappadocians and, in particular, St. Gregory of Nyssa (compare also the symbol of Gregory the Wonderworker) is especially expressive. Gregory of Nyssa directly points out, as a distinctive feature of the Third Hypostasis, that the Son (comes) "directly from the Father," and the spirit "from the First through the mediation ("through") of Him Who is directly from Him," - and the ego "mediation" (ή τξϋ ύιξϋ μεσιτεία) preserves the uniformity of the Sonship. The Holy Spirit, according to St. Gregory, does not proceed from the Father in the same way as the Only Begotten, but appears through the Son himself, as a light that shines "through begotten light," however, "having the cause of the hypostasis from the archetypal Light." Damascene directly adjoins these words of St. Gregory, repeating his idea of ​​the Spirit as the “middle” or “binding” of the Father and the Son: the Spirit is “the middle between the unborn and the born” and through the Son is united (“adjoins”) with the Father ( compare with Basil the Great). The Monk Maximus expressed himself in the same way: the Spirit “is inexpressibly proceeding in essence from the Father through the born Son." And after Damascene, Patr. Tarasios expresses himself in the same way in his synod, adopted at the Seventh Ecumenical Council: "I believe ... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giving, who comes from the Father through the Son"... Damascene was only a spokesman for this general Eastern theological opinion; perhaps he "through the Son" also received the meaning of deliberate opposition to the Western Filioque, which has (already in Augustine) a causal connotation - the motif of the co-causality of the Son. In the East, on the contrary, they have always emphasized the perfect singularity of the "beginning" or "cause in the Holy Trinity; this is the primary Hypostasis of the Father, "a source that gives birth and exhausts," according to Damascus. Hence a certain co-equality of the Son and the Spirit, as eternally "coming" from a single beginning. However, in such a way that the God-revealed order of hypostases does not change, and the Spirit is known "in the third place." To come "through the Son," means that the Exodus is godly and unknowingly "assumes" the Birth. And the economic order of revelation, culminating in the manifestation of the Spirit, reproduces and reflects, as it were, the ontological order of the Trinity Life, in which the Spirit proceeds as a kind of radiance, manifesting the hidden goodness of the Father and proclaiming the Word. In the main image of the Word and Breath, this order and connection is indisputably clear: the Word and Breath are joint, but Breath for the sake of Words, i.e. "through the Word."- In the order of Revelation, the Holy Spirit is the "perfecting power" (or concluding). Not a service force. But the Lord is the life-giving, dominating Spirit, all-perfecting and omnipotent, Creator, Fulfilling and Almighty, "through Himself creating and realizing everything without exception," sanctifying and preserving. The Holy Spirit completes what is created by the Word and gives life, for have life.

4. About creation, Damaskinos speaks a little and fragmentarily. Creation, following the ancient fathers, defines how the action of Divine will, bringing into existence what was not, and preserving what was created in being ... God creates with thought, and this thought, fulfilled by the Word and accomplished by the Spirit, becomes a deed - this is literally from Gregory the Theologian. The cause of creation (if one can only speak of the cause of Divine creation) lies in the overabundant goodness of God, willing that something partaking of It should take place. In God, from eternity, there are images and plans of what He will accomplish ("icons" and "paradigms") - this is the "eternal advice of God" about the world, beginningless and unchanging. These images are the thoughts of God about every thing. Damascene refers directly to the Areopagitics, but does not dwell in detail on explaining how real things relate to Divine types.

Following Gregory the Theologian, he believes that the creation of angels precedes the creation of man. And the angels are created in the image of God, - "only the Creator knows the form and definition of this essence." Angels are incorporeal, but this definition opposes them only to us, and in comparison with God everything turns out to be gross and material - only God is essentially incorporeal. Damaskinos speaks briefly about angels, repeating Gregory the Theologian rather than the Areopagitics. Angels were created through the Word and perfected by the Spirit, who gives them sanctification by grace...

God creates man in His image and likeness, from two natures - rational and sensual - as a kind of "connection" between the visible and the invisible, as a kind of microcosm. Man is the image of God "by imitation." Mind and Freedom are the image of God, and ascent in virtue means likeness. God gives man His own image and His own breath, but man does not retain this gift in the fall, and God descends to take on our weak and poor nature, "to purify us, free us from corruption, and again make us partakers of His Divinity." In creation, God gave man not only being, but also well-being, clothed him in His grace, gave him the right and ability, through his own will, to enter and remain in unceasing union with God. He created him as a kind of "new angel," to reign over the earthly and move to the heavenly. "He created him, - which is the limit of the mystery, - deified through attraction to God, - deified through communion with Divine illumination, but not turning into God's essence"... in a divine and most beautiful place, but in soul in a place incomparably more beautiful and lofty, having God dwelling in it as his dwelling. Man was created in non-destruction, dispassion, immortality, for life equal to the angels, i.e. for unceasing contemplation and incessant praise of the Creator. But everything that was given to primitive man, he had to assimilate with his freedom, for only that which is not due to captivity and not under compulsion is virtue. From the will and freedom of man the beginning of evil, - not from nature, but from the will. And sin, evil, or vice is something unnatural; to live virtuously according to nature. The Fall shakes the nature of man; having turned away from God, man gravitates towards matter, for man, according to his constitution, is "in the middle," between God and matter. Plunging into matter, a person becomes mortal, subject to lust and passions. Man was created in virginity, and from the very beginning virginity was planted in the nature of man - "virginity dwelt in paradise." And if man had not fallen, God "could multiply the human race in another way," not through marriage and not through birth, just as the initial education of man was not birth. And for the victory over death and vice, the Lord himself comes, - "the Creator himself and the Lord enters the struggle for his creation." The enemy caught the man, promising him divine dignity; and is itself caught when God appears under the cover of the flesh. The wisdom of God finds a worthy solution to an insurmountable difficulty. “And out of all that is new, the newest and the only new under the sun is being made.” And that which was accomplished in Christ, as in the firstfruits, is repeated in everyone who wishes, through communion with Christ. Given the possibility of a second birth - from Christ. Eternal and imperishable food is given in the holy Eucharist. God inscrutable transforms matter, "and through the ordinary by nature accomplishes that which is higher than nature." People wash themselves with water and anoint themselves with oil, and now God combines the grace of the Spirit with oil and water and makes baptism a bath of resurrection. People eat bread and drink water and wine, and God combines His Divinity with these substances and makes them His flesh and blood... Through the ordinary and natural, we reach that which is above nature. In the Eucharist, all become "partakers of the divinity of Jesus," and are reunited and communicated with each other as members of a single body. Damaskinus speaks of the Eucharist as the completion of the work of redemption, as the gift and return of incorruption or immortality. Of the consecration of the Gifts he says: "offered"(μεταπξιξύνται). They are administered through the invocation of the Spirit ("epiclesis"), - "and through the invocation, rain appears for this new agriculture - the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit." Damascene explains the image of the mysterious transformation by comparison with the Incarnation itself and also with how bread and wine, even in natural nutrition, are transformed into the flesh and blood of the one who eats and become indistinguishably identical with the former body. The Eucharistic bread is already two-natural through union with the Divine, like a kind of flaming coal, mixed with fire (cf. "purely natural coal" in some liturgical texts). This is “the firstfruits of the future bread,” the Body of the Lord is spiritual, for the spirit born of the Spirit is... And the image (prefiguration) of the future age, when communion with the Divinity of Christ will be carried out directly, through contemplation... This will be likened to Angels. However, man is already higher than the angels, exalted above them. For God did not become an angel, but became a true and perfect man. And the angelic nature is not assimilated by the Word into His hypostasis. Angels are only involved in the grace and actions of God. But more is given to people in the Eucharist, for God is united by hypostasis with the Holy Mysteries.

The whole life of Christ is a redemptive work and a miracle, but most of all honest cross His. It is through the Cross that death is abolished, sin is resolved, the resurrection is revealed, the return to the ancient blessedness is arranged... "The death of Christ or the Cross clothed us with God's hypostatic wisdom and power" (cf. Gal. 3:27). And this is the guarantee of the resurrection, as the last "restoration of the fallen." This resurrection is already foreshadowed in the saints. For "saints are not dead." It is not proper to call dead those who have died in the hope of resurrection and with faith in the Resurrected Head of Life. They reigned over the passions and preserved intact the likeness of the image of God, according to which they were created. By their freedom they were united with God and received Him into the habitation of their hearts, and, having communed with Him, by grace became what He is by nature. Slaves by nature, they are friends of Christ by election, and Sons by grace. For they have become the treasury and habitation of God. And that is why even in death—or rather, in sleep—they are alive, for they are in God, and God is light and life. About angels, Scripture does not say that they will sit with Christ on the throne of glory on the day of judgment - "neither that they will co-reign, nor that they will be glorified, nor that they will sit at the table of the Father." And this is about the saints. And angels will tremble before them. Already now, before human nature, "sitting in Christ on the throne of glory," angels stand in trembling and fear. Through Christ, "the nature from the lower earth ascended above all rulers and sat down in Him on the Father's throne" ... "We have essentially been sanctified since God the Word became flesh, becoming like us in everything except sin, and unmistakably united with our nature and invariably deified the flesh through its intercourse with the Deity ("perichorisis"). And we have been essentially freed from the time when the Son of God and God, being passionless in the Deity, suffered through the adoption of human nature, paid our debt, pouring out on us the faithful and worthy redemption, for the blood of the Son is propitiatory before the Father, and holy is the blood of the Son.We have essentially become immortal from the time when He descended into hell and proclaimed to the bound souls from time immemorial: remission to the captives, sight to the blind, our flesh received by him. We have been substantially adopted as sons from the time of our birth by water and the Spirit."...

In interpreting the redemptive work of Christ, Damascene follows the Cappadocians. Following Gregory the Theologian, he rejects the Origenistic view of Christ's sacrifice as a ransom for the devil, but retains certain features of this theological theory (probably from Gregory of Nyssa): the idea of ​​the devil abusing the power he seized, that the devil was deceived: " death sets in and, having swallowed the body - the bait, is pierced by the Divine as if by a hook of a hook, - having tasted the sinless and life-giving Body, it dies, and gives back everyone whom it once swallowed. Damascene also borrows from Gregory of Nyssa the idea of ​​the division of the sexes in anticipation of the fall...

5. Damascene wrote at the end of the Christological era. And it is no coincidence that in his system most of all it is said on Christological topics. He really sums up here the whole of Eastern Christology.

God became man for the salvation and renewal or "deification" of man. The incarnation of the Word is accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit, just as everything that exceeds the measure of nature is created by the power of the Spirit, which also accomplishes creation itself. The Holy Spirit prepurifies the willing Virgin and grants her the power to receive the Divinity of the Word into herself and give birth to the Word in the flesh. And then it overshadows her as a kind of Divine seed, the Son of God, the hypostatic Power and Wisdom, and forms from her immaculate blood the beginning of our nature. At the same time, Damaskinus emphasizes, "the human image was not formed through gradual increments, but was immediately accomplished," - the entire fullness of the body was given at once, although not in full development. AND straightaway three things take place: perception, being (i.e., coming into being itself), and the deification of humanity by the Word. For the flesh of Christ is thus the flesh of the Word, without any temporal division... The Blessed Virgin gave birth not common man but God incarnate, - and therefore the name of the Mother of God "contains the whole history of economy" ... In the Incarnation, God the Word does not perceive abstract humanity, as it is seen by pure speculation - this would not be an incarnation, but a ghost and deceit; and not all human nature, as it is realized in the whole human race, - for He did not take on all the hypostases of the race. But he perceives humanity as it is in the indivisible - however, in such a way that in itself it was not and is not a special or pre-existing hypostasis, but receives the very being in His hypostasis. Mankind in Christ is hypostasized in its own hypostasis of the Word, it is “enhypostasis” to the Word, and therefore Christ in His humanity is similar to people, as to other numerical hypostases of the human race, although there is no human hypostasis in Him. And at the same time, it is not human nature that is already individualized, so that the meaning of perception is limited to the limits of a single human hypostasis, the limit of numerical particularity, is “hypostatic” to the Word, but human nature in the fullness of its essential definitions, hypostasized and realized only by the power of the Divine hypostasis. That is why, potentially and dynamically, everything acquired by the Savior according to humanity is communicable and shareable with all the human race consubstantial with Him. The human hypostasis places no limits on this in Christ, and yet it cannot be said that Christ is many hypostases. Human nature in Christ is the own humanity of the Word and is therefore numerically delimited from all other hypostases. But, on the other hand, it is it is nature, in the completeness of the basic or essential definitions, i.e. the very composition of man as such. And to the extent that it is communicable or comprehensible—without any coercion, but to the extent and by virtue of a living and free reunion with Christ in His dual hypostasis—which is realized in the sacraments. There is a very important distinction to be made. About perception (or "assimilation") the Word of all human is spoken in two different senses. It is necessary to distinguish between assimilation "natural or essential" and assimilation "personal and relative." In the order of the first, the Lord took on our nature and everything natural, - became a man, by nature and in truth. In another sense, out of compassion and love, "taking upon himself the face of another," the Lord appropriated to Himself our curse, and abandonment, and everything like that does not belong to nature, - "not because He is or became such, but because who accepted our face and placed Himself along with us"... Here Damascene repeats St. Maximus.

Summing up the struggle against Monophysitism, Damascene expresses the Christological dogma in terms of his predecessors, i.e. Leonty and Maxim. Everything exists only in a hypostatic image, either as a hypostasis of its kind, or in a hypostasis of another kind. Precisely in this way, "in hypostasis," in the Hypostasis of the Word, the humanity of Christ exists. Therefore, the hypostasis of the Word turns out to be "complex" and "double." Following Leontius, Damascene sharply emphasizes that the name of Christ is certainly a singular name. It designates precisely this single union in the unity of the person of the Divinity of the Word and humanity. And no, there will not be and cannot be a second, another Christ, another God-Man. The name of Christ is received by the Word with the Incarnation, in which humanity is anointed with the Divinity of the Word. The two natures are not separate, for they are inseparable in the unity of the hypostasis (against Nestorius and their other demonic congregation), and are not merged, but abide (against Dioscorus and Eutychius and their adherents excommunicated from God). The hypostatic union is equally characterized by the non-confluence and immutability of natures, and the mutual communication of properties or the mutual penetration of natures. Everything that is said about two natures, at the same time, is already said about a single and identical Hypostasis, and therefore, although natures are numbered, but the number does not separate. In Christ, humanity is deified—of course, not through transformation or transformation, change or fusion, but through the perfect union and penetration of humanity by the flame of the Divine, all-penetrating, and communicating its perfections to the flesh, without being affected by its infirmities and passions, just as the illuminating us the sun. "Mutual communication" ("perichorisis") of natures Damaskinus imagines rather as a one-sided penetration of humanity by the Divine, as "deification," - "not from the side of the flesh, but from the Divine." For it is impossible for the flesh to penetrate through and through the Divine, “but the Divine nature, once penetrating through the flesh, gave the flesh an inexpressible penetration into the Divine, which is the union”... The mortal flesh itself becomes Divine and life-giving through the action of the Divine. And the will is deified, not merging, but uniting with the divine and omnipotent will, and becoming the will of God incarnate. By virtue of this, a single worship is due to the Incarnate Word, and the Lord’s flesh is worshiped as united with the Divine, “in a single hypostasis of the Word” ... “I bow together to both natures in Christ,” exclaims Damascene, “because Deity. I'm afraid to touch the burning coal, because fire is connected with the tree. .. On this interpenetration of natures (and deification of the flesh) Damascene bases his defense and justification of icon veneration. “Together with the king and God I worship the purple of the body,” he says, “not as a garment and not as a fourth person; no! but just as the Word became immutably flesh, remaining what it was, so the flesh became the Word, not losing what it has, but becoming identified with the Word in hypostasis." - Following St. Maximus, Damaskinus develops in detail the doctrine of the two wills and two actions of the God-man. The Monothelite storm had not yet subsided, it was still necessary to explain and justify the Oros of the Sixth Council... Will and energy belong to nature, not hypostases. And one must clearly distinguish between "natural will" and "selective will." The property or "capacity to will" belongs to the nature of man, and in this the image of God is manifested, for the Divinity by nature is characterized by freedom and volition. But the determinateness of wanting and volition, the "image of volition" does not belong to nature, and people have the possibility of choosing and deciding (τής γνώμής), - σ people, but not with God, to Whom it is not appropriate to attribute choice in the proper sense; for God does not think and does not choose, does not hesitate, does not ponder, "does not advise," as the Unconditionally Omniscient... Like St. Maximus, Damascene concludes from the duality of natures in Christ to the duality of wills, for the Lord "took into nature our will as well. " However, one cannot speak of choice and reflection in the proper sense of the human will of the Savior. For she was not characterized by ignorance, the Savior did not have "certain inclinations of the will." By virtue of the hypostatic union, the soul of the Lord knew everything, and in its desire did not differ from the decision of His Divine will, but coincided with it in the object of desire - of course, freely. Freely set in motion, the soul of the Lord freely wanted exactly what His Divine will wanted it to want. It was not coercion, for it was not only by a wave of the Word that the flesh was moved, as was the case with the prophets; not in the mood. but by nature the two wills of the Lord were different. But the Lord had no hesitation and no choice, for by nature he had a propensity for good, possessed the good by nature itself, for human nature in Him returned from an unnatural state to the natural, and virtue is precisely natural. At the same time, human nature was not only preserved, but also strengthened. However, even what is characteristic of man, Christ did not do as a simple man, because He was not only a man, but also God, - therefore His sufferings are saving and life-giving. But even the deeds characteristic of the Deity He did not work in the same way as is characteristic of God, because He was not only God, but also a man. His human action participated in the Divine, and the Divine in the human, in the actions of the flesh, both when the flesh was allowed to suffer, and when saving actions were performed through the flesh. "Each nature in Christ works with the participation of the other," Damascene concludes. And in this sense it is possible, like Dionysius, to speak of a single "God-manly action." The same as about the will, must be said about the mind, about knowledge and wisdom. In accordance with two natures, the Lord had two minds, and it is through the human mind, as a mediator, that the Word is united with the coarseness of the flesh, which, however, is not a simple cohabitation, but an indwelling. On the one hand, having assumed the human mind, Christ thought and always will think like a man. On the other hand, “the holy mind of Christ performs its natural actions, thinking and understanding that it is the mind of God and that all creation worships it, and at the same time remembering His stay and suffering on earth. , the mind of Christ takes part, thinking, and understanding, and arranging, not like the ordinary mind of a person, but as hypostatically united with God and having received the name of the mind of God. In all decisiveness, Damascene affirms the fullness and perfection of Christ's human knowledge, even from the very conception, so that in reality there was no learning or growth. Any other opinion seemed to him Nestorian blasphemy. He connects his judgment on this issue with the characteristics of the will, seeing in the perfection of knowledge the condition and cause of unwavering firmness of will. And at the same time brings him out general concept about the interpenetration of natures in Christ. The humanity of the Savior is generally permeated with the Divine, not only blessed or anointed, but precisely deified through hypostatic union, through perception, as one's own and property, into the very Hypostasis of the Word. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the ignorance of the Lord and according to humanity. Therefore, one can speak of the progress of Christ in humanity only in an improper sense, or in the fact that, growing bodily, He, as He grew, revealed the wisdom that exists in Him; or in the fact that He “relatively” assimilated our, only human, prosperity. And if the Lord prayed, it was not for His own sake, and not because He had a real need for anything and had to turn to God, but because He appropriated our face to Himself, "depicted in Himself what is proper to us," and in order to fulfill all righteousness for us, i.e. With His holy mind, pave the way for us to ascend to God. Damascene extends this explanation to the Gethsemane prayer. In it, he sees an example and an image, and at the same time a manifestation of the natural resistance to death, although voluntarily chosen and accepted by the Savior.

Christ took everything by nature in order to sanctify. And, consequently, he perceived both natural and immaculate passions, - (φυσικά καί αδιάβλητα πάθη), ς.е. suffering of soul and body; And he really suffered, grieved, feared. However, these passions were together in Christ and in accordance with nature, and above nature, κατά φύσιν καί ύπέρ φύσιν, - for everything was voluntary in Christ, and not forced, by His free allowance, and nothing natural preceded His will in Christ. He voluntarily thirsted and hungered, voluntarily feared. He was tempted by the devil, but not through thoughts, but from the outside. There was nothing slavish, subordinate in Christ, for how could the Lord be a slave... In Christ, humanity ceases to be a slave. But He assumes the form of a slave - for our sake, and delivers you from slavery. The Lord suffers and dies for us on the cross. He suffers, of course, according to humanity, i.e. suffers, comfortable human nature, body and soul. And the Deity arrived unparticipated in suffering. And the Lord dies by his will, because "he was not subject to death," for death is the quitrent of sin, and in Him there was neither sin nor flattery, - "and there was no lie in his mouth"(Isaiah 53:9). Therefore, His death was a sacrifice. Both in suffering and in death, however, the Hypostatic unity was not violated. Never was Christ forsaken by God, i.e. own deity. And in the struggles of Gethsemane, He prayed, "as one who has appropriated our face to Himself," as one who spoke "from our place," - in fact, it was not Christ who was forsaken, but we were abandoned and neglected. Christ hung on the cross in the flesh, but dwelt in two natures. And when, in His death, His most pure soul was separated from the body, it was not separated from the hypostasis, but abode inseparably with both of them, equally abiding in It, so that having been separated in death, separated “according to the place,” they remained united in the hypostasis. The Hypostasis of the Word was the Hypostasis of both body and soul. Neither the body nor the soul of Christ received a separate existence (i.e., a special hypostasis) for a moment. And, not having their own hypostasis, they were preserved in a single hypostasis of the Word. To this Damascene adds another distinction between "smoldering" and "decomposition" (φθξρά θ διαφθξρά), meaning by the first "passive states" of the body (τά πάθη), θ by the second - decomposition or disintegration into elements. This "decay" was not experienced by the Lord's body. In this sense, the body of the Lord is incorruptible, or rather incorruptibly from start; but in the first sense, contrary to the insane Julian, the body of the Lord becomes incorruptible only in the Resurrection. And through the Resurrection of the Lord, who has become for us the firstfruits of the resurrection, we are also granted incorruption and immortality - in hope. At the death of the Lord, His deified soul, with the word of the gospel, descends into hell and receives worship; and having freed the prisoners, He returns from among mortals and rises from the dead, in the same body, but glorious, without infirmities, but without removing anything from human nature. And in him sits bodily at the right hand of the Father, i.e. in the glory and honor inherent in Him as the Son of the same essence, he sits, "like God and man, desiring our salvation," and not forgetting His deeds on earth. So it is and will be until the day of the Second, terrible and glorious, the Coming and the general uprising - in incorruption.

III. Protection of holy icons

1. The dispute about icons was not a ritual dispute. It was a dogmatic dispute, and theological depths were revealed in it. The dispute was started by the secular authorities. But iconoclastic sympathies turned out to be strong both in the clergy and even among the bishops. Iconoclastic bishops not only served emperors, they often acted out of conviction. Therefore, a theological justification for icon veneration was required. First of all, they argued about the image of Christ, about His depiction (or "describability"). And from the very beginning, the defenders of icons have brought this question to its Christological presuppositions.

The veneration of icons was not established in the Church right away. In the first centuries, in any case, it did not occupy a prominent place in Christian piety. Even among writers of the 4th century, we find only rare and accidental references to sacred images - and these were biblical episodes, or images of martyrdom. In the most ancient paintings known to us, there are no "icons" in the proper sense of the word. In part, these were symbolic signs (anchor, dove, "Fish") and allegories - most often gospel parables. In part, these were Old Testament types, "types." Sometimes apocalyptic visions. These images had primarily a decorative, sometimes didactic meaning. “For what the word of narration offers to the ear, then silent painting shows through imitation,” said St. Basil the Great (his words are almost literally repeated later by Damascene and Pope Gregory: quod legentibus scriptura, noc idiotis praestat pictura cernentibus). The well-known advice of the Monk Nilus of Sinai is very characteristic: “Let the hand of the most skillful painter fill the holy temple with the stories of the Old and New Testaments, so that those who do not know the letter and cannot read the divine writings, bring to their memory the courageous deeds of those who sincerely served God” (Letters , IV.58). These didactic explanations, of course, do not exhaust the essence of icon painting. But the ancient paintings were, indeed, a kind of "obverse Bible," Biblia picta, in selected passages and episodes. Icons in the narrow sense of the word are associated not so much with temple painting as with images on sacred objects. The most important thing was the veneration of the Image Not Made by Hands... We cannot trace the early history of icon painting in all its details, due to the lack of historical data. By the end of the 6th century, icons were already in general use. However, we are aware of strong objections to icons. First of all, we need to recall the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea (see his letter to Constance, sister of Constantine the Great). Eusebius considered impossible and unacceptable the picturesque depiction of Christ. Subsequently, this was explained by his "Arianism." To be more precise, Eusebius drew his "iconoclastic" conclusion, quite consistently, from Origenistic premises. “Of course, you are looking for an icon that depicts Him in the form of a servant and in the flesh with which He put on for us; but we are taught that it is also merged with the glory of the Godhead and mortal is swallowed up by life” ... The sensually visible in Christ, as it were, melted into radiance His Deity, and therefore inaccessible to the image in deathly features and colors. And the attention of a true Christian should not be directed to the sensual or earthly image of Christ. He is already looking forward to the vision of the future century, face to face... In Eusebius' reasoning, one can clearly feel the sharp division between the "sensual" and the "spiritual," so characteristic of Origen himself. Only the "simple" are occupied with memories of the earthly and humiliated life of the Savior, of the days of His flesh, of the Cross; the true "gnostic" already contemplates His Divine Glory, and is distracted from His economic humiliation. Yes, and Christ after the ascension for Origen "is no longer a man." Origen's pathos of abstract spirituality makes any return to sensual realism seductive. It is unlikely that Eusebius alone drew "iconoclastic" conclusions from the Origen system. One might think that other "Origenists" reasoned in the same way... On the other hand, opponents of Origenism, for example, Epiphanius, also came to similar conclusions. For him it was a relapse of Judaism (cf. the prohibitions of the Elvira Cathedral). Subsequently, it was the Jews who attacked icon veneration. From the 6th and 7th centuries we know a number of apologies in defense of holy icons specifically against the Jews. Particularly characteristic is the testimony of Leontius, Bishop of Naples in Cyprus, a well-known hagiographer. His arguments are subsequently supplemented and repeated by Damaskin (cf. Stefan Bostrsky's apology). Icons are supplied in churches for the sake of magnificence, both as a reminder and for veneration (πρός άνάμνησιν καί τιμήν). Θ Leonty explains that the veneration refers to the depicted themselves. “I draw and write Christ and the sufferings of Christ in churches and houses, and in squares, and on icons, and on linen, and in pantries, and on clothes, and in every place, so that, seeing them clearly, remember, and not forget. .. And just as you, worshiping the book of the Law, worship not the nature of skins and ink, but the words of God in it, so I worship the image of Christ. I think of embracing Christ Himself and worshiping Him... We Christians, bodily kissing the icon of Christ, or an apostle, or a martyr, spiritually kiss Christ Himself or His martyr"... This is no longer just a didactic justification of icons. Leonty emphasizes the hieratic realism of images; and that "remembrance" of which he speaks is not only a psychological movement of the soul... On the very eve of the iconoclastic explosion, the Trullo Cathedral (692) established the basic principles of icon painting, in the well-known Canon 82. This is characterized by a sharp contrast between the Old and New Testaments. "Honoring the ancient images And shadows("types" and "canopies"), devoted to the Church, as signs ("symbols") and predestinations of truth, we honor grace and truth as the fulfillment of the law. Therefore, so that the art of painting (precisely) perfect was presented to the eyes of all, we decide from now on to imprint on the icons of Christ our God, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world, in human form(κατά άνθρωπίνξν χαρακτήρα), in order to see through this image the height of the humility of God the Word and to remember His life in the flesh, suffering, saving death and the redemption of the whole world that came from here "... The emphasis here is precisely on evangelical realism: "to remember His carnal life," - πρός μνήμην τής ένσάρκξυ πξλιτείας...  Rull Cathedral reinforces the sacred-historical realism already established in icon painting and cancels the archaic symbolism of the Old Testament "symbols" and "types." niya" came true and fulfilled, "grace and truth." And the icon should not so much prophesy as "remind" ... Here the theme of the later theological defense of holy icons has already been set.

The prohibition of holy icons at the beginning of the 8th century came from the emperor. It is difficult to determine exactly his motives. In any case, in the actions of the iconoclasts, we catch a coherent program of church and church-social reformation. It doesn't take shape right away. And similar conclusions could be drawn from different premises, the same practical measures could be resorted to for different motives. However, the underlying trend of the iconoclastic movement is quite clear. This is the false pathos of inexpressibility, the pathos of the gap between the "spiritual" and the "sensual." We can say false religious symbolism from the temptation of the historical realism of the sacred icon. In the end, it is precisely the insensitivity of the sacred realism of history. This was immediately guessed by the defenders of icon veneration. Already Patr. Herman guessed in iconoclasm a kind of docetism (cf. his letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis, even before the start of open persecution). Later, George Kipryanin, in a dispute with the iconoclastic Bishop Cosmas, directly stated: "whoever thinks like you blasphemes against Christ the Son of God and does not confess His economy in the flesh" (τήν ένσαρκξν ξίκξνομίαν)... Σ of the first defenders of icon veneration, we do not find a coherent system dogmatic arguments. But it is quite clear that for them the possibility of icon painting is connected precisely with the reality of the Gospel story, with the truth of the Incarnation... For the first time, Damaskinus makes an attempt to develop the defense of holy icons into a theological justification. At the same time, he relies on previous apologetic experiences - probably on Leonty of Cyprus most of all. Unfortunately, these seventh-century apologies are known to us only in later excerpts.

2. Damascene substantiates the possibility of sacred icon painting from a general idea of ​​the relationship between the spiritual and the material, the invisible and the visible, as it is revealed to us in the light of the Incarnation. Iconoclasm for him, too, is a kind of docetism, insensitivity to the Divine-human mystery, and in this sense a kind of pre-Christian frame of mind... God, in the purest spirituality of His nature, is unseen, "limitless" and therefore "indescribable" and indescribable, has no real image in the material world. It must be remembered that περιγραφή ξ means both "description" and "limitation" at the same time - hence the mention of "infinity" ... However, symbolically, in any case, the invisible is described in the word. The image in general is "discovery and indication of the hidden." And in this sense, a visible image of the invisible is possible, "so that the bodily image shows a kind of incorporeal and mental contemplation." Such were the prophetic images, the Old Testament Tabernacle itself ("the image of all creation," shown on the mountain; cf. Gregory of Nyssa), the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubim above it, as standing before God. God appeared in images Old Testament. And Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and all the prophets saw the image of God, and not the very essence of God. The Burning Bush is the image of the Mother of God. This type of imagery is symbolic. And in the creation itself there are some natural images that show us (albeit dimly) Divine revelations (for example, created analogies of the Trinity). Therefore, in general, the very speech about God is possible, although it always remains inaccurate and approximate, since knowledge of the invisible is mediated in visible signs ... Damascene distinguishes several types of image. The first image was created by God himself. First, He gave birth to the Only Begotten, "His living and natural image. The undifferentiated mark of His eternity." Secondly, He created man in His own image and likeness. One is connected to the other. And God appeared in the Old Testament "as a man" (cf. especially the vision of Daniel). "Then they did not see the nature of God, but the prototype and image of the One Who was to appear ("typos" and "icon"). For the Son and the Invisible Word of God intended to become a true man in order to be united with our nature and be visible on earth. .. The second type of image is the Pre-eternal Council of God about the world, i.e. a set of images and examples ("paradigms") of what has been created and will be created. Man is the third kind of image, "by imitation." Then Damascene speaks of prophetic images, of creaturely analogies ("for the sake of the weakness of our understanding"), of memorable signs and images of memory. "Both the law, and everything according to the law, was, as it were, a shadowy anticipation of the coming image, i.e., our service; and our service is the image of the good things to come. And reality itself, Jerusalem on high, is something immaterial and not made by hands ... And everything was for his sake: both what is according to the law, and what is according to our ministry "... So the question of the possibility of icon painting Damascus leads to the main problem of the phenomenon and Revelation.

The relationship between the visible and the invisible changes significantly with the coming of Christ. “In ancient times, God, incorporeal and without form, was never depicted,” says Damascene, and continues: “now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among people, we depict the visible God” ... God appeared and became visible, and therefore, let us depict, - not only symbolically or indicatively, but in the literal sense of the descriptive reproduction of the former. "I do not depict the invisible Deity, but I depict the seen flesh of God" ... Israel in ancient times did not see God, but we have seen and still see the glory of the Lord, - "and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father"(John 1:14) ... "I have seen the human image of God, and my soul is saved. I contemplate the image of God, as Jacob saw it, and in another way, and in another way: for with the eyes of the mind he saw an immaterial prototype of the future; and I contemplate the reminder of Seen in the flesh"... Thus, for Damascus, iconography is grounded primarily in the very fact of the Gospel story, in the fact of the Incarnation of the Word, accessible and subject to description - "write everything - both in word and colors"... These two kinds "descriptions" Damaskin brings together. " The image is a reminder. And what a book is for those trained in writing, an image is for the untrained; and what a word is for hearing, an icon for sight, - we mentally connect with her"And through that we sanctify our feelings: sight or hearing - we see the image of our Lord and are sanctified through him. "Books for the illiterate," this in Damascus means not only that icons replace speech and word for them. genus for any "description." After all, Scripture is a "description" and, as it were, a verbal image of the "invisible" and Divine. Icon-painting is possible in the same way as Scripture, through the fact of Revelation, through the reality of visible theophany. In both cases, "through the bodily contemplation we ascend to the spiritual"... The Old Testament prohibition to make "any semblance," to which the iconoclasts first of all referred, had a temporary meaning and power in the understanding of Damascus, was an educational measure to curb the inclination of the Jews to idolatry. But now the upbringing is over, and in in the kingdom of grace, not all of the law remains in force." Didn't see the image," - "Hold firmly in your souls that you saw no image on the day that the Lord spoke to you on Mount Horeb out of the midst of the fire"(Deut. 4:12-15), - Damascene cites this text and asks: "what is mysteriously shown here? It is obvious that when you see how the Incorporeal One became a man for you, then you will make an image of His human appearance...." Invisible God is truly indescribable and indescribable. But through the Incarnation He became visible, and we will describe - "took on the nature, and volume, and appearance, and color of the flesh" ... "When the Invisible becomes visible in the flesh, then you will depict the likeness of the Seen. having quantity and size, incomparable in view of the superiority of His nature, Who exists in the image of God - when He takes the form of a servant and humbles himself in it, to quantity and size, and puts on a bodily image, then draw Him on the board; and lay Him for contemplation Who admitted that He was seen "... And Damascene concludes: "and we desire to contemplate His features" ...

At the same time, by virtue of the hypostatic unity, "the flesh became the Word," so that "the body of God is God." “Just as what is united with fire becomes fire not by nature, but by unity, through burning and communion, so is the flesh of the incarnate Son of God” ... Therefore, the description of Christ under His visible and human image is a true image of God himself. God can be depicted in the proper sense only through the Incarnation, but the image of the Incarnate is the image of God, and not only the image of the body. Damascene does not develop this thought in detail, but it directly follows from his general Christological premises: the perception of the human in the hypostasis of the Word is deification, and therefore everything human of Christ is already a living image of the Divine.

3. Against the iconoclasts, it was necessary to defend not only iconography, but even more so the veneration and worship of icons (πρξσκύνησις). Even if a "description" or "image" of God is possible, is it allowed, is it useful? Damascene answers directly, referring again to the Incarnation. The Incarnation of the Word sanctifies, as it were, "deifies" the flesh, and thereby makes it worthy of worship - of course, not as a substance, but by the strength of its union with God. “I do not bow to matter, but to the Creator of matter, who became material for my sake and deigned to dwell in matter and through matter made my salvation; and I will not cease to honor the substance through which my salvation was accomplished.” This applies both to the flesh of Christ ("I bow to the purple of the body"), and to all "the rest of the substance through which my salvation was accomplished" - for it too is full of Divine power and grace. The Cross, the Tomb, Golgotha, the book of the Gospels, which, after all, is also a kind of icon, i.e. an image or description of the Incarnate Word... Substance (matter) is not anything low or contemptible at all, but a creation of God. And since the inconceivable Word was contained in it, the substance became praiseworthy and worshipable. Therefore, material images are not only possible, but also necessary, and have a direct and positive religious meaning ... For "our nature was glorified and changed into incorruption" ... This justifies icon painting and icon veneration in general - icons of saints, as a triumph and a sign of victory ("an inscription in memory of the victory"). “Therefore, the death of the saints is celebrated, and temples are erected for them, and icons are painted”... In the Old Testament, human nature was still under condemnation, and death was considered a punishment, and the body of the dead was unclean. But now everything has been renewed: "We have been substantially sanctified from the time when God the Word became flesh and united inseparably with our nature"... Man is adopted by God and received incorruption as a gift. "Therefore, we do not mourn the death of the saints, but we celebrate." And actually the saints are not dead: “after He who is Life Itself and the Author of life was numbered among the dead, we no longer call dead those who have died in the hope of the resurrection and with faith in Him” ... They are alive and boldly come before God.

The morning star has already risen in our hearts... And the grace of the Holy Spirit invariably co-presents in the bodies and souls of the saints, during life and after death, and in their images and icons - grace and action (compare their miracles). And human nature is exalted above the ranks of angels, for the God-man will sit on the Father's throne... nature, friends by choice, sons and heirs by divine grace"... For they became by grace what He is by nature... This is the victorious army of the heavenly King... Damascene discerns different types worship. First of all, service (κατά λατρείαν), - ξbut befits only God, but has different types and degrees (slavish worship, from love and delight, in gratitude, etc.). Otherwise it is fitting to honor created things. Anyway, only for the sake of the Lord. Thus it is fitting to honor the saints, for God rests in them. It is fitting to honor everything that is connected with the work of salvation: Mount Sinai, Nazareth, the manger of Bethlehem, the Holy Sepulcher, the blessed garden of Gethsemane, “for they, too, are the receptacle of Divine action”... It is also fitting to honor each other, “as having a portion in God and created in the image of God"... And such honor ascends to the source of all goodness, God...

Damascene does not exhaust in his words the question of writing and veneration of icons. Not everything is clear to him. But later writers followed him. And the basic principles of the doctrine of icons were already expressed by Damascus: icons are possible only by the power of the Incarnation, and icon painting is inextricably linked with the renewal and deification of human nature, which took place in Christ; hence such a close connection between icon veneration and the veneration of saints, especially in their sacred and incorruptible remains. In other words, the doctrine of icons has a Christological basis and meaning. So it was before Damascus, so reasoned his successors ...

Venerable John Da-mas-kin was born around the year 680 in the capital of Syria, Da-mas-ke, in Christ-an-sky se- mee. His father, Ser-giy Mans-ur, was kaz-na-che-em at the court of ha-li-fa. John had an adopted brother, the axis-ro-tev-shi from-rok Kos-ma, someone Ser-gius took to his house. When de-ti grew up, Ser-giy took care of their ob-ra-zo-va-nii. In the yes-mas-captive-no-one’s market, you-ku-drank from the field-on the academic-no-mo-na-ha Ko-s-mu from Ka-lab-ria and in-ru- told him to teach children. Mal-chi-ki about-on-ru-zhi-whether unusual-but-vein-skills and easily mastered the course of secular and spiritual sciences . After the death of his father, John took the position of mi-ni-stra and gra-do-great-vi-te-la at court.

At that time, in Byzantium, there arose-nick-la and quickly dis-pro-country-la-la heresy of iko-no-bor-che-stva, under-der-zhi-va-e- May im-pe-ra-to-rum by Leo III Is-av-rum (717-741). Becoming on the protection of the right-of-glory-no-go iko-no-po-chi-ta-niya, John wrote three tracks-ta-ta "Against in-ri-tsa- Yu-shchih saints ikon-us". The wise Bo-go-spirit-but-vein-nye pi-sa-niya John-na in-ve-whether they-pe-ra-to-ra into a rage. But since their author was not a V-Zan-Ti-sky under-data, he could not be imprisoned or executed. Then they-pe-ra-tor ran to the cle-ve-te. By his order, on behalf of John-on-to-be-lo-becoming-le-but-false-letter, in some-rum yes-mas-sky mini-nistre bud -that would be pre-la-gal to them-pe-ra-to-ru their help in for-in-e-va-nii of the Syrian hundred-li-tsy. This letter and his face-mer-but-flattering answer to it Leo Is-Avr sent ha-li-fu. That immediate-len-but at-ca-hall from-stra-thread of John-on from the must-no-sti, from-ru-beat him with the brush of the right hand and put it on the city square. On the same day, by ve-che-ru John-well, return-well-whether from-rub-len-th hand. The pre-dob-ny began to pray to Pre-holy Bo-go-ro-di-tse and ask for healing. Having fallen asleep, he saw the icon of God-her Ma-te-ri and heard Her voice, informing him that he was healed, and together with that, he ordered to work tirelessly with the whole hand. Waking up, he saw that his hand was neuro-di-ma.

Having learned about the miracle, the witness-de-tel-stvo-vav-shem about the innocence-new-no-sti of John, the caliph asked him for forgiveness and wanted to return it to him former position, but pre-extra-from-ka-hall-sya. He rose-gave his wealth and, together with the adopted brother and the other, according to the teachings of Kos-my, from-right-forward to Jeru-sa- lim, where he-stepped-drank with a simple listen-no-one in the mo-on-stir Sav-you Sanctified-no-go. It would not be easy to find him a spirit-hov-no-go ru-ko-vo-di-te-la. Of the mo-on-styr-sky brethren, only one very experienced old man agreed to this, someone began to skillfully re-pi-you-vat in teaching -ke spirit of listening and media. First of all, the old man for-pre-til John-well, pi-sat, in-la-gay that success in this field will become with-chi-noy mountain-dy- neither. One day, he sent a pre-add-no-go to Da-mask to pro-da-vat cor-zi-na, from-to-to-flax-nye in mo-on-sta-re , moreover, in-ru-chil-give them a ho-time-up to-ro-their at-a-hundred-I-shche price. And so, pro-de-lav a mu-chi-tel-ny path under the hot sun, the former great-mo-mother Da-mas-ka felt like in the market in the ragged clothes-dah pro-hundredth seller-ca kor-zin. But John recognized his former do-mo-great-vi-tel and bought up all the cor-zi-ns at a fixed price.

One day, in the mo-at-sta-re, one of the monks died, and the brother somehow asked John to write something be in comfort. John for a long time from-ka-zy-val-sya, but from mi-lo-ser-diya, having yielded requests-bam depressing-but-go-rem, wrote his banners -no-those over-coffin-nye tro-pa-ri. For this disobedience, the elder drove him out of his cell. All mo-na-hi na-cha-whether to ask for John. Then the old man instructed him to do one of the most difficult and unpleasant things - to remove unclean things from the monastery. The pre-excellent and here he showed a sample of listening. After some time, the old-tsu in vi-de-nii would-lo-uka-for-but Pre-chi-stop and Pre-holy Virgin Bo-go-ro-di-tsey to remove prohibition from the pi-sa-tel-stva of John. Ieru-sa-lim-sky pat-ri-arch found out about the pre-dob-nome, ru-ko-po-lo-lived him in a priest-no-ka and made pro-po-ved- no one at her cafe-fed-re. But the venerable John soon returned to the Lavra of the venerable Sava, where until the end of his days he spent time me in the pi-sa-nii of spiritual books and church-songs-but-singing, and po-ki-zero mo-na-stir just for the sake of ob-whether -chit iko-no-bor-tsev on Kon-stan-ti-no-pol-sky So-bo-re 754. He was subjected to ty-rem-no-mu for the key and torture, but he re-carried everything and, by the grace of God, remained alive. Pre-sta-vil about 780, at the age of 104 years.

See also: in the same place, St. Di-mit-ria Rostov-sko-go.

Prayers

Troparion to Saint John of Damascus, tone 8

Teacher of Orthodoxy, / piety to the teacher and purity, / lamp of the universe, / God-inspired fertilizer of monastics, John the Wise, / through your teachings, thou hast enlightened all, spiritual forger, / / ​​pray to Christ God that our souls be saved .

Translation: Orthodox mentor, teacher and purity, lamp of the universe, monastic adornment, John the wise, with your teachings you have enlightened everyone, spiritual lyre; pray to Christ God for the salvation of our souls.

Kontakion to the Monk John of Damascus, tone 4

Songwriter and honest God-speaker, / Punisher and teacher to the Church, / and enemies of the resistance, John let us commemorate: / For we take up arms, the Cross of the Lord, / repel all heresies of charm, / and like a warm representative to God, / / ​​gives sin to everyone eny forgiveness.

Translation: Songwriter and revered preacher of God, mentor and teacher of the Church, enemies of the antagonist, let us sing John, for taking up arms, the Cross of the Lord, repelled all errors and, as an ardent intercessor before God, grants forgiveness to all sins.

Prayer to Saint John of Damascus

Oh, holy head, reverend father, blessed Abbot John! Do not forget your wretched ones to the end, but always remember us in holy and auspicious prayers to God: remember your flock, even if you yourself saved it, and do not forget to visit your children, pray for us, holy father, for your spiritual children, like have the courage to Heavenly King: do not be silent for us to the Lord, and do not despise us, who honor you with faith and love: remember us unworthy at the Throne of the Almighty, and do not stop praying for us to Christ God, for grace has been given to you to pray for us. It is not imaginary that you are a dead being: if in body you have ceased to be from us, but even after death you remain alive, do not depart from us in spirit, preserving us from the arrows of the enemy and all the charms of demons and wiles of the devil, our good shepherd. Even more, and the relics of your cancer are always visible before our eyes, but your holy soul with angelic hosts, with incorporeal faces, with Heavenly powers, is standing at the Throne of the Almighty, worthy of having fun, leading thee in truth and according to death is alive, we bow down to you and we pray to you: pray for us to the Almighty God, for the benefit of our souls, and ask us time for repentance, so that we will go from earth to Heaven without restraint, from bitter ordeals, demons of princes in the air, and from eternal torment, let us be delivered, and the Heavenly King the succession of an heiress let us be with all the righteous who from time immemorial have pleased our Lord Jesus Christ: to Him befits all glory, honor and worship, with His Father Without Beginning, and with His Most Holy and Good and Life-giving Spirit, now and forever, and forever and ever . Amen.

Canons and Akathists

Canto 1

Irmos: In the depths of the bed, sometimes the Pharaoh's whole army was a disarmed force, but the incarnate Word, the all-evil sin, consumed food: the glorified Lord, gloriously be glorified.

Start your praises for those who want me, give your now honey-like voice, reverend, whom the Orthodox Church has clarified with songs, Father John, even your memory honors.

It is like a wise and witty judge, looking at the most existing nature, the unworthy ones prejudice the eternal: for the time, you have changed the abiding, Father John, where Christ glorify you now.

Bogorodichen: Thou hast appeared above, Pure, all creatures, visible and invisible, Ever-Virgin: Thou hast given birth to the Builder, as if you were pleased to be incarnated in Your womb, Him with boldness pray to save those who sing to You.

Canto 3

Irmos: The desert flourished, like a crine, Lord, a pagan barren, the Church by Your coming, my heart was established in it.

Thou hast squandered wealth, giving in return to God, the same for you in Heaven, the Kingdom has been prepared; but even now, recompense, John, thou hast received many times.

Wisdom talent reception, decorating deeds, you clarified, John, the Church of Christ, which you greatly aggravate, and leaving your life.

Bogorodichen: Chini was surprised at Angelstia, Most Pure, and the human heart was afraid of Your Nativity. The same, Theotokos, we honor by faith.

Kontakion, tone 4

Let us sing to the hymn-writer and honest God-speaker, to the Church the punisher and teacher and enemies of the resistance-fighter John: the weapon for us is the Cross of the Lord, repel all heresies of charm and as a warm intercessor to God grants forgiveness of sins to everyone.

Ikos

To the church mentor, and the teacher, and the priest, as if the mystery of the inexpressible, we cry out according to: even to God with your prayers, open our mouths and make it possible to speak the words of your teachings, you were a partaker of the Trinity, like another sun shining in the world, shining miracles and teachings, like Moses, always learning in the law of the Lord, in word and deed you were a lamp and praying unceasingly to give forgiveness of sins to everyone.

Canto 4

Irmos: You came from the Virgin, not an intercessor, not an Angel, but Himself, Lord, incarnated, and saved all of me, a man. I call to you: glory to your power, Lord

Having obeyed the command of Christ, you left worldly beauty, wealth, sweetness, lordship, for His sake, take up your cross, you followed, John the Wise.

Having made the impoverished Christ human for the sake of salvation, thou art glorified, as if He had been promised, and thou reignest to the ever-reigning John.

Bogorodichen: Thee, a refuge of salvation and an invincible wall, Our Lady of the Mother of God, all the faith of the world: You have saved our souls from troubles with Your prayers.

Canto 5

Irmos: Thou art an intercessor to God and man, O Christ God: by Thee, Master, to the Light-Chief, Thy Father, from the night of ignorance bring the imam.

By the fear of Christ, father, affirm to the Divine life, carnal wisdom has subdued everything to the spirit, yours, John, purifying the senses.

Having cleansed all filthiness of the body, and the mind, and the soul carefully, God-wise, Thou didst receive the three-solar dawn, John, enriching thee with bright talent.

Bogorodichen: Pray to Your Son and Lord, Pure Virgin, to the captive deliverance from the opposite situation, to those who hope in You, grant peace.

Canto 6

Irmos: I am contained in the depths of sinfulness, O Savior, and in the abyss of life we ​​are overwhelmed, but, like Jonah from the beast, raise me up from passions and save me.

Enlightened by the Spirit of grace, Divine and human knowledge of things, clearly enriched, demanding, John, unenviously taught thou.

Like the face of Heaven, wise, you have adorned the Church in Orthodoxy, inviting songs of the Holy Trinity of the Divine.

Bogorodichen: Unskillfully, Virgin, thou hast given birth and eternally the Virgin, showing the true Deity, the Son and Thy God, images.

Canto 7

Irmos: The ungodly commandment of the lawless tormentor has lifted up a high flame to eat. Christ, as a Godly youth, spread the spiritual dew, He is blessed and glorified.

We inflame with jealousy, God-fighting heresies, objected to all wickedness with bright writings, whitening for everyone clearly anciently sown, wise, about John, written subtly.

Warmly denounced the wicked disciples of Manentus blasphemous wickedness, corrupt the encroached Church of Christ, your words and dogmas, O John, which you composed.

Bogorodichen: We mean the most holy saints to Thee, as the One who gave birth to the indispensable God, the Virgin, the undefiled, the Motherless: for all the faithful, thou hast exuded incorruption with Thy Divine Nativity.

Canto 8

Irmos: A furnace sometimes fiery in Babylon dividing the action by God's command, scorching the Chaldeans, but watering the faithful, singing: bless, all the works of the Lord, the Lord.

Thou hast denounced the truth, blessed John, the Nestorian division, the merging of Severus, the one-willed pre-madness, and the faith of the single-effect radiance of Orthodoxy shone with the end.

All the enemy of the tares is usually heresy in the Church of Christ, this worship is swept aside in honest icons, but do not find thee dormant, all-blessed John, rooting out every evil seed.

Bogorodichen: You are from the inseparable Father, who lived in the womb of God, you conceived without seed and unspeakably gave birth to you, the Most Pure Theotokos: we confess Thee, the salvation of all of us.

Canto 9

Irmos: The Son of the Parent, God and Lord, incarnate from the Virgin, is without beginning, appearing to us, darkened to enlighten, gather wasted. We magnify the All-Singing Mother of God.

Thou hast taught all church singing the sons of the Orthodox Unity in the Honest Trinity, the incarnation of the Word of God theology in Java, John, explaining what is incomprehensible to many in the Holy Scriptures.

Having hymned the holy ranks, reverend, the Pure Mother of God, Christ's Forerunner, the same apostles, prophets with fasting and wise teachers, righteous and martyrs, in those now the tabernacles are settled.

Bogorodichen: The chamber was even more than the mind of the incarnation of the Word, Virgin Mother of God, clothed with the glory of virtues and dotted. To that, we proclaim the Theotokos, the All-Immaculate.