About faith

Preface to the treatise “On Faith” Treatise “On Faith” by St. Ambrose of Milan is without any doubt one of the most important monuments of Trinitarian theology created in the Latin West during the Patriotic period. This work was written by the saint at the turn of the 70s and 80s of the 4th century. This is the central dogmatic work in the work of St. Ambrose, which allows us to reconstruct in detail his Trinitarian and Christological teachings. In addition, it represents the most important source on the history of theological polemics and church-political struggle in Italy and Illyricum at the final stage of the Arian disputes 1. Despite the fact that St. Ambrose was inclined to consider all his opponents as supporters of the teachings of Arius; the term “Arians” is not of a historical, but of a typological nature and denotes the entire spectrum of church movements of the 4th century, the theological position of which was characterized by trinitarian subordinationism. Let us also note that this polemical concept was not the invention of the Mediolan bishop. The supporters of trinitarian subordinationism are called Arians by all Catholic authors of the 4th century, starting with St. Athanasius the Great. In modern historiography, the theological movement against which St. Ambrose, is usually called “ohmism” (from the Greek ὅμοιος, i.e. “similar”). This movement was formed as a result of attempts by Emperor Constantius II (337–361) and the bishops around him to resolve the Arian crisis by imposing on the entire episcopate a kind of “theological minimum” (the confession of God the Son as similar to God the Father) and prohibiting the use of the controversial terms “essence” and “hypostasis”. At the Arimino-Seleucian and Constantinople councils of 359–360. the majority of bishops, under pressure from imperial representatives, approved the Omian doctrine. However, after the death of Constantius, Homianism was rejected by most of the Western Churches, who returned to the Nicaean position. In the East, the episcopate split into many different movements, although during the reign of Emperor Valens (364–378) Homianism retained the status of state-recognized orthodoxy in the eastern part of the Empire. The strongest positions were at the turn of the 70s and 80s of the 4th century. Omianism occupied Northern Illyricum (Pannonia and Dacia). It should be noted that the population of this region was Latin-speaking, and administratively it was generally considered part of the West. It was the Illyrian bishop Palladius of Ratiar who was the main opponent of St. Ambrose of Milan during this period 2. While formally remaining faithful to Omism, Palladius actually abandoned the conciliatory orientation of this movement and openly preached radical subordinationist teaching. In particular, he adhered to the idea of ​​the creatureliness of God the Son and the superiority of God the Father over Him, and also denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit 3 . In this regard, his polemic with St. Ambrose cannot be interpreted only as a side effect of the church-political struggle. On the contrary, this struggle itself was a consequence of fundamental theological differences between the Nicenes and the Homians. History of the creation of the treatise The question of the purpose and time of writing the essay “On Faith” is debatable. The addressee of the treatise is Emperor Gratian, and St. Ambrose repeatedly points out that the work was created precisely at his request 4. St. Ambrose did not immediately begin writing this work, and the emperor, during a personal meeting with the bishop, had to remind him of his desire to receive his confession of faith 5 . Motives for Gratian's appeal to St. Ambrose remains a mystery. St. himself Ambrose explains them somewhat contradictorily: at the beginning of the third book of the treatise, created together with the fourth and fifth somewhat later than the first two, he indicates that his goal is to instruct the emperor in the faith 6 . In the prologue to the first book of St. Ambrose, on the contrary, claims that the emperor will read his work not for teaching, since he is already established in the truth, but as an expert who must approve the theology of the saint 7. In the scientific literature, there are also two mutually exclusive interpretations of the motives that Gratian was guided by when asking St. Ambrose his confession. J.-R. Palancus believed that the emperor turned to the Mediolan bishop with this request, because, heading to Illyricum - Omiya in the West and being a Nicene, he sought to receive from him, as an experienced opponent of Arianism, instructions that would allow him to successfully, from a theological point of view, resist the heresy, with the arguments of whose supporters he was not sufficiently familiar 8. According to F.X. Dudden, Gratian expected to meet Arian clerics at the court of his uncle Valens and wanted to prepare for a theological debate with them 9 . P. Noten 10, A. Paredi 11, N.B. McLinn 12 and D.X. Williams 13, on the contrary, believe that Gratian was not in the late 70s of the 4th century. a convinced Nicene and tried to adhere to a policy of religious tolerance. Demand from St. Ambrose's confession of faith was prompted by the complaint of the Omian bishops against him. Moreover, if P. Noten 14 and N.B. McLinn 15 believe that it was the Illyrian Homies (in the latter’s interpretation, they perceived St. Ambrose as a weak theologian, and therefore directed their polemics against him, underestimating him as a politician), then D.X. Williams 16 believes that the appeal to the emperor came from the Mediolan Omian community. It should be recognized that both interpretations of the treatise of St. Ambrose: both as instructions in the faith of August, and as a theological apology, they have the right to exist and can be confirmed by the above testimonies of St. himself. Ambrose, and considering that the bishop of Mediolan wrote directly to Gratian, it would be strange to suspect him of trying to distort the motives for August’s appeal to him. The first version is also supported by the fact that Gratian was raised by Ausonius, who adhered to Nicene views 17 . In favor of the second version is the absence in the early writings of St. Ambrose any developed anti-Arian polemics and an expressed position on key issues of the Arian disputes, in connection with which the Mediolan bishop could not be perceived by his contemporaries as an expert in the field of Trinitarian theology before writing the essay “On Faith”, as well as the transfer by the emperor to the Mediolan Omi community of one of the city basilicas 18. The latter fact indicates that Gratian did not feel any particular hostility towards the Omian current. It can be assumed that although St. Ambrose sought to emphasize that it was the emperor who prompted him to write his work; the initiative still largely came from the Mediolan bishop himself, who made an attempt to demonstrate to August the unacceptability of the Omian movement from both theological, legal and political points of view 19 . We will turn to the question of the theological refutation of the Arian heresy below. Here we note that St. Ambrose calls on the emperor to take active action against her 20. Identifying the teachings of the Omians and Eunomius 21, he tries to turn imperial legislation against Omiumism, within the framework of which Eunomianism, along with Photinianism, is proclaimed an intolerant sect 22. In addition, St. Ambrose emphasizes the military-political danger of heresy - the Balkan-Danube region, where the positions of the Arians were especially strong, was devastated by barbarian hordes, while Italy, staunch in the right faith, was saved by God 23. At the same time, St. Ambrose claims that the Gothic war was predicted by the prophet Ezekiel 24, and he identifies the Goths with the apocalyptic Gog 25. The essay also contains a somewhat vague contrast between steadfastness in faith and the shaky mind of the emperor: “Here the emperor has an unchangeable mind, but his faith is unshakable” 26 . Perhaps here we are talking about differences between the Prosecutor Gratian and the supporter of Homianism, his uncle Valens 27, or St. Ambrose indirectly reproaches Gratian for entering into contacts with the Omians in Illyricum and recalls his loyalty to the Nicene faith during his stay in Italy 28 . It should also be emphasized that St. Ambrose, in addition to the direct addressee - the emperor, strives to attract all other potential readers to his side 29. Thus, this work is addressed to a fairly wide public who were interested in the theological disputes between the Nicenes and the Homians. It is also noteworthy that the last three books of “On Faith”, apparently, represent a revised collection of sermons: the text contains references to holidays and liturgical readings 30 . As for the time of writing the work of St. Ambrose, then almost all researchers attribute books 3–5 to the end of 380 or the beginning of 381. 31 The dating of the first two books remains debatable. Description of St. Ambrose's large-scale devastation of the Danube provinces of the Empire by the barbarians, as well as evidence that the emperor went to war with them, 32 indicate that the first two books of the work were created shortly before or somewhat after the Battle of Adrianople (9 August 378). Of the modern researchers, I.-M. is inclined towards an early dating (summer of 378). Duval, who believed that the above phrase about the two minds of the emperor(s) implies a contrast between Gratian and Valens, and both Augusts should have been alive at that moment 33. Valens, as you know, died in the Battle of Adrianople. E. Savon 34 takes a similar position. Most researchers attribute the writing of books 1 and 2 to the second half of 378 or the very beginning of 379. According to J.-R. Palanca 35, the emperor first addressed St. Ambrose with a request to draw up a statement of faith at the beginning of 378, then repeated his request during a personal meeting with the saint in Sirmium in the spring of 378 (St. Ambrose, according to the researcher, arrived in Illyricum to participate in the Pronecaean Council). Returning to Mediolan, St. Ambrose prepared his essay. In September 378, the first two books were sent to the emperor. According to Palanca, the reference to Emperor Gratian as “the Augustus of the entire universe” 36 clearly indicates that the text was created before Theodosius was proclaimed co-emperor of Gratian on January 19, 379 F.X. Dadzen generally follows the same chronology, only placing the Sirmian meeting in July 378. 37 Palanka's concept was criticized in the works of G. Gottlieb. The German researcher points out that calling Gratian “August of the entire universe” cannot serve as a chronological guide, since each of the co-rulers was considered the ruler of the entire Empire. The scientist postpones the date of creation of the treatise to the time after Gratian’s visit to Mediolan in April 380 38. Mentioned by St. Ambrose, Gottlieb associates successes in the war with the Goths with the events of this particular year. P. Naughten, agreeing with Gottlieb in his criticism of Palank's argumentation, at the same time considers his own concept of inadequate reality. The researcher emphasizes that St. Ambrose only expects the final victory over the Goths in the future, and does not describe it as an accomplished fact. In Noten's interpretation, the treatise could not have been created later than the proclamation of Theodosius as co-ruler of Gratian, since, according to the researcher, the contrast between him and Valens present in the text would have lost its meaning. At the same time, the text was written after the death of Valens, since the scope of the Gothic invasion, described by St. Ambrose, corresponds to the situation after the Battle of Adrianople. The researcher dates Gratian's letter to St. Ambrose, containing a request to draw up a confession of faith, in October 378. A little later, their personal meeting took place in Sirmium or Mediolan. The first two books of the treatise were compiled, according to Notan, in December or January 39. K. Markshis, noting that Gottlieb managed to shake everyone’s confidence in the traditional dating of the first two books of the treatise, at the same time points out that the researcher was unable to convincingly argue for his own concept 40. Gottlieb's version is not supported by D. X. Williams, who considers the probable time of creation of the first two books to be the autumn of 378. 41 A similar dating is also adhered to by T. D. Barnes, who believes that the meeting between the emperor and the bishop, during which Gratian repeated his request to draw up a confession of faith, took place in the summer of 378 in Sirmium. Then Gratian left the city to fight the Goths. Upon the emperor's return to Sirmium, St. Ambrose handed him his essay, which was thus written in just a few weeks 42. McLinn, on the contrary, is inclined to a later date. According to a British researcher, the meeting of St. Ambrose with Gratian took place in Mediolan in the summer of 379, in the winter of 379/380 the bishop wrote his work. He handed it over to the emperor in March 380 during Gratian's second visit to Mediolan. It was assumed that Gratian was supposed to get acquainted with the text in Sirmium, where he was heading 43. In general, it can be stated that the available evidence does not allow us to unambiguously determine the exact time of creation of the first two books of the essay “On Faith.” We can only state that this work reflects the historical situation at the turn of the 70s and 80s of the 4th century. At the same time, this kind of dating, with all its uncertainty, seems sufficient to reconstruct as a whole the historical situation in which this work was created. Obviously, the historical background of the work is determined by two sharp and uncompromising confrontations that find a lively response in the work of the saint: Gratian’s war against the barbarians rampaging in the Danube provinces and the struggle of supporters of the Nicene movement against the Omian communities in Italy and Illyricum. Theological content of the treatise Creating his essay “On Faith”, St. Ambrose, of course, did not set as his goal a systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. His treatise is polemical in nature. The focus of the saint is on the teachings of heretics, which he seeks to refute and expose both in the eyes of Emperor Gratian and other potential readers. St. Ambrose had a fairly clear idea of ​​his main opponents - the Homiys, whom he called "Arians". He knows their leaders: Demophilus of Constantinople, Palladius of Ratiar, Auxentius of Dorostor 44. He also knows that the Omiyas are not in communication with the radical subordinationists - the Eunomians 45, while St. Ambrose points out the Arian character of both movements, denies the dogmatic differences between them and expresses surprise at the fact that they are divided between themselves 46 . This statement of the saint can be interpreted as a polemical device pursuing a dual goal: to discredit the less radical teaching of the Omians by demonstrating its identity with the radical subordinationism of the Eunomians 47 and to subject the Omians to the action of imperial laws directed against the Eunomian trend. St. Ambrose mentions the most important Western Omian council, the Council of Ariminum in 359, contrasting it with the Council of Nicaea in 325 and rightly emphasizing that the majority of its participants initially professed the Nicene faith 48 . With the help of several passages from the Latin translation of the Bible 49, he seeks to refute the main argument of the early Homians against the doctrine of the consubstantiality of God the Son with God the Father - their assertion that the term “essence” (οὐσία, substantia) is absent from Holy Scripture 50 . Despite the fact that the treatise “On Faith” is a monument to the polemics of St. Ambrose with the Homies, Arius 51 appears in the treatise as the main opponent of the Nicene faith, and all subordinationist heretics are called Arians. Direct acquaintance with the works of Arius of St. Ambrose does not explicitly demonstrate this in the work under consideration, although he quotes in his work the message of Eusebius of Nicomedia 52. Subsequently, at the Council of Aquileia (381), St. Ambrose will read, in order to expose his opponent Palladius, the letter of Arius to St. Alexander of Alexandria 53. Let us note that the Omian leaders themselves denied any connection with the Alexandrian presbyter 54 . Arius and his disciples include the following obviously subordinationist theses: 1) about the creatureliness of God the Son 55 (non sicut ceteras creaturas, fid. 1.130; 3.132); 2) about His origin from nothing or from another essence, and not from the Father (ex nihilo factum aut ex alia substantia uel usia, fid. 1.120; cp.: fid. 1.128); 3) about temporality (ex tempore coepisse dicunt Dei Filium, fid. 1. 36; cp.: fid. 1. 57) and the changeability of His being (mutabilem et conuertibilem Dei Filium, fid. 1. 131); 4) about His dissimilarity to the Father (dissimilem Patri dicunt esse Dei Filium, fid. 1.35); 5) about what is other than the Father (ex alia substantia, eterousion, fid. 1. 128; 3. 123–124; cp.: fid. 1. 40); 6) that He is not good (bonum negant, fid. 1.38), true and omnipotent (negant uerum Dei Filium, negant omnipotentem, fid. 1.39). Moreover, if the thesis about the creatureliness of God the Son was shared by Arius 56, Eunomius 57, and the later Homii 58, then the doctrine of His dissimilarity was not quite rightly attributed to the Eunomians (they denied only similarity in essence) 59 and was denied by the Homii 60. The doctrine of other existence was inherent in the Eunomians, 61 although this term was not used by Arius and the Omian theologians. The doctrine of the origin of God the Son from nothing was characteristic of Arius 62 and was anathematized by a number of eastern councils, in which future leaders of the Homian movement 63 participated. Thus, the Arian heresy, in the form in which it is presented in the work of St. Ambrose, is the result of a mixture of at least three different doctrines undertaken for polemical purposes, and one of them - Homianism - itself seems to be a very heterogeneous phenomenon from a theological point of view: the later Homiys are the main opponents of St. Ambrose - they did not in everything follow the regulations of the Omiya councils at the turn of the 50s and 60s of the 4th century. 64 Constructing a complete Arian heresy, St. Ambrose fits it into the fundamental opposition “Judaism - paganism,” bringing Arians closer to both 65 traditions, thus taking Arianism beyond the scope of Christianity. The identification of Arianism and paganism allows St. Ambrose to extend his criticism of the dialectical method in theology to the Arians 66. The inclusion of Arianism in the wide circle of early heresies is obviously aimed at the mentions in the text of the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Ebionites and Marcionites 67. Often mentions St. Ambrose and the Monarchian: Sabellian and Photinian 68. On the one hand, the rejection of monarchianism in its modalistic and dynamistic forms is probably aimed at protecting against the accusations of secret monarchianism that the Arians addressed to the Nicenes 69 . On the other hand, since the 60s of the 4th century. In the Nicene theological tradition, the idea of ​​orthodoxy was established as a teaching that avoids both Arian and Sabellian heretical extremes - not confusing the Father and the Son, like Sabellius, and not separating them, like Arius. There is a difference between the Father and the Son, but there is no division of the Godhead 70 . The central thesis of the triadological teaching of St. Ambrose is the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity. Unlike the Cappadocian fathers, St. Ambrose pays little attention to hypostatic relations 71 and does not develop the doctrine of the unity of God the Father 72 . He uses the terms proprietas 73 and persona 74, expressing the difference between Persons, rarely and in several meanings at once, which does not allow them to be interpreted unambiguously as analogues of the Greek. ὑπόστασις. All this does not allow us, following K. Markshis, to unambiguously determine the theology of St. Ambrose as Neo-Nicene 75. Speaking about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, St. Ambrose emphasizes the eternity and inscrutability of the birth of the Son from the Father (1.60). As a divine act, the birth of the Son is a mystery and cannot be rationally interpreted (1.64). The persons of the Most Holy Trinity have a single essence, which St. Ambrose designates using the terms natura, diuinitas and substantia 76 . He clearly identifies the last term with the Greek. οὐσία (1. 128) 77 . The saint also uses the Nicene term “consubstantial” (homousion). In his opinion, this term simultaneously expresses both the difference of Persons and the unity of nature (3. 126). The consequence of the consubstantiality of the Trinity is that the Divine Persons have a single will (uoluntas, 1.109, cf. 1.112), power (uirtus, 1.13:62) and action (operatio, 1.23). At the same time, God the Son reveals the Power, Word and Wisdom of God (1.16). He is also called the Creator (1.86), and, like St. Athanasius 78, St. Ambrose clearly separates the uncreated being of the Trinity from created being 79. At the same time, the unity of the created world testifies to the one God 80. The specific “Latin” feature of St. Ambrose is particularly concerned with the theme of power within Trinitarian theology 81 . Like Pope Damasus 82, St. Ambrose emphasizes the unity of the power of the Trinity (potestas una est Trinitatis) 83 , the unity of the dominion of the Father and the Son (una deltas et Patris et Fill et una dominatio probaretur) 84 , the unity of the kingdom of the Trinity (non ergo diuisum est regnum Trinitatis) 85 . Opponents of St. Ambrose also paid great attention to this topic, but emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son 86. Thus, trinitarian subordinationism on Latin soil has lost its initially “epistemological” character 87 . The focus of attention in the West was not the idea of ​​knowledge of God, but the government of God. However, St. himself Ambrose, on the contrary, pays tribute to the Eastern tradition and, like Origen 88 and St. Athanasius 89, develops the doctrine of God the Son as the image (imago) of God the Father, presuming similarity (similitudo) between Them 90, as well as the revelation of God the Father in the Son (Filius in Patre cognoscitur) 91, while the Father is likened to light, and in the Son as in His radiance the glory of the Father is manifested 92. At the same time, both of them are light, since God is light 93. Like other Nicene authors, St. Ambrose follows the exegetical principle according to which the exalted gospel sayings about Christ should be attributed to His deity, and the “degrading” ones (for example, about His creatureliness) – to humanity 94. The Bishop of Milan directly testifies to the two natures in Christ, divine and carnal 95, and calls for attributing suffering only to His humanity 96. Holy Spirit St. Ambrose pays much less attention in his treatise “On Faith” than to God the Father and the Son, which was also noted by his addressee, Emperor Gratian. Augustus turned to St. Ambrose with a request to compose an essay specifically dedicated to the Holy Spirit, in which St. Ambrose would have proved His deity on the basis of Scripture and logical arguments 97 . It was in the treatise “On the Holy Spirit” (De Spiritu Sancto), created in the first half of 381 98, that the Mediolan bishop would develop his pneumatological teaching, thus compensating for the insufficient attention to this topic in the essay “On Faith”. In general, the Trinitarian theology of St. Ambrose can be seen as the result of a synthesis of several theological traditions 99 . Following St. Athanasius, he fruitfully uses Eastern theological motifs, in particular the doctrine of the Son as the image of God the Father, revealing Him to the world. Like the Eastern Neo-Nicenes, St. Ambrose strives to establish a balance between the doctrine of the unity of the deity and the diversity of Persons, but he fails, unlike St. Gregory the Theologian 100 to present these two theses in their paradoxical tension and interconnection due to the absence in the theology of the saint of the doctrine of the monarchy of God the Father as the foundation of Trinitarian unity. At the same time, St. Ambrose frees himself from the pro-monarchist bias 101 characteristic of Western theology and definitely distinguishes between the concepts of “nature” and “person” in his Trinitarian theology. At the same time, his focus on the theme of divine power indicates the “Western” specificity of his theological thought, which can be adequately interpreted only in the context of his polemics with the later Omians, one of the monuments of which is the work of the Mediolan bishop in question. Arian polemic against the treatise “On Faith” The first two books of the treatise “On Faith” by St. Ambrose became famous in Omiya circles 102. Palladius, whom St. Ambrose personally condemned him as one of the leaders of the Arians and was extremely offended by this work. This is probably why he turned to the emperor with a request to hold a theological debate between the Omians and the Western Nicenes at a representative council. Eastern bishops 103 were to act as arbitrators. The council was actually convened in Aquileia in September 381, but only supporters of St. Ambrose - Western bishops 104. He himself actually led the trial of Palladius and his associate Secundian of Singidun. The council condemned the Omian leaders as Arians 105 . The latter declared that the council, in which eastern bishops 106 did not take part and where the accusers were also judges 107, could not be recognized as legal. In his Apology, Palladius demands the convening of a new ecumenical council 108 or the transfer of his theological dispute with St. Ambrose to the court of the Roman Senate 109. Both proposals were ignored by the emperor. In his polemical work, Palladius quotes a large fragment from the treatise of St. Ambrose “On Faith” 110, subjecting him to criticism from different positions: for not distinguishing the personal properties (proprietates personarum) of God the Son and God the Father and, accordingly, for blasphemy in relation to Them 111, and for using the errors of the emperor for his own purposes 112, and for sweepingly accusing the Omian leaders of adherence to Arianism 113, and for the abuse of mythological images for the purpose of demonstration of their learning 114 (St. Ambrose compared the teaching of heretics with the Hydra and Scylla 115). Comparing the arguments of St. Ambrose and Palladius, we can come to the conclusion that they used similar polemical techniques and categories in their writings. At the same time, their texts clearly indicate a fundamental difference in the Trinitarian teaching of the warring parties: the radical subordinationism of the Omians clashed in a decisive battle with the Nicene doctrine of consubstantiality. The outcome of this duel was predetermined both due to the difference in the level of theological argumentation (at least if we take into account not only Latin authors, but also the Cappadocian fathers), and due to the fact that the majority of bishops both in the West and in the East had already switched to Nicene positions by the beginning of the 80s of the 4th century, and the Omian movement, deprived of the support of imperial power, rapidly transformed during this period into a marginal one heterodox group. For a long time, the best edition of the treatise remained the publication of the Maurists J. du Frichet and N. Le Nourry, which was published in 1690 in Paris. This edition was reprinted by Abbe J.-P. Minem (PL 16, 1845). A new critical edition was published by O. Faller: Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Pars VIII. De fide libri V [ad Gratianum Augustum], Vindobonae, 1962. (CSEL; 78) (Hereinafter – Falter). This publication formed the basis for the Italian and German translations of the treatise: Sant’ Ambrogio. Opere dogmatiche I: La fede / Introd., trad., not., ind. C. Moreschini. Milano; Roma, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Moreschini); Ambrosius von Mailand. De fide. Ad Gratianum / Über den Glauben. Bd. 1–3 (Fontes christiani. 47) / Übers, u. eingeleitet von C. Markschies. Turnhout, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Markschies). The Institute of Christian Sources (Sources chrétiennes, hereinafter SC) is currently preparing a French translation. Fragments of Palladius's works have survived to this day as part of the Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium. This text, compiled by the Arian bishop Maximin in the first half of the 5th century, is a commented collection of materials directed against St. Ambrose. In this article, the source is cited from the publication: Scolies ariennes sur le concile d’Aquilée / Éd. R. Gryson. (SC; 267). P., 1980. In general, about the Omian-Nicene confrontation in the second half of the 4th century. see: Zakharov G.E. Illyrian churches in the era of Arian disputes (IV–early 5th century). M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2014. See: Diss. Max. 130, 136, 138. See: fid. 1. 1; 1. 3; 3. 1. See: fid. 3. 1. Emperor Gratian himself in his letter to St. Ambrose, written after reading the first two books of the treatise “On Faith” (Cupio valde. 1; CSEL; 79:3–4; PL 16:875–876), speaks of the Mediolan bishop as his teacher and indicates as the goal of their communication not polemics, but the teaching of the truth. See: fid. 1. 1. Wed: epist. 12(1). 7. As far as can be judged on the basis of this letter, the emperor approved the contents of the first two books of the treatise “On Faith,” which is confirmed by the letter of Gratian himself already mentioned above. See: Palanque J.-R. Saint Ambroise et l'Empire romain. P., 1933. R 50. See: Dudden K.H. The Life and Times of St. Ambrose. Oxford, 1935. Vol. 1. R 189. See: Nautin P. Les premières relations d’Ambroise avec l’empereur Gratien: Le “De fide” (Livres 1 et 2) // Ambroise de Milan: Dix études / Éd. Y.-M. Duval. P., 1974. R 238–244. See: Paredi A. Saint Ambrose of Milan and his time. Milan, 1991. P. 125. See: McLynn N.V. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley, 1994. R 98–102. See: Williams D.H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts. Oxford, 1995. R 130–135. See: Nautin P. Les premieres relations... P. 240. See: McLynn N.B. Ambrose... P. 98–106, 113. See: Williams D.H. Ambrose... P. 143–144. Cp.: Pasini C. Ambrogio di Milano. Azione e pensiero di un vescovo. Cinisello Balsamo, 1996. P. 47. See: Markschies Ch. Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: Kirchen- und theologiegeschichtliche. Studien zu Antiarianismus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinischen Westen (364–381 n. Chr.). Tübingen, 1995. S. 167. See: spirit. s. 1. 19–21. Socrates and Sozomen also mention the law of toleration issued by Gratian. Only the Eunomians, Photinians and Manichaeans were recognized as illegal movements in it, see: Socrates, hist. eccl. 5.2; Sozomen, hist. eccl. 7. 1. Perhaps there is some uncertainty in the interpretation of the motives for Gratian's appeal to St. Ambrose, characteristic of his work, was due to the fact that this appeal was in fact not a motivating reason, but only a pretext for writing a treatise, which, of course, does not exclude the emperor’s keen interest in Trinitarian teaching. In this regard, the evolution of the ideas of St. Ambrose about the nature of his relationship with Gratian. Since the Mediolan bishop was initially unsure that his theological position would be approved by Augustus, he presented him as an expert in theology and himself as a test subject. When Gratian's sympathies became obvious, at the suggestion of the emperor himself, St. Ambrose began to play the role of a teacher, and August - a student. St. Ambrose expresses confidence that the strong Catholic faith inherent in the emperor will encourage him to support the Niceans in the fight against heresies (see: fid. 2. 139). See: Socrates, hist. eccl. 5.2; Sozomen, hist. eccl. 7. 1. See: fid. 2. 138. For objections to such an identification, see Bl. Jerome of Stridon: Hebraicae quaestiones in Genesim 10. About the “Gothic problem” in the writings of St. Ambrose, see: Chauvot A. Opinions romaines face aux barbares au IVe sièc1e AP. J-C. P., 1998. P. 277–281; 435–440; Corbellini C. Ambrogio e i barbari: giudizio o pregiudizio? // Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italy. 1977. 3. P. 343–353; Pavan M. Sant’ Ambrogio e il problema dei barbari // Romanobarbarica. 1978. 3. P. 167–187; Meslin M. Les Ariens d'Occident, 335–430. P., 1967. P. 66–67; Zakharov G.E. The image is ready in the works of St. Ambrose of Milan // Civilization and barbarism: paradoxes of the victory of civilization over barbarism. M., 2013. pp. 203–212. See: Palanque J.-R. Saint Ambroise... R. 57; Nautin R. Les premières relations... P. 235; Duval Y.-M. Sur quelques études récentes concernant Ambroise et l’arianisme occidental // Duval Y.-M. L'extirpation de l'Arianisme en Italie du Nord et en Occident. Aldershot; Brookfield, 1998. P. 17. See: McLynn N.V. Ambrose... R. 104–105. See: fid. 3. 142; 4.119. See: Markschies. S. 51; Palanque J.-R. Saint Ambroise... P. 72; McLynn N.D. Ambrose... P. 118–119; Moreschini. P. 26–27; Fallen P. 9–10; Dassmann E. Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk. Stuttgart, 2004. S. 65; Dudden F.H. The Life... P. 193–194; Paredi A. Saint Ambrose... P. 132; Pasini C. Ambrogio... P. 48; Barnes T.D. Ambrose and Gratian // Antiquité tardive. 1999. 7. P. 173. Prosper of Aquitaine attributes to this year the writing of many works in defense of the Catholic faith, see: Prosper, chron. 1173. See: Duval Y.-M. Une réponse d’Ambroise and l’Empereur Gratien (CPL 160A): Édition, Traduction, Commentaire // Vigiliae Christianae. 2004. 58/4. P. 407; Duval Y.-M. Surquelques études... P. 17. See: Savon H. Ambroise de Milan (340–397). P., 1997. P. 89–90. See: Palanque J.-R. Saint Ambroise... R. 50–57. See also: Moreschini. R. 25; Dassmann E. Ambrosius... S. 64–65. Faller dates Gratian's request to September 378, and the compilation of the first two books of the treatise to the end of 378: Fallen R. 8. A. Paredi is of a similar opinion: Paredi A. Saint Ambrose... P. 126. See: Dudden F.N. The Life... R. 189. See: Gottlieb G. Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian. Gottingen, 1973. S. 50; Gottlieb G. Gratianus // Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Bd. 12. Stuttgart, 1983. S. 723–724. See: Nautin R. Les premières relations... R. 231–238. See: Markschies. S. 49; Markschies Ch. Ambrosius von Mailand... S. 175. See: Williams D.H. Ambrose... P. 142–143. Cp. Pasini C. Ambrogio... P. 47. See: Barnes T.D. Ambrose... P. 171, 173. See: McLynn N.B. Ambrose... P. 100–102; McLynn N.B. The “Apology” of Palladius: Nature and Purpose // Journal of Theological Studies. 1991. 42/1. P. 64. On the attention paid to the Eunomians by the polemical activity of the Cappadocian fathers, see: Zakharov G.E. “...For there must also be differences of opinion among you”: Ecclesiological problems of Arian disputes. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2014. pp. 84–95. See: fid. 1. 122. About the Ariminsky Cathedral of 359, see: Zakharov G.E. Illyrian churches... P. 178–193. See: fid. 1. 129. See also the second Sirmian formula of 357: Hilary of Pictavia, synod. 11; Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 28; Socrates, hist. eccl. 2.30; and the fourth Sirmian formula of 359: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 8; Socrates, hist. eccl. 2.37. See: fid. 1. 44–45, 125–131. See: Gesta 5. 11–12. See also: Gryson R. Introduction // Scolies ariennes sur le Concile d’Aquilée... P. 136. Palladius and Secundian claimed at the Council of Aquileia that they did not know at all who Arius was (see: Gesta 14. 31. 66. Cp.: Diss. Mach. 90), although Palladius subsequently positively assessed the content of the message of the Alexandrian presbyter read at the council (Diss. Mach. 98). It is difficult to assume that these bishops actually had no idea about Arius; it is obvious that with such statements they wanted to emphasize that they did not associate their church movement with his name. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 16. See: Eunomius, apologia 28. See: Philostorgius, hist. eccl. 4. 12; 6. 1. See: Philostorgius, hist. eccl. 4.12. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 15. See the fourth Antiochene formula of 341: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 25; Socrates, hist. eccl. 2. 18; and the first Sirmian formula of 351: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 27; Socrates, hist. eccl. 2.30; Hilary of Pictavia, synod. 38. About this see: Zakharov G.E. Illyrian churches... P. 266–292. On the construction of a holistic Arianism in St. Ambrose, see: Cantalamessa R. Sant’Ambrogio di fronte ai grandi dibattiti teologici del suo secolo // Ambrosius Episcopus. Milano, 1976, pp. 486–487. See: fid. 1.6; 2. 130; 5. 105. Cp.: fid. 1.85. See: fid. 1. 84. Elsewhere St. Ambrose disapproves of Plato's teaching on ideas: fid. 4.46. See: fid. 1.57; 2.44, 119; 3. 42, 57; 5. 104, 105, 182. See: fid. 1. 6, 57; 2. 80, 86, 117, 118; 3. 12, 58, 126; 4.29; 5. 104–105. Another dynamist is also mentioned - Pavel Samosatsky (fid. 5. 105). The later Homii interpreted the teachings of St. Ambrose and the Nicene people both as a manifestation of tritheism and as a form of Sabellianism - theses are absolutely incompatible (Diss. Max. 99:129). We find something similar in the writings of St. Ambrose, who reproaches the Arians for tritheism (fid. 1. 10) and brings their teaching closer to Photinianism on the basis that both Arius and Photinus did not consider the Son to be the true God (fid. 2. 117). See: fid. 2. 33, as well as: fid. 1. 6. Wed: Athanasius of Alexandria, doctrina ad Antiochum 6; Gregory the Theologian, orat. 2.37. On the lack of attention to hypostatic relationships, see: Williams D.N. Ambrose... R. 145. See: Cantalamessa R. Sant’Ambrogio... R. 526–530. St. Ambrose speaks of the divine nature of the Son (fid. 1.22; 5.103). At the same time, the saint interprets the birth of the Son as proprietas - a personal property; God the Father (fid. 4. 88:90). The very name “Father” designates the One who gives birth (2.18), and birth determines the difference between the Father and the Son (1.16). Compare: Gregory the Theologian, orat. 29.16; Basil the Great, spir. s. 18. In the trinitarian meaning of St. Ambrose uses the concept of persona only twice, contrasting it with the concept of natura. Persona denotes the uniqueness of each of the Persons of the Trinity, natura - Their common essence (3.126; 5.46). According to L. Herrmann and C. Moreschini, distrust of St. Ambrose's use of the term persona is explained by his desire to avoid accusations of modalism. L. Herrmann and R. Hanson rightly point out that for St. Ambrose tends to use the concept of persona in a completely different meaning - to designate the human nature of Christ (more precisely, St. Ambrose explains some of the “derogatory” statements of Christ about Himself in the New Testament by the fact that He speaks in this case as a person (ex persona hominis), fid. 1. 92; 2. 61; 5. 114:124). See: Moreschini. R. 3940; Herrmann L. Ambrosius als Trinitätstheologe // Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. 1958. 69. S. 204; Hanson R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. L., 2005. P. 671. K. Marksis interprets the theology of St. Ambrose as a creative synthesis of Western (going back to Tertullian) and Cappadocian traditions. Elements of this synthesis can indeed be traced, as will be noted below, in the treatise under consideration, but the absence in St. Ambrose's developed doctrine of the unity of command of God the Father, in our opinion, is a significant difference between his theological position and the teaching of the Cappadocians (Markschies Ch. Ambrosius von Mailand... S. 197–212). In fairness, it should be noted that Markshis considers “Latin Neo-Niceneism” not as an integral theological doctrine identical to the teaching of the Cappadocian fathers, but as a very heterogeneous movement, represented primarily by St. Ambrose and Pope Damasus, the specificity of which was the revision, under the influence of Eastern theological thought, of the miaipostatic doctrine expressed in the formula of the Council of Serdica in 343. However, this kind of understanding of the development of Trinitarian theology in the West is based on a very controversial thesis that the Serdica formula (Theodoret, hist. eccl. 2. 8) adequately reflected the theological position of the majority of Western bishops in the 40s of the 4th century. This kind of interpretation of “Latin Neo-Niceneism” actually leads to the deprivation of this concept of specific theological content, although K. Markshis’s observations on the dynamics of the development of Trinitarian teaching in the West seem to be very valuable from a historical point of view. See: Markschies Ch. Was ist lateinischer "Neunizänismus"? Ein Vorschlag für eine Antwort // Markschies Ch. Alta Trinità beata. Gesammelte Studien zur altkirchlichen Trinitätstheologie. Tübingen, 2000. S. 238–264. See, for example: fid. 1. 9, 17. In general, St. Ambrose uses the term natura more often than substantia. See: Cantalamessa R. Sant’Ambrogio... R. 525. According to L. Herrmann, St. Ambrose identifies natura and substantia, while in R. Hanson's interpretation, natura is used to designate what “the Three have together,” and substantia to designate “what They are.” See: Herrmann L. Ambrosius... S. 202; Hanson R.P.C. The Search... P. 671. In our opinion, if these terms have some nuances of meaning, then in general St. Ambrose considered them as synonyms (si de nomine substantiae aut naturae diuinae uoluerint dicere, 1. 129). At the same time, quoting the Nicene Symbol, St. Ambrose uses the term substantia to translate the Greek. ὑπόστασις (fid. 1. 120). St. Athanasius teaches that God the Son is born “not from will, but by nature,” thus contrasting the birth of the Son with the creation of the world (p. arian. 3.66). See also: Florovsky G. The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius // Studia Patristica. 6/4. Berlin, 1962, pp. 36–57. According to the teachings of St. Ambrose, the Son is not born according to the will of the Father; the birth of the Son is an immutable property of His existence (fid. 4. 103). In relation to the Son, the Father is the Parent, in relation to people - the Creator (fid. 1.90). St. Ambrose also emphasizes that a person can become the son of God by adoption, but the Son is Son by nature (fid. 1. 126). See also: Dudden E.N. The Life... R. 570; Moreschini. R. 41. See also: Williams D.N. Ambrose... R. 144. Pope Damasus in his Tome speaks of the unity of power (potestatem), dominion (dominationem) and kingdom (unum regnum) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Quote from: Reutter U. Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen, 2009, pp. 392–393. St. Hilary of Pictavia defined God as “the living power of boundless power” (trin. 8.24); see also: Fokin A.R. Formation of the Trinitarian doctrine in Latin patristics. M., 2014. P. 300. See: fid. 1. 8. The very words “God” and “Lord” denote power. God is the One who rules over everything, Who surveys everything and Whom everyone fears (see: fid. 1. 7). About this see: Zakharov G.E. Illyrian churches... P. 282–292. Arius taught that the Son is not able to know the Father: Athanasius of Alexandria, synod. 15. On the connection between triadology and the doctrine of knowledge in the theology of Arius, see: Löhr W. Arius Reconsidered (Part 2) // Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum. 2006. 10. S. 121–157. See: Origen, princ. 1. 2. 8. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, c. arian. 3.5. See: fid. 1. 48–49: as in the image of good, the fullness of the power of God is discernible in the Son. Wed: fid. 2.85. See: fid. 1. 55. Knowledge of the Father cannot be obtained without passing by the Son (fid. 1. 63). See: fid. 1. 32; 3. 68, 81. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, orat. 29.18. See: fid. 1. 91. The flesh of Christ is created and originating from His Mother (fid. 1. 94). See: Gratian, Cupio valde. 3. Wed: epist. 12(1). 7; fid. 5. 7. See: Barnes T.D. Ambrose... P. 173. Analysis of the text indicates the acquaintance of St. Ambrose with the works of a number of Eastern theologians (Origen, Didymus the Blind, St. Basil the Great), as well as St. Hilary of Pictavia, but his greatest influence was the writings of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. See: Faller. R. 12–13; Moreschini. R. 16–25; Markschies. S. 68–82. St. Ambrose quotes the works of these authors without referring to them. This practice was commonplace in late antiquity. As K. Marksis rightly notes, St. Ambrose never slavishly follows his sources, but always creatively integrates them into his own theological constructions (Markschies. S. 71–72). About this see: Zakharov G.E. “...For it must...” pp. 95–104. See, for example, the confession of faith of the Western bishops at the Council of Serdica in 343: Theodoret, hist. eccl. 2. 8. And also: Hall S.G. The Creed of Sardica // Studia Patristica. 19. Leuven, 1989. P. 173–184. This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Gratian asked St. Ambrose to send him again a copy of the first two books of the treatise “On Faith” (Cupio valde. 3). It is possible that Gratian gave the first copy to Palladius of Ratiar, who subsequently replied to St. Ambrose with his own polemical work. P. Noten suggests that Gratian gave the treatise to a certain Omian theologian, and then returned it to St. Ambrose manuscript with opponent's notes. See: Nautin R. Les premieres relations... R. 242–243. Compare: McLynn N.V. Ambrose... R. 113, 118. St. himself indirectly indicates the acquaintance of the Omians with the first books of the treatise. Ambrose (fid. 3. 2). However, Savon believes that the emperor’s letter refers only to a request to prepare an expanded version of the treatise already known to him (i.e., the first two books of “On Faith”), including passages dedicated to the Holy Spirit. The researcher does not connect this request with the polemics of the Homies against St. Ambrose, and with Gratian's interest in the discussions about the divinity of the Holy Spirit that took place during this period in the East. See: Savon N. Ambroise... R. 100–101. Mention of Palladius’s meeting with the emperor in Sirmium is contained in the acts of the Council of Aquileia (Gesta 8.10). Probably, the idea of ​​convening the council belonged to Gratian himself, and not Palladius, otherwise it is difficult to explain the choice of the place where it was held - the See of Aquileia was occupied by the Pronicaean bishop Valerian. Palladius outlined to the emperor his vision of the format of the council and received assurances from him that the eastern bishops would attend it. On the confrontation between the Nicenes and the Omians in Italy and Illyricum, see: Meslin M. Les Ariens d’Occident...; Simonetti M. Arianesimo latino // Studi Medievali. 1967. 8/2. P. 663–744; McLynn N.B. The "Apology" of Palladius... P. 52–76; McLynn N.B. From Palladius to Maximinus: Passing the Arian Torch // Journal of Early Christian Studies. 1996. 4/4. P. 477–493; Williams D.H. Ambrose...; Zakharov G.E. Illyrian churches... P. 227–292. See: Diss. Max. 96. See also: Gesta 6–11. See: Diss. Max. 96. See also: Peri V. Concilium plenum et generale: la prima attestazione dei criteri tradizionali dell’esimenicità // Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum. 1983. 15/1. P. 41–78. See: fid. 1. 43–47; Diss. Max. 83. Palladius’s work directed against the treatise “On Faith” by St. Ambrose, is also mentioned by Vigilius of Tapa, an African author of the late 5th century. (Vigilius Tapsensis. Contra arianos dialogue Probo iudice interlocutoribus. 2. 50 // PL 62:230). See: fid. 1. 46. Cp.: fid. 3. 3.