About the mystery of the Lord's incarnation

Treatise of St. Ambrose of Milan “On the Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation” (382, 116 chapters) is directed against Arianism and Apollinarianism. It expounds the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God and the mystery of the incarnation. The writings arose from church sermons, which arose as a result of public discussion with the Arians about objects of faith. Excerpts from the treatise were given at the III and IV Ecumenical Councils. The work can be divided into 2 parts: the first (1-78) is devoted to Christological issues, the second (79-116) – to Trinitarian disputes. The first part addresses the following questions: 1. Christ is perfect God and perfect man. It speaks of His two births - one from the Father, and the other from the Virgin Mary (chapter 35); the intercommunication of properties is recognized (chap. 36-39). 2. The fullness and truth of human nature in Christ, consisting of a rational soul and animate flesh (chap. 53, 63-65); the truth, and not the illusory nature of her suffering on the cross (chap. 45-46). 3. The Lord always remained the eternal God: “I, God before the incarnation and God after the incarnation, accepted the fullness of human nature” (chap. 71). 4. The belittlement of the Divine nature in Christ is impossible because it is unchangeable and cannot turn into the nature of the flesh (chap. 41,55,72). 5. God took on not only human flesh, but also the soul (chap. 65). The second part addresses the following questions: 1. God the Father is the source and beginning of the Divine essence: “Perfect is the Father, who is, and He always is. ... We call that which exists in itself and does not need the help of others for its existence, essence” (chap. 111). 2. The properties “born” and “unborn”, the names “father” and “son” cannot be attributed to nature. The former determine the method of origin of nature (chapter 97) and the own properties of those who have the same nature (chapter 100), and the latter indicate the nature of their relationship. The supernatural birth of Jesus Christ does not abolish His consubstantiality with our nature, but renews the method of human birth (chap. 102-105). 3. The Holy Spirit is called Almighty, which, according to St. Ambrose, sufficiently proves the equality of the Third Person with the Father and the Son (chap. 116). *The title of the work in Latin is De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento. De incarnationis dominicae Sacramento The work “On the Mystery of the Lord's Incarnation” (De incarnationis dominicae Sacramento) 1 completes the main dogmatic works of St. Ambrose "On Faith" and "On the Holy Spirit". The name that has entered scientific use is given in the text of the treatise by the author himself (63). The significance of this text for patristic literature, not only Latin, but also Greek, is confirmed by the fact that excerpts from it were given at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and in the medieval West it was appreciated and quoted by Thomas Aquinas 2. A distinctive feature of the work is its compositional heterogeneity. The sharp change in subject matter and addressee within the book allows us to distinguish two independent parts in it. The first (1–78) is written in the form of a church sermon and discusses Christological issues, the second (79–118) returns to Trinitarian disputes and is addressed to Emperor Gratian. The specific circumstances that led to the writing of this book help determine the time of its appearance. An important basis for dating are the words of the author himself that all five books “On Faith”, the completion of which dates back to the end of 380 - beginning of 381, were already written by him (62). Deacon Paulinus describes the circumstances of the appearance of the treatise on the Incarnation 3: two Arians, cuviculars 4 of the Emperor Gratian, asked St. Ambrose asked a question about the incarnation of the Lord and promised to return for an answer. The next day, the saint and the people were waiting for them at the Portian Basilica, but they, having forgotten about the meeting, went on a country walk, on which an accident happened to them, and both died. St. Ambrose, without waiting for their arrival and not knowing about what had happened, delivered a sermon, which became the first part of the work. The mention of the Cuvicularii testifies to the stay of Emperor Gratian in Mediolan (dating from the spring of 381 to the summer of 383). In the second part of the essay, the author answers the objection: how can the Unborn and the Born be of the same essence? - expressed by Palladius of Ratiar at the Council of Aquileia in September 381. 5 All this allows us to assert that the essay “On the Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation” was written at the end of 381 - beginning of 382. 6 The lengthy discussion on the dignity of the Apostle Peter, which seems more like a digression from the main topic of the incarnation than a necessary point in its development, may be an indirect reference to the disputes that were waged in the Roman Church under Pope Damasus (366-384). Damasus insisted that the special position determined by Christ ap. Peter, is shared only by the Roman popes as his heirs in the see and that it is they who act as the authority of both power and faith for all other bishops. St. Ambrose does not deny the special position of St. Peter, but defines it by its significance in keeping the faith and its special role in its confession, and not by the advantage of honor and position (see: 27, 32–34). One can also see in this praise a response to the rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, which gives the See of Constantinople second place after the Roman 7. The question remains open, why St. Ambrose turned to the seemingly recently revealed themes in his books “On Faith” and why there were almost mechanically connected parts “under one cover.” The author himself foresees the bewilderment of his readers and explains his decision by the continuation of the doctrinal dispute and the emergence in it of new issues requiring resolution (62–63), but the new work still looks like a return to what he outlined earlier. Reading dogmatic works for their conscious assimilation requires mandatory acquaintance with the tradition within which they were written, and with the tradition against which they were written, since the author does not always consider it necessary to voice the position of the enemy he is refuting. For example, the question of St. Ambrose: Who else could God be by nature if not the true God? (87) – at first glance it may seem like a tautology. But in it, behind the external rhetorical form, there is an implicit refutation of a specific Arian opinion, and the word “true” is not just a decorative epithet, but a definition of God, which was of great importance in the teachings of both disputing sides. Arius recognized only the Father as “true God”, and refused this title to the Son and saw in Him “the perfect God” not in the ontological sense, but in honor. St. Ambrose, pretending to agree with the importance of the concept of “unbornness” in justifying the primacy of the Father, recalls that this very word was accepted by the Arians only on the basis that in the books of the Old and New Testaments nothing is said about the birth of God the Father. The saint continues to reason that if the Holy Scripture says nothing not only about the birth of the Father, but also about the birth of the Holy Spirit, then He, too, must be recognized as unborn. The final conclusion about the equal dignity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, as having the same property, and the superiority of both over the Son sounds like an ironic refutation of the enemy (89–93), if you know that the Holy Spirit occupied the last step among the Arians on the hierarchical ladder of the Three Persons. In some cases, St. Ambrose deliberately takes into account not all of the enemy’s positions. For example, he does not consider the opinion of the Arians, who directly connect the concept of “God” with the concept of “Creator” and recognize the Son as God for the world, in the creation of which He took part, and the Father as God for both the world and the Son, but limits himself to denouncing their teaching about the Son as God through the participation of grace, Who is distinguished from other creations only by the immutability of the will and the constancy of being in goodness (83). Denunciations of heretics usually allow the reader to easily understand the author’s attitude to the facts presented, but it is in vain to look for a system of evidence in them and it is not always easy to determine who or what is hidden under certain periphrastic descriptions, if we remember the possible caricature deformation of the proposed portraits and sketches. For example, the Christological scheme “Word – Flesh” 8 (Λόγος – σάρξ), which infringes upon the perceived human nature in Christ, replacing the rational soul in it with the Logos Himself, was accepted by both the Arians and their opponent in the trinitarian question, Apollinaris, but on different grounds. The Arians, who did not recognize the divine dignity of the Son, did not face the problem of how divinity and humanity could be united in Christ. Apollinaris, on the contrary, for the first time, although unsuccessfully, tried to express the method of unity of two natures in the God-Man, and his unsuccessful formula “the single nature of God the Word incarnate” laid the foundation for the Monophysite teaching. However, none of them can be accused of assimilating suffering to the divine nature, if they remain within the framework of their established systems. St. Ambrose takes the enemy's premises to their logical limit and draws from them extreme conclusions, the absurdity of which the heretics themselves would protest. Understanding the unity proposed by this erroneous scheme as natural, he rejects the resulting view that the divine essence itself underwent bodily variability and suffering (57–58). Reasoning is structured in accordance with the meanings of words accepted at the time of the author, reflecting specific concepts, but in modern language they have often lost the necessary shades. Thus, the Russian adjective “similar” (Greek ὅμοιος, Latin similis) does not convey the meaning of this term, “similar in some quality, but not in essence,” necessary for understanding the dispute with the Omiyas 9 . For example, one person is similar to another in appearance, but by nature they are of the same essence (108). Things can be similar in shape, color and any other, often random, properties, but different in nature (107). In the proper sense, only that which belongs to one nature, that is, consubstantial, can be similar. St. Ambrose, rejecting the suitability of the term “similar” for discussing nature, follows precisely these ideas. In addition, he speaks of likeness by communion and by imitation (for example, people are called to be like the Father in holiness 10), but neither one nor the other reflects the essence (111). Follow the course of reasoning and logic in the arguments of St. It will be easier for Ambrose if you understand the peculiarities of Trinitarian terminology and its history in the West in relation to Greek. The main argument against the word “consubstantial” not only for heretics, but also for some who correctly understand the Trinitarian problem, was its absence in the text of Holy Scripture. This fundamentally important definition received different verbal forms in Greek and Latin; accordingly, the names assigned to it correlated differently with the text of the Holy Scriptures and, no less important, the circumstances of the assimilation of the term by theology were also different in the East and West. All this provided different ways of argumentation and led to a change in emphasis when discussing certain topics. Only the definition of ἑπιούσιος from the Lord’s Prayer appears to be the same root and similar in method of formation to the Greek ὁμοούσιος in the Bible, but the set of meanings of these words does not coincide. What made ὁμοούσιος even more suspicious in the eyes of the Greeks was its importance in the teaching of Sabellius in justifying the unity in God of not only the essence, but also the Person. In Latin theology, to denote consubstantiality, the phrase unius substantiae, “one nature,” was adopted, which entered the theological tradition of the West starting with Tertullian and did not arouse either suspicion or protest. Having broken it into two independent words, which is what St. did. Ambrose (81–88), it was easier to find the necessary evidence in Scripture. Another circumstance increased the number of places suitable for substantiating this term, easing the position of the Latin exegete: the word substantia served as a translation for two Greek ones. On the one hand, it corresponds to οὐσία (100) and the meaning “essence” is assigned to it, and on the other hand, it is a morphological tracing paper and serves as a translation for ὑπόστασις, which means hypostasis, or person. The main disadvantage of such translation correspondences was that in most cases the lexemes “hypostasis” and “nature” are not synonymous 11 . In addition, St. Ambrose does not hesitate to cite cases where the concept of “nature” is expressed by the synonym φύσις (translated into Latin natura). St. Ambrose begins his book with an interpretation of the Old Testament story of Abel and Cain (1–12). At the heart of his reasoning are the words of God addressed to Cain: If you offer a gift faithfully, but do not discern correctly, you sin (Gen. 4:7). The saint sees the main task as explaining what the sin of “wrong discernment” consists of. The variability of answers to the question of why God accepted the gifts of Abel, but not his brother, is based on a play on the meaning of the Latin verb divido 12. The first - “to choose, to separate” - allows us to give a literal interpretation and recognize the reason for Cain’s rejection that he chose the worst fruits for sacrifice. In the second meaning - “to be aware of difference” - the verb is synonymous with iudicare (“to judge, reason”) and allows the author to resort to the typological method of exegesis. According to St. Ambrose, the truth of discernment for the Old Testament righteous lay in the prophetic foreknowledge of the future incarnation. Abel brought the firstborn of his sheep, and his main dignity lies in the fact that he comprehended the transformative meaning of his sacrifice and pointed with it to the Only Begotten Son as the coming Lamb of God and Savior. Cain's inability to correctly discern and understand the saving meaning of the divine economy led to the non-acceptance of his gifts. This solution to the Old Testament plot turns out to be all the more appropriate since the problem of the incarnation will become the main topic for this part of the book. In addition, it allows us to see in the first brother the image of Christians who take part in the sacraments of the Church and share its teachings, and in the second - the image of all those who are outside it. The saint includes among them, firstly, the Jews, as those who rejected and crucified the Lord Himself, secondly, the pagans, as those who do not accept the word of the Gospel gospel, and, finally, heretics who distort the truth of Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, as well as those who separated from the Church not only due to doctrinal, but also canonical differences. Finally, the third meaning of the verb - “to split, to cut” - is actualized with the memory of Cain’s murder of Abel, which symbolizes the bitter attitude towards the Church and the destructive nature of the actions of those who oppose it, even if they sometimes bear the name of Christians and pose as brothers. The book was created in the wake of the Second Ecumenical Council, which became an important turning point in relations between the Church and the empire. Until this time, the throne was more often occupied by emperors who patronized the Arians and persecuted the Orthodox, but Theodosius I saw in the establishment of a single faith and a single religion a guarantee of the strength and stability of his empire. As a result, one of the significant results of the Second Ecumenical Council was the recognition of the legitimacy of only the Orthodox Church; other religious meetings were considered illegal. The question arose of who can and who cannot be considered Catholics. A similar situation arose in the West, since Gratian became practically the first ruler of this part of the empire who gave primacy to the Niceans. In this case, one of the tasks of St. Ambrose was to give the most complete list of dogmatic teachings, the adherents of which find themselves not only outside the Church, but also outside the law. Indeed, long lists of unacceptable opinions with their brief descriptions and sometimes refutations appear several times in the text (6–12, 23–26, 46–51). The fullness of human nature is discussed in most detail in the first part and the term “unborn” in the second, which makes it possible to judge the real danger of disagreement in these issues. Exposition of the doctrine of the incarnation by St. Ambrose is distinguished by the clarity of his Christological formulations, which often resemble aphorisms built on the principle of antinomy. In Christ a perfect God and a perfect man are recognized; it speaks of His two births - one from the Father, and the other from the Virgin Mary (35); the intercommunication of properties is recognized (36:39), but the need to clearly distinguish which nature each action belongs to is stipulated (37); the fullness and truth of human nature in Christ is defended, consisting of a rational soul and animate flesh (53, 63:65), the truth, and not the illusory nature of its suffering on the cross (45–46); any changes that, according to the Arians, the incarnation was supposed to lead to in the divine essence (40:44), as well as in the number and nature of the relationships between the Persons of the Holy Trinity (77), are denied. St. Ambrose denounces various incorrect Christological opinions, but specifically dwells on the teachings of Apollinaris (51–53, 64–76), who, when creating his system, pursued the goal of consistently justifying the possibility of salvation for man, which he misunderstood. Thus, his position that the Word took the place of the rational soul in the perceived flesh allows him to speak, firstly, about the suffering of blameless passions by God Himself, and secondly, to exclude the human mind as unstable in goodness, and therefore unsuitable in the matter of redemption. In the soteriology of St. Ambrose, on the contrary, the necessary conditions are the fullness of human nature (56:71). To the concern of Apollinaris: are there not two dominant principles in Christ, if we recognize in Him the reality of the human mind, St. Ambrose responds not with a description of how and why such unity is possible, but with a rhetorical question: are we really dividing Christ?.. (75). This suggests that he sees the problem and knows its correct solution, but he does not yet have at his disposal the means to rationally justify it, since theology only had to find them 13. Terminological difficulty and vagueness persisted in distinguishing between nature and hypostasis. One of the ways to solve it, both in the field of triadology and in the field of Christology, is the grammatical category of animateness / inanimateness: the person is spoken of in the masculine form, the essence - neuter (54). Not only does the construction of a soteriological perspective help St. Ambrose in refuting Apollinarianism, but also identifying the opponent’s mistakes in the interpretation of Scripture and contrasting them with his own explanation of the sacred text. It is interesting to see how the context of a theological dispute changes the arrangement and function of biblical quotations and how the quotations themselves help to open up new areas for theology, for example, the phrase from the Gospel of Luke: Jesus increased in age and in wisdom and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). St. Ambrose, in the course of the Arian polemic, had to refute that it substantiates the creation and variability of the Son, and in proving Apollinaris wrong, he cited it as unambiguous evidence of the perceived human mind. Finally, it will acquire a new meaning and relevance in the course of debates about the omniscience of Christ, which was most fully reflected in the works of Maximus the Confessor (VII century) 14. The second part of the book is entirely devoted to Trinitarian issues, although in the first part St. Ambrose often discusses the dignity of the Son: he cites the beginning of the Gospel of John, which has become the “classic” proof of the eternity of the Son and his deity (15–20), continues the theme of the Second Person as Wisdom in the typological interpretation of the book of Job 15 (41–43), and even the episode in which St. Peter confesses Christ as the Son of God 16, which is important for him not only as evidence of the incarnation of the Son, but also as another confirmation of His equality with the Father (29:33). It is no coincidence that the term “unborn” was chosen as the main target for criticism of the saint: it played a decisive role in the systems of Arius and Eunomius and, when attributed to nature, allowed them to talk about the dissimilarity of the born Son to the unborn Father. The importance and complexity of the problem at hand is evidenced by the fact that St. Ambrose not only cites provisions from the enemy’s teaching (95), but also restores the reasoning that formed their basis (96); he also does not miss a single method of argumentation when discussing it. Explicit evidence of the illegitimateness of the significance assigned to the chosen word when discussing Trinitarian problems is the fact that nowhere in the Holy Scriptures is it said about the unbornness of the Father (90–93) 17 . The principle of St. Ambrose becomes proof that neither the properties “born” and “unborn”, nor the names “father” and “son” can be attributed to nature, but the former determine the method of origin of nature (97) and the own properties of those who have the same nature (100), and the latter indicate the nature of their relationship. To confirm that origin from different origins and in different ways does not always entail a change in essence, two examples are given from the Holy Scriptures. The book of Genesis tells three times about the creation of birds: in the first case they are produced by water 18 , in the second God Himself forms them from the earth 19 , in the third He turns to the birds themselves with the command: be fruitful and multiply! 20 Different origins are also characteristic of human nature: Adam was created from the dust of the ground, but he gives birth to sons who share his nature, and the supernatural birth of the Lord Jesus Christ also does not abolish His consubstantiality with our nature, but renews the method of human birth 21 (102-105). Evidence of the ambiguous connection between the words “son” and “birth” is also provided by the legislative practice of adoption of stepchildren, and the accepted theological distinction between sons by nature and by grace (98). The concept of “unborn” acquires a particularly significant meaning in the system of Eunomius, who recognized the ontological status of the name and believed that each nature has a true name that corresponds to and fully reveals its essence, and that the names attached to God are true and all of them, on the one hand, reveal, and on the other hand, are contained in the definition of “unborn” 22. St. Ambrose finds a reason to mock the word so valued by his opponents in Greek philosophy. Matter is considered unborn in it, which, like the thicket of a forest, is called ὕλη 23 (94). The irony of this remark is aimed not so much at showing the “strangeness” of philosophical terminology, but at giving an example of the lexical compatibility of the main concept in Arian teaching with words denoting base and disproportionate things to God, and on an emotional level to discredit the definition underlying the heretical reasoning about the Father. The feigned readiness of St. Ambrose to recognize the pricelessness of this term” 24 (95) also does not sound like praise, but another accusation. The book ends with an Old Testament quotation, where the Holy Spirit is called the Almighty, which, according to St. Ambrose, sufficiently proves the equality of the Third Person with the Father and the Son (116). Pneumatomachus are mentioned once in the list of heretics (9). And in another place the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove during the baptism of the Lord is given as an example of the need for God to take on a bodily form in order to become visible to His creation. The extreme brevity in the development of this topic allows us to assume the absence of influential movements, whose error would consist only of an incorrect teaching about the Spirit. In the writings of St. Ambrose's level of education was clearly reflected. He knows Greek, which in his time is no longer so common in the Latin West. He loves to make references to Greek words, and his fascination with etymologies serves as a source of argumentation for him. For example, he believes that the form of the word οὐσία occurred as a result of the rearrangement of two sounds in the phrase οὖσα ἀεί 25, which is translated “endures forever” (100, cf.: 111). The folk etymology of the Greek word presented by him and not devoid of grace and ingenuity becomes a confirmation of one of the main positions disputed by the Arians about the eternity and beginninglessness of the Son. The phenomenon of metonymy helps St. Ambrose to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the literal understanding of the expression by the Apollinarians: And the Word became flesh (John 1:14) (59–60). He is also familiar with Greek mythology, and his opponents reproach him for his passion for pagan images. Sometimes they may seem unexpected and too bold even for a modern reader. For example, the word “giant”, found in the Greek text of the eighteenth Psalm 26, allows St. Ambrose sees here a prototype of Christ, since the giants of Greek mythology, as the offspring of Uranus and Gaia, that is, heaven and earth, combine two opposite natures (35). He is also fluent in the rhetorical figurative system: human life is like the sea, the Church is like a strong ship (34), the flesh of Christ is like the removed military armor of a conqueror (56). Outlined in the presentation of St. Ambrose dotted the theme of the unknowability of not only God (7, 21:42), but also of creation (16), about the supernatural birth of Christ as the main condition for the renewal of human nature (104), about the appearance of God in a visible image to creation as one of the goals of His incarnation (22), the understanding of salvation not only in the aspect of the destruction of sin, but also the deification of man (54), about the nature of the Sacrifice on the Cross (54), of course, not could have received their full development within the framework of one work, but they testified to the comprehensiveness and power of the author’s theological thought. De incarnationis dominicae Sacramento / On the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation The work “On the Mystery of the Lord's Incarnation” (De incarnationis dominicae Sacramento) 150 completes the main dogmatic works of St. Ambrose "On Faith" and "On the Holy Spirit". The name that has entered scientific use is given in the text of the treatise by the author himself (63). The significance of this text for patristic literature, not only Latin, but also Greek, is confirmed by the fact that excerpts from it were given at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and in the medieval West it was appreciated and quoted by Thomas Aquinas 151. An important basis for dating are the words of the author himself that all five books “On Faith”, the completion of which dates back to the end of 380 - beginning of 381, were already written by him (62). Deacon Paulinus describes the circumstances of the appearance of the treatise on the Incarnation 152: two Arianians, cuviculars 153 of the Emperor Gratian, asked St. Ambrose asked a question about the incarnation of the Lord and promised to return for an answer. The next day, the saint and the people were waiting for them at the Portian Basilica, but they, having forgotten about the meeting, went on a country walk, on which an accident happened to them, and both died. St. Ambrose, without waiting for their arrival and not knowing about what had happened, delivered a sermon, which became the first part of the work. The mention of the Cuvicularii testifies to the stay of Emperor Gratian in Mediolan (dating from the spring of 381 to the summer of 383). In the second part of the essay, the author answers the objection: how can the Unborn and the Born be of the same essence? - expressed by Palladius of Ratiar at the Council of Aquileia in September 381. 154 All this allows us to assert that the essay “On the Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation” was written at the end of 381 - beginning of 382. 155 The lengthy discussion on the dignity of the Apostle Peter, which seems more like a digression from the main topic of the incarnation than a necessary point in its development, may be an indirect reference to the disputes that were waged in the Roman Church under Pope Damasus (366-384). Damasus insisted that the special position determined by Christ ap. Peter, is shared only by the Roman popes as his heirs in the see and that it is they who act as the authority of both power and faith for all other bishops. St. Ambrose does not deny the special position of St. Peter, but defines it by its significance in keeping the faith and its special role in its confession, and not by the advantage of honor and position (see: 27, 32–34). One can also see in this praise a response to the rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, which gives the See of Constantinople second place after Rome 156. Denunciations of heretics usually allow the reader to easily understand the author’s attitude to the facts presented, but it is in vain to look for a system of evidence in them and it is not always easy to determine who or what is hidden under certain periphrastic descriptions, if we remember the possible caricature deformation of the proposed portraits and sketches. For example, the Christological scheme “Word - Flesh” 157 (Λόγος – σάρξ), which infringes upon the perceived human nature in Christ, replacing the rational soul in it with the Logos Himself, was accepted by both the Arians and their opponent in the trinitarian question, Apollinaris, but on different grounds. The Arians, who did not recognize the divine dignity of the Son, did not face the problem of how divinity and humanity could be united in Christ. Apollinaris, on the contrary, for the first time, although unsuccessfully, tried to express the method of unity of two natures in the God-Man, and his unsuccessful formula “the single nature of God the Word incarnate” laid the foundation for the Monophysite teaching. However, none of them can be accused of assimilating suffering to the divine nature, if they remain within the framework of their established systems. St. Ambrose takes the enemy's premises to their logical limit and draws from them extreme conclusions, the absurdity of which the heretics themselves would protest. Understanding the unity proposed by this erroneous scheme as natural, he rejects the resulting view that the divine essence itself underwent bodily variability and suffering (57–58). Reasoning is structured in accordance with the meanings of words accepted at the time of the author, reflecting specific concepts, but in modern language they have often lost the necessary shades. Thus, the Russian adjective “similar” (Greek ὅμοιος, Latin similis) does not convey the meaning of this term, “similar in some quality, but not in essence,” necessary for understanding the dispute with the Omiyas 158 . For example, one person is similar to another in appearance, but by nature they are of the same essence (108). Things can be similar in shape, color and any other, often random, properties, but different in nature (107). In the proper sense, only that which belongs to one nature, that is, consubstantial, can be similar. St. Ambrose, rejecting the suitability of the term “similar” for discussing nature, follows precisely these ideas. In addition, he speaks of likeness by communion and by imitation (for example, people are called to be like the Father in holiness 159), but neither one nor the other reflects the essence (111). In Latin theology, to denote consubstantiality, the phrase unius substantiae, “one nature,” was adopted, which entered the theological tradition of the West starting with Tertullian and did not arouse either suspicion or protest. Having broken it into two independent words, which is what St. did. Ambrose (81–88), it was easier to find the necessary evidence in Scripture. Another circumstance increased the number of places suitable for substantiating this term, easing the position of the Latin exegete: the word substantia served as a translation for two Greek ones. On the one hand, it corresponds to οὐσία (100) and the meaning “essence” is assigned to it, and on the other hand, it is a morphological tracing paper and serves as a translation for ὑπόστασις, which means hypostasis, or person. The main disadvantage of such translation correspondences was that in most cases the lexemes “hypostasis” and “nature” are not synonymous 160. In addition, St. Ambrose does not hesitate to cite cases where the concept of “nature” is expressed by the synonym φύσις (translated into Latin natura). St. Ambrose begins his book with an interpretation of the Old Testament story of Abel and Cain (1–12). At the heart of his reasoning are the words of God addressed to Cain: If you offer a gift faithfully, but do not discern correctly, you sin (Gen. 4:7). The saint sees the main task as explaining what the sin of “wrong discernment” consists of. The variability of answers to the question of why God accepted the gifts of Abel, but not his brother, is based on a play on the meaning of the Latin verb divido 161. The first - “to choose, to separate” - allows us to give a literal interpretation and recognize the reason for Cain’s rejection that he chose the worst fruits for sacrifice. In the second meaning - “to be aware of difference” - the verb is synonymous with iudicare (“to judge, reason”) and allows the author to resort to the typological method of exegesis. According to St. Ambrose, the truth of discernment for the Old Testament righteous lay in the prophetic foreknowledge of the future incarnation. Abel brought the firstborn of his sheep, and his main dignity lies in the fact that he comprehended the transformative meaning of his sacrifice and pointed with it to the Only Begotten Son as the coming Lamb of God and Savior. Cain's inability to correctly discern and understand the saving meaning of the divine economy led to the non-acceptance of his gifts. To the concern of Apollinaris: are there not two dominant principles in Christ, if we recognize in Him the reality of the human mind, St. Ambrose responds not with a description of how and why such unity is possible, but with a rhetorical question: are we really dividing Christ?.. (75). This suggests that he sees the problem and knows its correct solution, but he does not yet have at his disposal the means to rationally justify it, since theology only had to find them 162. Terminological difficulty and vagueness persisted in distinguishing between nature and hypostasis. One of the ways to solve it, both in the field of triadology and in the field of Christology, is the grammatical category of animateness / inanimateness: the person is spoken of in the masculine form, the essence - neuter (54). Not only does the construction of a soteriological perspective help St. Ambrose in refuting Apollinarianism, but also identifying the opponent’s mistakes in the interpretation of Scripture and contrasting them with his own explanation of the sacred text. It is interesting to see how the context of a theological dispute changes the arrangement and function of biblical quotations and how the quotations themselves help to open up new areas for theology, for example, the phrase from the Gospel of Luke: Jesus increased in age and in wisdom and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). St. Ambrose, in the course of the Arian polemic, had to refute that it substantiates the creation and variability of the Son, and in proving Apollinaris wrong, he cited it as unambiguous evidence of the perceived human mind. Finally, it will acquire a new meaning and relevance in the course of debates about the omniscience of Christ, which was most fully reflected in the works of Maximus the Confessor (VII century) 163. The second part of the book is entirely devoted to Trinitarian issues, although in the first part St. Ambrose often discusses the dignity of the Son: he cites the beginning of the Gospel of John, which has become the “classic” proof of the eternity of the Son and his deity (15–20), continues the theme of the Second Person as Wisdom in the typological interpretation of the book of Job 164 (41–43), and even the episode in which St. Peter confesses Christ as the Son of God 165, which is important for him not only as evidence of the incarnation of the Son, but also as another confirmation of His equality with the Father (29:33). It is no coincidence that the term “unborn” was chosen as the main target for criticism of the saint: it played a decisive role in the systems of Arius and Eunomius and, when attributed to nature, allowed them to talk about the dissimilarity of the born Son to the unborn Father. The importance and complexity of the problem at hand is evidenced by the fact that St. Ambrose not only cites provisions from the enemy’s teaching (95), but also restores the reasoning that formed their basis (96); he also does not miss a single method of argumentation when discussing it. Explicit evidence of the illegitimateness of the significance assigned to the chosen word when discussing Trinitarian problems is the fact that nowhere in the Holy Scriptures is it said about the unbornness of the Father (90–93) 166 . The principle of St. Ambrose becomes proof that neither the properties “born” and “unborn”, nor the names “father” and “son” can be attributed to nature, but the former determine the method of origin of nature (97) and the own properties of those who have the same nature (100), and the latter indicate the nature of their relationship. To confirm that origin from different origins and in different ways does not always entail a change in essence, two examples are given from the Holy Scriptures. The book of Genesis tells three times about the creation of birds: in the first case, they are produced by water 167, in the second, God Himself forms them from the earth, 168, in the third, He addresses the birds themselves with the command: be fruitful and multiply! 169 Different origins are also characteristic of human nature: Adam was created from the dust of the ground, but he gives birth to sons who share his nature, and the supernatural birth of the Lord Jesus Christ also does not abolish His consubstantiality with our nature, but renews the method of human birth 170 (102-105). Evidence of the ambiguous connection between the words “son” and “birth” is also provided by the legislative practice of adoption of stepchildren, and the accepted theological distinction between sons by nature and by grace (98). The concept of “unborn” acquires a particularly significant meaning in the system of Eunomius, who recognized the ontological status of the name and believed that each nature has a true name that corresponds to and fully reveals its essence, and that the names attached to God are true and all of them, on the one hand, reveal, and on the other hand, are contained in the definition of “unborn” 171. St. Ambrose finds a reason to mock the word so valued by his opponents in Greek philosophy. Matter is considered unborn in it, which, like the thicket of a forest, is called ὕλη 172 (94). The irony of this remark is aimed not so much at showing the “strangeness” of philosophical terminology, but at giving an example of the lexical compatibility of the main concept in Arian teaching with words denoting base and disproportionate things to God, and on an emotional level to discredit the definition underlying the heretical reasoning about the Father. The feigned readiness of St. Ambrose to recognize the pricelessness of this term” 173 (95) also does not sound like praise, but another accusation. In the writings of St. Ambrose's level of education was clearly reflected. He knows Greek, which in his time is no longer so common in the Latin West. He loves to make references to Greek words, and his fascination with etymologies serves as a source of argumentation for him. For example, he believes that the form of the word οὐσία occurred as a result of the rearrangement of two sounds in the phrase οὖσα ἀεί 174, which is translated “endures forever” (100, cf.: 111). The folk etymology of the Greek word presented by him and not devoid of grace and ingenuity becomes a confirmation of one of the main positions disputed by the Arians about the eternity and beginninglessness of the Son. The phenomenon of metonymy helps St. Ambrose to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the literal understanding of the expression by the Apollinarians: And the Word became flesh (John 1:14) (59–60). He is also familiar with Greek mythology, and his opponents reproach him for his passion for pagan images. Sometimes they may seem unexpected and too bold even for a modern reader. For example, the word “giant”, found in the Greek text of the eighteenth psalm 175, allows St. Ambrose sees here a prototype of Christ, since the giants of Greek mythology, as the offspring of Uranus and Gaia, that is, heaven and earth, combine two opposite natures (35). He is also fluent in the rhetorical figurative system: human life is like the sea, the Church is like a strong ship (34), the flesh of Christ is like the removed military armor of a conqueror (56). To translate the treatise, the Latin text of the publication was used: Sant’ Ambrogio. Il mistero dell'ncarnazione del Signore / Introd., trad., not. e indici E. Bellini. Milano: Biblioteca Ambrosiana; Roma: Città Nuova, 1979 // Sant’ Ambrogio. Opere dogmatiche II. (Sancti Ambrosii episcopi Mediolanensis opera; 16). P. 357–461. Next up is Bellini. See: Bellini E. Introduzione // Sant’ Ambrogio. Il mistero dell'incarnazione del Signore. P. 367–368. Kuvicularii - bed servant, a high position at the imperial court. Bishop Palladius of Ratiar, who defended radical subordinationist views, was condemned at this council. See: Bellini. R. 359–361. See: Bellini. R. 395, not. 6, 7. This scheme is based on a literal understanding of the Gospel saying: And the Word became flesh (John 1:14). The Christological scheme followed by St. Ambrose: “Logos is a man.” Aristotle spoke about identity (ταὐτόν) in essence, similarity (ὅμοιον) in quality and equality (ἴσον) in quantity (Metaphysica, 5. 15). The meanings of these words and the rules for their use continued to remain relevant in the 4th century. There are four places in the New Testament (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:7; Heb. 1:3, 11:1) where the word “hypostasis” has the meaning “essence,” and therefore, unlike the Greek text, the basic meaning of the word chosen in the Latin translation turns out to correspond to the desired concept. The Latin verb divido renders the Greek διαιρέω. Lexemes in both languages ​​turn out to be equivalent in the meanings necessary for the further development of thought. See: Bellini. R. 373, not. 5. This task will be solved only in the 6th century, when, thanks to the works of Leontius of Byzantium, a new concept will be realized and a new term “hypostatization” will be adopted for it. This should also include the problem of two wills in Christ. See: Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20. Probably, the criticism of the word “consubstantial” by opponents of the Nicene Confession for its unbiblical origin suggested St. Ambrose this move in the dispute. The supernatural method of conception and birth makes the Lord’s flesh free from original sin and allows us to speak of Him as the new Adam. This formulation of the question led to another unacceptable position about the knowability of the divine essence through finding the correct names. The main meaning of ὕλη is “forest; firewood,” in philosophical language this word acquired the meaning “substance, matter.” The Latin word inaestimabilis combines two opposing meanings: “extremely valuable” and “worthless.” The transcription of Greek words below allows us to understand why St. Ambrose speaks of the permutation of only one sound, but he ignores the place of stress, since this would deprive him of the possibility of talking about a single phonetic difference: οὐσία [usiā], οὖσα ἀεί [usāi]. It is usually translated into Russian as a giant, which makes association with the character of Greek mythology impossible. See: Gen.4:2. Obviously, this text was read at the service. The spiritual understanding of St. Ambrose here calls the typological method of interpretation. Jews in the first centuries of Christianity were usually classified as heretics. Compare: Epiphanius of Salamis, anc. 12; pan. 4. Refutation of Monarchianism by St. Ambrose see: fid. 2. 118; spir. s. 1.136. The work of St. is directed against those who do not recognize the divine dignity of the Holy Spirit. Ambrose "On the Holy Spirit". Wed: John 1:18. See: John 1:14. Heretics denied the divine nature of the Son and did not believe in the reality of the Incarnation, see: Bellini. R. 381, not. 5. According to legend, John the Theologian, before being called by Christ, was a disciple of John the Baptist, whom the Gospel calls the voice of one crying in the wilderness (see: Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; Isaiah 40:3). One of the main provisions of the Arians, refuted at the First Ecumenical Council. The exclamation is directed against Eunomius, who affirmed the knowability of God by essence. All four were witnesses to the Transfiguration of the Lord on Mount Tabor, see: Matthew 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36. Peter and John are often mentioned together, see: Mark 3:3; Luke 22:8; John 20:2–10, 21:7, 20–21; Acts 3:1–4; 4:13, 19, 8:14; Gal.2:9. St. Ambrose follows the Stoic terminology here: principale - the rational governing principle in man, cf.: Isaac, 2. 5; 3. 8. – Note. ed. See: Gellinck I. de. Note sur l’expression “Geminae gigas substantiae” // Recherches de science religieuse. 1914. 5. P. 416–421. Interpretation of the Song of Songs, originating from Origen: The groom is Christ, the bride is the soul of man. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 6. 6–7; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 77.8; Wed also: fid. 3.27. See: Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34. See: Matthew 27:59–60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53. Wed: Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 6. 4–5; 7. 1–2; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 8. 4–5; 9. 1–2. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 2. 3. St. Ambrose quotes Apollinaris of Laodicea. The rules of rhetoric did not allow the name of the author under discussion to be named; readers themselves had to recognize him, see: Bellini. R. 413, not. 6. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 5. 2–4; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 7. 2–4. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 5.2; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 7. 2. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 4. 9–10; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 6. 9–10. Wed: Col.2:14–15. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 6. 7; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 8. 7. Paragraphs 57–61 were quoted at the Council of Ephesus. See: Bellini. R. 417. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 4. 4–6; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 6. 4–6. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 8. 3–4; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 10. 3–4. infirmitate QXMVZBW infirmitati G Acta Conc. Eph. infirmitatum Maur. obnoxii iam Faller obnoxiam QH Compare: Gregory the Theologian, epist. ad Cled. 7.32. See: John 12:27. Wed: John 11:33. See: John 17:9, 15, 20; Matthew 26:39. See: Rom.11:33; Col.2:9. Compare: Epiphanius of Salamis, anc. 78; pan. 77. 26–30. Wed: symb. Quicumque. 32. See: Athanasius of Alexandria, epist. ad Er. 8. 7–9; Epiphanius of Salamis, pan. 10. 3, 7–9. See: Basil the Great, adu. Eun. 2. 6. Compare: Cicero, de oratore 1. 209. See: Bellini. R. 441, not. 2. Wed: John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Hebrews 11:17. Wed: symb. Quicumque. 22; spir. s. 1. 28, 120. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, orat. 29. For relevant texts from Eunomius, see: Bellini. R. 447, not. 9, 10, 11. See: Matthew 8:20; Ps.89:23; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, orat. 31.11. For the sources of this teaching, see: Bellini. R. 453–455, not. 1. See: Col.1:15; Hebrews 1:3. For more details, see: Cantalamessa R. II Cristo immagine di Dio nelle discussioni teologiche del quarto secolo // Teologia, Liturgia, Storia. Miscellanea in onore di Carlo Manziana. Brescia, 1977, pp. 29–38. See: Basil the Great, adu. Eun. 2. 16–17. See § 100 above, also: fid. 3.127. See: Rev.1:8; Zechariah 2:8; John 16:15. For a more detailed analysis, see: fid. 2. 34–38. See: Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9.