II. Трактат свт. Амвросия Медиоланского «De Spiritu Sancto»

In the second part of the article we would like to focus our attention on the theology of St. Ambrose of Milan, outlining his pneumatological views based on the treatise “De Spiritu Sancto” 80 that we translated. But in view of the fact that any message written by such a person as the Bishop of Milan (especially if it is addressed not to mere mortals, but to Augustus himself) not only sets out doctrinal truths, but also has a political overtones, we see it necessary to first highlight issues relating to Ambrose himself, his era and the situation then prevailing in the empire. By looking at the life and work of Ambrose of Milan through the prism of his state and social activities, we will be able to shed light on some aspects of the issue we are studying, which will give us solid ground for a correct assessment of the theological works and views of St. bishop. St. Ambrose - political and church leader of the era The “larger” and more multifaceted a person is, the further it is necessary to “move away” in order to evaluate it. Therefore, such a significant personality as that of Ambrose of Milan must be considered in the context of his entire era, “the bright imprint of which he bears on himself” 81. The first thing that catches your eye is how harmoniously his personality combined an outstanding statesman and a selfless servant of the Church. These are the qualities, according to Broglie, that characterize Ambrose as a political figure: “extraordinary organizational and administrative abilities, “imbued” with Roman law, an almost unmistakable political instinct, a flexible response to the political situation ‹…› and a wide circle of acquaintances in the upper echelons of society, truly Roman patriotism and intransigence towards the enemies of the fatherland and barbarians, a practical inclination of character and stoic courage in troubles and difficulties" 82. But what qualities are attributed to them by St. Ambrose as a servant of the Church: “As a Christian figure, converted to the future era, Ambrose is distinguished by the fact that he invariably puts the interests of the church at the forefront, decisively and mercilessly fights against its opponents, using a variety of, including “non-Christian” means, puts the Church above the state and achieves the subordination of everyone, even the emperors themselves, actively manipulates public opinion, recruiting many adherents of the new religion, firmly defends the positions of the dogmatic majority, adhered to the Nicene faith, and strictly respects the interests of the Western Church, while recognizing at the same time the priority of Rome” 83. In the biography of Ambrose, which came from the pen of his biographer Pavlin, one can find such virtues of the bishop as simplicity and accessibility in communication. It seems that in many ways it was these qualities that allowed St. Ambrose to win the hearts of people and gain people's love. The secular career of Ambrose Aurelius developed according to a fairly standard pattern. Being of noble origin, possessing outstanding oratorical qualities, and having repeatedly proven himself to be a brilliant organizer, he quickly achieved high government positions. Just one step separated him from the post of prefect once occupied by his father, which was the ultimate dream of any statesman of the empire. But the year 374 brought dramatic changes to the life of the successful young official Ambrose. It was in this year that the Arian bishop Auxentius died, which led to a fierce struggle between the Orthodox and Arians for the most important see of the West 84. On November 30, 374, his baptism took place. After this, in violation of all Church canons (the 2nd canon of the Council of Nicaea in 325 imposes a direct ban on newly ordained persons joining the clergy), within one week he goes through all the degrees of initiation one after another, and on the eighth day, Sunday, December 7, he becomes a bishop 85. This is the description of the appearance of the newly elected bishop given by A. Paredï “This forty-year-old consular was of short stature, with an elongated and refined face, a beard and black mustache emphasized the whiteness of his skin and the tenderness of his features, he had large, expressive eyes; finally, calm and restrained manners exposed the Roman aristocrat, indicating that he had the skill and ability to command in his blood” 86 . What deserves special attention is that the figure of St. Ambrose was convenient both for the Orthodox, since they considered him one of their own, knowing that there were martyrs and virgins in his family, and for the Arians, since they had no particular reason to treat him with hostility, realizing that in his religious policy when he was prefect, he was completely impartial. The Western Church, which was in an uncertain state at that time, acquired in the person of St. Ambrose is the leader she needs so much. “He belonged to the class of great administrators of the empire, solid and sound minds, imbued with the principles of ancient law, respectful of authority, devoted to the maintenance of order. He brought to the management of the Church the clarity of vision, determination, understanding of reality and life that he acquired while governing the provinces” 87. Another important point, indicating that the star of a truly greatest Church and statesman has risen on the horizon of the era, is the presence at the ordination ceremony of St. Ambrose of the Emperor Valentinian himself. It is also noteworthy that just a few days after his election as bishop, St. Ambrose could afford to speak with the emperor in a rather harsh and accusatory tone. Valentinian not only did not interfere with this, but also in every possible way encouraged such a bold and principled position of the newly-crowned bishop, encouraging him to continue to act boldly in accordance with the divine law 88. Like the best representatives of his era, St. Ambrose strove to harmoniously combine elements of pagan and Christian education. Having already become a bishop and begun his vigorous preaching activity, St. Ambrose understood that an attempt to influence educated Romans simply by denying the ancient heritage would be a complete fiasco. Therefore, he holds the idea that the Hellenic authors did not at all possess true gnosis, but drew it from the Christian Holy Scriptures. It is the biblical Old Testament men, according to St. Ambrose, stood at the origins of the best ideas of pagan thought. That is why the Bishop of Milan encouraged his flock to study the best ancient thinkers, saying that by doing so, Christians do not borrow what belongs to others, but only return what belongs to them by right (that is, the Holy Scriptures). In this context, quite interesting and fair to St. Ambrose (albeit a very harsh thought towards the Church) is expressed by M. Kazakov: “Ambrose and other progressive, thoughtful figures of the Christian Church should be given credit for the fact that thanks to their efforts, which have not yet been fully appreciated, much of the priceless ancient heritage was preserved, and not everything was destroyed by insane Christian fanatics, who in a frantic frenzy destroyed the greatest creations of world culture” 89. The desire of St. also deserves attention. Ambrose to the acquisition of new books recently published by the best theologians of his time. Thus, at the very beginning of 381, he was completely absorbed in editing the three books of his treatise “On the Holy Spirit,” written for Emperor Gratian. And in this work, St. Ambrose actively uses the sermons that Gregory of Nazianzus preached in Constantinople just a few months earlier (at the end of 380). Thus, St. Ambrose was sincerely convinced of the important role of culture in the relationship between the Church and society, believing that “sometimes excellent thoughts remain at the level of pious aspirations due to a lack of appropriate decoration” 90 . St. Ambrose was truly able to combine in his multifaceted nature the selfless service of the Church and the powerful influence of a subtle and sensitive politician on the internal and external affairs of the empire. His whole life is a synthesis of state and Church interests (and the former often dominated the latter). Below we will try to highlight a number of the most striking milestones in the life of the great bishop, through the prism of which he will appear before us precisely as the political and Church leader of his era. Here we will deliberately not consider the relationship between St. Ambrose with Gratian. We will dwell here in more detail on such issues as the opposition of the Mediolan bishop to the Arian court of Valentinian II, his successful “political maneuvers” against the backdrop of the heated relations of the legitimate emperor with the usurper Maximus, and, of course, on the unprecedented relations that St. could afford. Ambrose with the sole ruler of the entire empire, Theodosius the Great. Well, we’ll start with an episode that went down in history under the name “dispute about the altar of Victory.” The end of 383 and the beginning of 384 were marked by the strengthening of pagan positions in the empire, as the leading representatives of the pagan party in the Senate occupied the main posts in the state. The pathos of the pagan elite was marked by an attempt to restore paganism as a state religion. To bring their claims to life, they needed to go directly to the young Emperor Valentinian II in order to win him over to their side. A convenient moment for this came when St. was absent from Mediolan (where the imperial court had already moved by that time). Ambrose, whose influence on public policy the pagan party could not underestimate. The dispute that flared up in connection with this appeal of the pagan senators to the Roman ruler went down in history under the name of the dispute about the altar of Victory, since the main demand of the pagans was the return to the Senate building of the pagan temple of Victory, which for a long time was a symbol of the “good old” pagan past of Rome 91. In response to the speech of the head of the pagan delegation Symmachus, St. Ambrose writes his 17th letter to the imperial court. When reading this letter, one cannot help but pay attention to the tone chosen by St. Ambrose to communicate with the emperor. This is not at all a petition from a subordinate to his master, but rather a conversation between equals. The bishop gives the emperor specific instructions on how he needs to behave in the current circumstances. Moreover, these instructions often cross the line of advice and become direct threats. St. Ambrose tells Valentinian that earthly rulers are obliged to serve God and faith, just as they themselves are served by the people under their rule. If the emperor deigns to ignore the advice of the bishop, then once he comes to the church, he will find only resistance there 92 . Clearly and consistently St. Ambrose here conveys the idea that the power given to him is higher than the imperial power. That's what St. Ambrose himself writes regarding the outcome of this entire enterprise: “Then Valentinian listened to my report and did nothing except what the cause of our faith required. And his entourage agreed with this” 93. The dispute over the Altar of Victory was the main event in the confrontation between Christians and pagans in the Western Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. Less than a year after the end of the excitement around the Altar of Victory, St. Ambrose of Milan had to try on the mantle of a diplomat over the episcopal omophorion, which, although it was unusual for a man of the Church, was, however, fully consistent with the inner spirit of the saint. As a result of agreements reached between Constantinople and Trier in 384, Maximus and Theodosius concluded a temporary truce. It is quite possible that Theodosius recognized the usurper Maximus as emperor and agreed that the provinces he had previously captured would remain in his zone of influence. However, the usurper's relations with Mediolanus were still very uncertain. Moreover, due to active military operations against the barbarians who attacked Raetia, they worsened even more. Since Maxim, who viewed these military operations as nothing other than a threat to his influence, was ready to take retaliatory steps against Valentinian, there was a need for new negotiations. The choice of the imperial court was obvious. Who else if not St. Ambrose, on the one hand, already having experience in negotiations, and on the other, indebted to the young emperor for the favorable outcome of the matter concerning the Altar of Victory, could take on this responsible mission, the price of which was not only the preservation of the legitimately ruling dynasty, but also the security of the Church 94. Later St. Ambrose will say that his first embassy was undertaken for the well-being of the emperor, the second - for peace and piety 95. Arriving as a diplomat at the court of the usurper and murderer, St. Ambrose immediately chose a rather harsh and irreconcilable tone of conversation, thereby making it clear that Maxim would negotiate with his equal. Pullable St. Ambrose's accusations could cost him his life, but the main goal of the negotiations for the Bishop of Mediolan was one - to create in front of Maxim the appearance that Mediolan was completely safe. We can only marvel at the courage and boldness of St. Ambrose, who, as his biographer Paulinus reports, excommunicated Maximus from the Church because he refused to repent “for shedding the blood of his master (that is, Emperor Gratian) and innocent people” 96. However, as soon as the threat of invasion by Maximus’s legions passed and the position of young Valentinian strengthened, his mother, the Arian Justina, who always considered St. Ambrose, a competitor to the imperial power and her personal enemy, decided to make a daring political move by trying to take away the basilica in Mediolan from the Church. Paredi believes that the reason for this was that “after two political missions to Trevira and victory in the issue with Symmachus, the prestige of St. Ambrose grew with dizzying speed" 97 . The confrontation over the Milan basilica, which began in 385, became the most significant of all the previous clashes between the bishop and the emperor. Here is what Paredi writes about the main stages of this struggle. In the spring of 386, the court categorically demanded from St. Ambrose to cede the Portian Basilica. He, of course, refused. In March, military units were sent to cordon off the city's basilicas. As Easter approaches, the struggle intensifies even more. On March 29, the first bloodshed occurred between the believers defending the basilica and several soldiers. In order to break the spirit of the people, the government repeatedly increased taxes on merchants. On April 1, an imperial notary came to the bishop, demanding an answer whether he really wanted to become a tyrant of the city? If so, then let him state it directly, then the government will take appropriate steps. But the next day everything suddenly stopped. The soldiers lifted the cordon and the traders were given their money back. Some suggest that the position of Valentinian II was so strongly influenced by some message from the eastern emperor Theodosius about ending the persecution of the Orthodox 98. The result of such a long confrontation was a demonstration of the weakness of power and the strength of the Church, which enjoys the boundless devotion of the people. Moreover, even some of the imperial soldiers, amazed by the preaching of St. Ambrose, went over to his side. In the context of these dramatic events, St. Ambrose made it clear once and for all that “the emperor belongs to the palaces, and the priest belongs to the church. You [Valentinian II] have been given the right over public buildings, not over sacred ones.”99 The authority of the court Arian party, led by Justina, was completely undermined. The completely demoralized imperial court was forced to retreat to Aquileia in order to get rid of the “tyrant bishop” at least for a while. St. Ambrose, having once again shown the primacy of the Church over the state and demonstrating his personal superiority over the emperor, was able to move from issues of local politics in the central part of Italy (which, in fact, only remained in the power of Valentinian) to issues of global politics throughout the western part of the empire, which at that moment was experiencing a painful transition from the dictatorship of the usurper Maximus to the rule of Emperor Theodosius. Having defeated Maximus, Theodosius became the single and most powerful ruler of the entire Roman Empire. Having received new lands into possession, Theodosius found himself face to face with many other issues, including the problem of interaction with the Western Church. Church-state relations in the West were radically different from what Theodosius was accustomed to in the East. Western bishops (and especially St. Ambrose) were in strict antagonism with the Caesar-papist “manners” of the eastern emperors. Since the views of St. Ambrose and Theodosius fundamentally did not coincide on the form of interaction between the Church and secular power, this sooner or later was bound to lead to an inevitable conflict between the emperor of the East and the Western Church leader. Moreover, the conflict that occurred turned out to be colored by the personal rivalry of two outstanding figures of their era 100 . It all started with an uprising in the city of Thessalonica, which occurred in the middle of 390. Sozomen writes that the reason for the uprising was the refusal of the chief of the Illyrian troops, Boterik, to release from prison to participate in the games a popular charioteer, accused of “shameful temptation of the cupbearer” 101. The frenzied masses, thirsting for spectacle, tore to pieces the unfortunate Boterik and, possibly, some other city officials. Thus, Theodoret reports that some government officials were killed and dragged through the streets 102. As soon as Theodosius learned about the uprising, he became furious. They were immediately given the order to severely punish the perpetrators, and since it was simply impossible to find specific instigators, then, according to Sozomen, they were ordered to put to death a certain number of the first people they met 103. St. Ambrose was informed about what had happened almost before the emperor himself. He considered it his duty to petition Theodosius for pardon for the guilty. However, due to unknown reasons (either Theodosius did not keep his word, or his decree canceling the punishment came late, or local officials were “overzealous”), a brutal reprisal against the people still occurred. There is no exact data on the scale of the incident. Peacock speaks of 7,000–15,000 people. But even if such figures are exaggerated, this event shocked the Roman Empire 104. Having learned about the upcoming visit of Theodosius to Milan, St. Ambrose hastily leaves the city in order to avoid meeting with the emperor. From his voluntary exile, St. Ambrose sends a letter of confidence to the emperor, not dictated as usual, but written in his own hand (Ep. 51). In it, the bishop directly says that what happened in Thessalonica should not have happened, tactfully making it clear that he would not be able to celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of the emperor. At first, Theodosius did not want to admit his guilt. But after some time, he realized that the bishop was right: by giving the order to kill many innocent people, he violated the laws established by God. Peacock writes that when St. Ambrose learned about Theodosius’s crime, then forbade him to enter the Church vaults, and also declared that it was impossible for him to begin the sacraments before repentance had been accomplished 105. This was nonsense. The emperor, the supreme ruler and king, practically a demigod, standing above all laws, humbly asks the bishop for forgiveness for what he has done. Paredi writes that “in 390 in Milan, Bishop St. Ambrose was the first who had the courage to call on the Christian emperor to plead guilty to the crime." 106 Paredi sees in this public repentance of Theodosius the triumph of the Church over the state 107. Historical analogies are also numerous: some here see a prototype of the coming confrontation between popes and emperors, comparing St. Ambrose with Gregory VII, who declared the possibility of the Church to overthrow emperors; others say that the victory of the Mediolan bishop is more significant than the reconciliation of Bonaparte with God and the walk of Henry IV to Canossa 108. One way or another, Theodosius’s repentance very clearly showed that Church power may well have superiority over secular power. This event also became a kind of turning point in the personal relationship between the bishop and the emperor. Although Theodosius will never fall under the full influence of St. Ambrose, however, in all his future religious policies he will resort to the advice of the Mediolan bishop. Having outlined in large strokes the influence of St. Ambrose of Milan on Church and state affairs, we can generally see that he truly was a political and Church leader of his era. What St. allowed himself to do in his relations with the emperors. Ambrose, not a single bishop of his era could allow it, and subsequent popes had to wage a long struggle to implement the ideas that were proclaimed by the Mediolan bishop back in the 4th century. Moreover, when St. Ambrose was already lying on his deathbed, his main opponent at the court of Theodosius and ill-wisher Stilicho, having learned about the bishop’s illness, as Peacock reports, said that with the passing of such a man, Italy would be threatened with death 109 . April 4, 397 the soul of St. Ambrose of Milan said goodbye to the body. Peacock reports that in the last minutes of his life the Lord Jesus himself appeared to him and smiled, looking at him. Paredi notes that 50 years after the death of St. Ambrose, “his city and his Church were plundered by hordes of barbarians, all Christian legislation, the creation of which had cost him such labor, seemed to collapse along with the empire” 110. Indeed, the Roman Empire survived the “main” bishop of the decline of his era by only 80 years, having fallen under the blows of the barbarians in 476. Reasons for writing the treatise and the general political situation Towards the end of the outgoing 4th century. On the military-political map of the Roman Empire, events took place that had a huge impact on both St. Ambrose, and all his contemporaries. It all started with the fact that in 376, Emperor Valens allowed the Goths, who had fled persecution from the northern tribes, to settle in the Thracian provinces, on the condition that they would provide recruits to the Roman army. But hunger and humiliation suffered by Roman bureaucrats led to the Goths revolting. The threat was growing more and more. Finally, Valens, paying attention to the uprising taking place in the Danube regions, set out on a campaign. Deciding not to wait for help from his nephew Gratian, he ordered battle. The completely defeated Roman army suffered a complete fiasco. Thus, the battle that took place in August 378 at Adrianople became one of the saddest pages in the history of the late Roman Empire 111. This is the picture of this tragedy that the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus paints: “Throwing lightning from their eyes, the barbarians followed ours, whose blood was already running cold in their veins. Some fell from an unknown blow, others were knocked over by the weight of those pushing, some died from the blow of their comrades; The barbarians crushed all resistance and gave no mercy to those who surrendered. In addition, the roads were blocked by many half-dead people, complaining of the agony experienced from their wounds, and along with them, whole shafts of dead horses mixed with people filled the plain. These never-to-be-replaced losses, which cost the Roman state so terribly dearly, were brought to an end by a night not illuminated by a single ray of the moon." 112 Theodoret adds: “When the barbarians reached the village where Valens, having heard about the defeat, tried to hide, they set a fire and, together with the village, burned the very opponent of piety” 113. And in a note to this place he adds: “Having converted the Goths to Arianism and thereby dooming them to eternal torment in hellfire, he himself was burned by them” 114. On the issue of the “Adrianople catastrophe,” St. Ambrose was of the opinion that the defeat of the Roman army and the death of the emperor were a natural consequence of the pro-Arian policy that Valens systematically implemented. Below we will pay special attention to the fact that St. Ambrose speaks on this matter in v. 17. treatise "De Spiritu Sancto". So, in response to the request of August Gratian, who in the same year 378 was preparing to launch a campaign against the Arian Goths, St. Ambrose writes the main dogmatic work of his life, De Fide. In the first two books of St. Ambrose reveals and proves the divinity of Christ. One of the thoughts of this treatise is that if the emperor is going to fight the Arian heretics, then he certainly needs the armor and weapons of the true faith. These are the words with which he admonishes Gratian: “Go openly into battle, fenced with the shield of faith and having a spiritual sword, go to the victory predicted in ancient times, foretold by the divine prophets” 115. The emperor was pleased with this treatise. Therefore, in the first months of 379, he personally wrote a short letter to the Bishop of Milan in a very informal tone. St. Ambrose was flattered to receive a similar message from Augustus himself. After all, we must remember that even in the Christian empire of that time, the emperor remained a kind of celestial being, and the magnificent court ceremony introduced by Diocletian was not abolished. And St. Ambrose did not hesitate to answer: “You, O most Christian sovereign, wished to write all the messages with your own hand, so that the letters themselves would be a sign and expression of your faith, your piety” 116. Gratian also asked that a treatise on the Holy Spirit be added to the exposition of the faith. Fulfilling the will of the august person, in 381 St. Ambrose writes three books, published under the general title “On the Holy Spirit.” In this work, St. Ambrose, through the prism of triadological teaching, expounds the doctrine of the third Person of the Trinity, speaking about His relationship to other Persons, nature, action, etc. When writing this treatise, St. Ambrose often resorts to authoritative Greek authors: St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind and the Cappadocians. Having been written at the beginning of 381, that is, during Gratian’s next campaign against the Goths in Macedonia 117, the treatise “On the Holy Spirit” was intended to provide moral support to the emperor in the face of the upcoming battles. And indeed, in the prologue to the treatise of St. Ambrose recalls the Old Testament leader of the Jewish people Gideon, speaking about his glorious victory over his enemies, which he achieved not with a large army, but with trust in God’s help and the courage of his small detachment. “What was Gideon moved by the prophecy when he heard that even after the loss of many people, the Lord would free His people from their enemies with one man?” 118 “Saint Gideon foresaw the sacrament. Finally, he chose three hundred (soldiers) for battle (Judges 7:6), to show that not by a large army, but by the sacrament of the Cross, the world would be freed from the attacks of formidable enemies. And yet he chooses the strong and the faithful, for he is still seeking from the Lord a more complete evidence of the future victory” 119. Now let's take a closer look at the previously mentioned 17th Art. 1 book of the treatise of St. Ambrose "On the Holy Spirit". This verse is interesting because it is the only place in the first book where St. Ambrose concerns the description of the historical realities of that time. So, we read: “...for Constantinople has already been converted by the word of God, and has received visible evidence of Your justice. After all, while the city, alarmed by the border wars, was warming the poison of the Arians in its depths, its walls were resounding with the enemy army. But as soon as he absolutely renounced the traitors to the faith, he saw the enemy himself and the judge of kings, whom he always used to fear, as a devotee, found him praying again, hid the dying man and took possession of the dead.” 120 When reading these lines, a number of questions arise: who are the traitors to the faith whom Constantinople renounced, who is the unknown “judge of kings” (and which kings), how did he become a devotee, etc. To answer these questions, let us turn to the Latin commentaries on this verse, left “in the margins” of Min’s edition. It is indicated here that a certain Valesius (apparently Heinrich Valesius - a French scientist, born in 1603 in Paris, was a publisher of works including Ammianus Marcellinus) 121 in his notes to the XXI book of Ammianus Marcellinus understands by “the very enemy and judge of kings” (hostem ipsum judicem regum) the barbarian leader Atanaric (id est Athanaricum regem); and under the kings who used to fear him, the rulers of the Eastern Empire (id est imperium Rom. in Oriente). About the poison of the Arians, Min’s notes say the following: “As long as the poison of Arius remained inside Constantinople, the danger of a Gothic invasion constantly loomed over it. Moreover, forty years after Eusebius of Nicomedia headed the see of Constantinople, Emperor Valens suffered a crushing defeat from the Goths” 122. Now let's try to reconcile this with historical realities. Among the barbarian leaders who especially bothered the Roman Empire in the second half of the 4th century, historians (in particular, Ammianus Marcellinus) single out Atanaric. Can we say that St. Ambrose, speaking of judice regum, is talking about this? Here is what V. Lavrov writes about Atanarik: “The following can be noted regarding Atanarik. It is unlikely that Ammianus Marcellinus, when using the term iudex, meant by Atanaric simply a judge. This would not correspond to the real status of the leader of the Tervingi. In addition, the term iudex Gothorum is used by Auxentius of Dorostol. In the life of Ulfilas, iudex Gothorum organized the persecution of Christians during the time of Constantius II. This means that this title was borne by the Gothic rulers” 123. So, in retrospect, Art. St. Ambrose wants to remind Gratian of the following events in their relatively recent history. As long as Constantinople warmed the Arian poison within its walls, the danger of a Gothic invasion always loomed over it. St. It is no coincidence that Ambrose says this, because two years before these lines are read by Gratian, his co-ruler Valens will have already suffered a crushing defeat from the Gothic leader Fritigern at Adrianople. But as soon as Constantinople renounced the traitors to the faith, that is, Emperor Theodosius, having been baptized in 380, declared Orthodoxy the official religion in the Eastern Roman Empire, then the very enemy and judge of the kings - the Gothic king Atanarik, whom the eastern emperors always feared, he (Constantinople) saw as a devotee and again found himself praying, since in the same 380 Atanarik, having been expelled Visigoths, was honorably accepted into the service of Theodosius. St. Ambrose becomes bishop in 374, which exactly coincides with the death of Valentinian. Young Gratian, who has gained power, is in constant fear of his stepmother Justina, who is ready to do anything to ensure that her son becomes emperor. Moscow State University Professor V.I. Kuzishchin notes that “Gracian at that moment was in dire need of a mentor and leader, and an experienced saint. Ambrose, who headed the capital’s bishopric, was destined to become such a mentor” 124. On 24 August 367 in Ambiana, Valentinian I proclaims the eight-year-old Gratian Augustus 125. Ammianus Marcellinus gives the following characterization of Gratian: “A young man, beautifully gifted, eloquent, restrained, warlike and gentle, and he could have followed in the footsteps of the best emperors (of the past), when the down began to adorn his cheeks, if his penchant for fun, under the corrupting influence of those closest to him, had not directed him to the empty pursuits of King Commodus, although he did not show bloodthirstiness at the same time” 126 . On the one hand, Gratian needed to resort to the authority of the Church in order to resist the machinations of Justina, on the other hand, St. Ambrose needed imperial support to fight the Arians. The first meeting of the emperor and the bishop in July 379 resulted in the signing of an edict on the abolition of religious tolerance, issued, of course, not without the influence of St. Ambrose. Following F. Dudden, Kazakov notes that “Ambrose became not only the emperor’s mentor in the Catholic faith, but also an adviser on the politics of the empire” 127. Although St. Ambrose always acted tactfully in relation to Gratian, not allowing himself to exert direct pressure, but with his frequent letters and personal meetings he somehow influenced the decisions made by the emperor. Thanks to such great trust placed in the bishop and his closeness to the strata of the highest state elite, the authority of St. Ambrose has increased many times over. From now on, heretics and pagans do not have the slightest chance to resist the ever-increasing influence of the Church in the West. Meanwhile, clouds once again gathered over the empire. In 383, rebel troops led by Magnus Maximus, who proclaimed himself emperor, landed in Gaul. Soon Gratian already came out to meet him in order to end the civil war by defeating the usurper. For almost a week, both armies stood motionless; no one dared to attack first. But this delay turned out to be like death for Gratian, since day by day his army was getting smaller due to mass desertion. Betrayed by everyone, Gratian hastily fled from the field of the failed battle, driven by his opponents. On August 25, 383, he was overtaken and killed. There is a widespread belief that the last words that fell from the lips of the dying emperor were: “Ambrose! Ambrose! Where are you?" 128. The untimely and so terrible death of Gratian resonated with deep sorrow in the heart of St. Ambrose. Subsequently, he will write words that are amazing in his sincere grief: “The Church weeps for her son, and her tears are on her cheeks. The loss of Gratian was a blow to the Church’s cheek. O Church, shed your tears! And may your cheeks be filled with tears, like overflowing streams of compassion. The death of faithful emperors is a shame and disgrace to the Church, and in such an untimely death of a pious ruler, the beauty of the Church is darkened with sadness” 129. The beginning of 379 was due to St. Ambrose faces a tough confrontation with the Arian court party, led by Justina, since at this time, due to the complication of the military situation on the Danube, the imperial court moves to Milan. As soon as she arrived, Justina immediately demanded that one of the basilicas be given to the Arians. In order not to appear partial and not incur the enmity of his stepmother, Gratian orders the church to be handed over to the Arians 130. In this situation, St. Ambrose had no choice but to come to terms with the situation. Arians got what they worked so hard to achieve. Did this incident happen because St. Ambrose drove out the entire Arian clergy, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to perform divine services, or because he confiscated Arian Church property in order to ransom captive citizens, or for some other reason, but, one way or another, what happened was not only a sign of encroachments on the authority of the bishop, but also violated the internal peace of the Mediolan community. The current circumstances force St. Ambrose resorted to the help of Gratian. The Emperor, for his part, is in no hurry to take sides. He shows the foresight of a wise politician, taking the basilica from the Arians, but at the same time, not giving it to the bishop until the unrest subsides. But the transfer of the basilica to the Orthodox was not slow to follow. About the surprise of this St. Ambrose mentions in vv. 19–21. treatise "On the Holy Spirit". In particular, he praises the emperor, on the one hand, for his faith, and on the other, for the return of the Church Basilica. Addressing the emperor, he says: “quite recently [these lines of St. Ambrose wrote in 380–381] you have demonstrated your piety by such an amazing act as returning the church of God without any prior persuasion on our part” 131 . And then he continues: “So, we have already received the grace of your faith and our reward; since we cannot say otherwise than that it was the grace of the Holy Spirit, for when we were all in ignorance, you unexpectedly returned the church to us 132. Remembering the previous confiscation, St. Ambrose makes a subtle political move by hinting to Gratian that the confiscation of the basilica was not his fault, since although he signed the decree, he did not act of his own free will: “And I do not mourn previous losses, since the loss of this basilica led to a kind of gain. For you once took away the church in order to later prove your faith. So, your piety fulfilled this intention to take away what could serve as evidence, and having proven it, return it. At the same time, I did not lose anything, and I recognize your judgment as righteous. After all, from the very beginning you made it clear that with all this difference in the decisions made, you had no difference in opinion. I say that this was obvious to everyone, because when you took it away, you did not act of your own free will, but when you returned it, it was entirely your decision” 133 . Another victory won by St. Ambrose over the imperial court, once again showed how strong the power of the Church is in the West and how weak the power of the state is. But, as mentioned above, a few years later, in 386, the court, incited by Justina, again tried in vain to recapture the basilica from the bishop. And that defeat will be the last nail that will drive St. Ambrose in a coffin, knocked down from the boards of the Arians' pathetic attempts to get the basilica. St. Ambrose as a fighter against heresies The long, bloody and dramatic struggle against Arianism runs like a red thread throughout the entire Church history of the 4th century. Quickly going beyond the purely doctrinal, this confrontation moved to the political and state level. In modern language, we can say that this was a matter of state security for the empire. We have already said above that the election of St. Ambrose as bishop occurred when the confrontation between the Arians and the Orthodox reached its boiling point. But since St. Ambrose, even during his time as prefect, established himself as a supporter of neutral religious policies, and both of them saw in him “their man.” And this, of course, forced him to be tactful and careful at first. His initial policy of tolerance was motivated by only one thing - the desire to maintain peace in the Mediolan community. But soon the newly-minted bishop, moving away from the policy of tolerance, chose a different vector of action. Having entered into confrontation with the Arians, St. Ambrose clearly and consistently, step by step, began to strike at heresy. The final victory was guaranteed to him due to the fact that he had a certain influence on the emperor. The fight against the Arians St. Ambrose dedicated such dogmatic and polemical works as “On Faith” and “On the Incarnation”. But despite the fact that the main theme of the treatise “On the Holy Spirit” is the proof of the Divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, a lot of attention is devoted here to the proof of the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ in the context of the anti-Arian polemic. Here it is appropriate to once again recall the words of J. Le Bon, said regarding the pneumatological research of St. Athanasius, but which are quite applicable to the treatise of St. Ambrose of Milan: “In this question concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the author dwells so often and at length on the consideration of the doctrine concerning the Son” 134. Being an excellent exegete and brilliantly knowing the texts of the Old and New Testaments, St. Ambrose already at the very beginning of the treatise shows that “in the election of Gideon there was a type of the Lord’s incarnation; in the sacrifice of a goat - the remission of sins through the body of Christ; in Taurus – abolition of blasphemous rituals; and, finally, in three hundred soldiers - the redemption coming through the cross" 135. Further interpreting the sacrifice of Gideon as a prototype of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, St. Ambrose writes: “And as soon as the tip of the angel’s rod reached God, fire burst out of the stone; and so the offered sacrifice was consumed. In this one can see evidence indicating that that stone contained the image of the Body of Christ, for it is written: “They drank from the spiritual stone that followed; and the stone was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4)” 136. Continuing logical reasoning about the coming redemption, St. Ambrose says that even then, in the actions of Gideon, it was foretold that the Lord Jesus Christ, having made the Calvary sacrifice, would abolish the sins of the whole world 137. In each of the three animals that appeared in this Old Testament sacrifice, St. Ambrose sees a prototype of the New Testament Sacrifice: “On the one hand, the Lord appears in the form of a goat, on the other hand – a ram, on the third – a calf. A goat because it is a sacrifice for sins, a ram because it is a voluntary sacrifice, and a bull because it is an immaculate sacrifice.” 138 When it comes further to the dew collected by Gideon in fleece, St. Ambrose, here again, does not miss the opportunity to remind the Arians that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah about whom the Old Testament prophecies were spoken: “And it was not without reason that he dried the fleece of the Jews and collected the dew from it in a vessel so that it would be filled with water, but he himself still did not wash his feet with this dew (Judges 6:39–40). The prerogative of performing this great sacrament belongs to the Other. One and only One was expected, Who could wash away the impurity of all" 139 . And further: “Thus we see that in Him [Christ] all these sacraments were fulfilled” 140. Drawing a parallel between the dew that descended on the fleece and the coming sacrament of baptism, St. Ambrose exclaims: “Oh, how incomparably the greatness of this sacrament! You, like a servant, wash the feet of Your servants, and like God you bring down dew from heaven.” 141 Further reasoning of St. Ambrose is already directed directly against the Arians: “He who belittles the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit acts wickedly. For he who does not believe in the Son does not believe in the Father, and he who does not believe in the Spirit does not believe in the Son of God." And, continuing the logical chain of reasoning, he writes: “And the Father is equated with the creature by those who do not separate the Son from the creature; for as all things are from the Father, so are all things through the Son" 143 . “He who is blessed in Christ,” says St. Ambrose, - is blessed in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for one name and one power" 144. Some thoughts of St. Ambrose devotes to baptism, saying that “in its entirety it is only when you recognize the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. By rejecting one of Them, you reject them all” 145. Beautiful words, which contain an amazing depth of theology, are dedicated to St. Ambrose on the theme of redemption: “The Son of God was crucified, taking on bones and flesh, so that on that cross the sins of our flesh might die. He took on what He was not, in order to hide what He was. He hid what he was, in order to endure and atone for what he was not, in order to call us to what he was, through what he was not” 146. And again: “So, by whose stripes are we healed, if not Christ the Lord?” 147. All these reasonings of the saint have only one goal - to continue the triadological theme of the treatise “On Faith” to prove again and again the Divinity of Jesus Christ, in order to consolidate the previously achieved progress in the field of Christology before entering the vast expanses of pneumatology. Speaking about the struggle of St. Ambrose and Arianism cannot but be mentioned about the Council of Aquileia. Since the winter of 380–381 Gratian was forced to spend time at his Milan residence, then St. Ambrose was given a good opportunity to finally break the resistance of the Arians, using his influence on the emperor. Moreover, the prey itself went into his hands. Two Arian bishops Palladius and Secondian, in connection with the threat of their removal from their cathedras in 380, turned to Emperor Gratian with a request to convene an Ecumenical Council, at which they could defend their point of view. The emperor agrees to do this in order to avoid increased opposition to his throne from the Arian party. Through long persuasion of St. Ambrose managed to convince Gratian that the eastern bishops would only be a hindrance for the Council (at that time, most of the eastern sees were occupied by Arians). Therefore, the imperial rescript, which convened bishops for the Council in Aquileia, said that the presence of bishops only from nearby cities was sufficient. Thus, at the Council, which opened on September 3, 381 (i.e. it took place almost simultaneously with the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople) in the Basilica of Aquileia, 35 bishops gathered 148. Besides the fact that St. Ambrose practically directed the entire course of the council; he was also the main prosecutor. It is worth remembering here that in 379–380. Gratian and Theodosius signed a decree according to which all heretical bishops were to be deposed. And therefore St. Ambrose, who had many years of judicial practice behind him, asked the accused just one question. – Do these two condemn the teachings of Arius? No? Then the case was closed: they themselves declared their conviction according to the laws of the state 149. As they say, Roma locuta – causa finita 150. On the one hand, the Church asks the state for help in implementing the decisions of the council (on the removal of deposed bishops from their cathedras); on the other hand, it wants to reserve the right to elect their successors. St. Ambrose took the principled position that “the duty of the state is to give the Church the help that she asks for; this is in its own interests, and for this help it will receive its reward from Christ the Lord” 151. But before going to the Aquileia Cathedral, St. Ambrose completes the writing of three books of the treatise “On the Holy Spirit.” They set out Orthodox teaching in clear and precise terms, recall the dark times of Constantius II and, on the contrary, praise the reign of Gratian. It also talks about the Milan basilica, first occupied by the Arians and then returned to the Orthodox. In this work, St. Ambrose defends the idea that the rejection of heresy is the key to the political stability of the state. It is precisely the fact that this treatise contains comments concerning Peter of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus and the death of the Gothic leader Athanaric, which made it possible, with greater or less accuracy, to attribute its writing to the beginning of 381 152 According to popular opinion (which, in particular, is held by Paredi, Doutreleau and Adamov), when writing the treatise “On the Holy Spirit”, St. Ambrose closely followed the work of the same name by the previously mentioned Didymus of Alexandria. Paredi especially notes the clarity of this treatise by St. Ambrose, “more accessible and convincing than the treatises that served as his model, even if some of the deep reasoning of the Greeks is sacrificed for clarity” 153. But this is the opinion of a modern researcher, but the “stern Bethlehem monk” (i.e., Blessed Jerome) subjected this work to devastating criticism. In 385, when Jerome was forced to leave Rome after the death of Pope Damasus, he carried out his own Latin translation of Didymus's book On the Holy Spirit. Jerome himself writes the following on this occasion: “And if we indicate the name of the author in the title, then I would rather appear as a translator of other people’s works than (as some do) I will, like an ugly crow, adorn myself with other people’s feathers. I just read the little books of one such person about the Holy Spirit: and, like the comedian [Terence], I saw that good Greek thoughts were made into terrible Latin ones. There is nothing probative in them, nothing individual, nothing entertaining, but everything is flabby, cowardly and vague, although executed not without grace and sophistication - in a word, an exquisite, evil-smelling daub... There is no doubt that the one who reads it [Didymus] will easily recognize the theft of the Latins, and, having approached the source, will neglect the streams" 154. Here, of course, the crow means St. Ambrose 155. For us, of course, it is surprising and unusual that such a conflict took place between the two holy fathers and the greatest minds of their time, but St. Ambrose, most likely, knew that this hostility of Jerome had its roots in the Aquileia Cathedral we have already mentioned. The fact is that at the end of the meeting of the council, the adventurer Maxim appeared before the fathers, trying to remove Gregory of Nazianzus from the See of Constantinople. The worst thing is that the Western fathers this time showed a complete lack of insight and political shortsightedness by believing the dubious stories of Maximus 156. St. Ambrose writes a letter to Theodosius, in which he not only complains that he was not invited to the Council of Constantinople, but also declares the legitimacy of Maximus' claims. “The Eastern bishops should have listened to our opinion; We do not claim to be the sole solution to this issue, but to participate in its solution” 157. Here it is also necessary to say what exactly the relationship was between Jerome and Gregory of Nazianzus. According to Paredi, around 379 Jerome went to Constantinople to continue his study of Scripture under Gregory. Jerome became one of his most devoted supporters and admirers, since they were both brought together by the desire for severe asceticism, love of culture and contempt for vain beauty. Jerome, of course, saw all the intrigues surrounding the Council of Constantinople in 381, which as a result forced his beloved teacher to abdicate the department and return to Cappadocia 158. And, analyzing what was happening, Jerome could not help but remember that it was St. Ambrose, a little earlier, had spoken out in support of the intriguers who, as a result, expelled Gregory. Moreover, holding a grudge, Jerome, more than 10 years later, will find a way to cause another grief to St. Ambrose. In 392 Jerome was commissioned to write a short history of Christian literature. By the end of the year, he had already published a work entitled “De viris illustribus”, where he managed to collect information about 135 Christian authors. In this work, Jerome devotes a lot of space to his own works (even those that had not yet been written at that time, but existed only in the form of ideas) 159. About St. To Ambrose, he only mentions the following: “Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, writes to this day, and about him, since he is still alive, I will not judge, lest I be reproached with one of two things: either flattery or truth” 160. Paredi, referring to Bardi, says that these words became “a monument to deceit and malevolence” 161. To the credit of the Bishop of Milan, it should be said that he silently endured the insult. Thus, we see that although most researchers have no doubt about the fact of borrowing from St. Ambrose of some of Didymus’s thoughts, however, such a sharp assessment of the treatise “De Spiritu Sancto” by Blessed. Jerome is more likely to be caused by a feeling of personal hostility than by objective reading and research. About the thoughts and ideas that unite the works of the same name by St. Ambrose of Milan and the blind man of Alexandria, we will talk in more detail below. Now, having talked about the general political and Church situation that reigned in the Roman Empire in the second half of the 4th century, about the reasons that influenced the writing of the treatise, highlighting the activities of St. Ambrose as a state and church leader, having assessed his contribution to the fight against Arianism, which led to the almost complete capitulation of heresy in the West, and having already touched on some of the topics he touched upon in his treatise “On the Holy Spirit,” we can begin to consider the pneumatological teachings of St. Ambrose, opening from the pages of this treatise. The doctrine of the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity - the Holy Spirit - was revealed by St. Ambrose in no less detail than the teaching about the Son in the work “De Fide”. From this point of view, his creation “De Spiritu Sancto” is of very great importance in the history of Church literature, especially Western. On the other hand, as has already been mentioned several times, in its essence it contains many ideas previously expressed by Didymus of Alexandria in his treatise of the same name. Therefore, considering the pneumatological aspect of the theology of St. Ambrose, we will try to compare it with the similar views of Didymus; As for triadology (in isolation from which, strictly speaking, pneumatology loses all value), here we remember the harmonious system of Tertullian, because it was Quintus Septimius Florens who became the founder of logical and systematized Trinitarian terminology in the West. The question of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is considered by St. Ambrose and Didymus in detail and comprehensively. The main point of all discussions about the Spirit of St. Ambrose exposes the service of the creature and the non-service of the Holy Spirit: if all creation serves, then the Holy Spirit cannot be counted among the creation 162. Further this idea is revealed in more detail in this way. The Holy Spirit cannot be counted among either corporeal or incorporeal creatures. To the first - because into them (corporalibus) He pours His incorporeal grace (incorpoream infundit gratiam); to the second because they themselves receive the sanctification of the Spirit and thereby surpass the rest of the creations of the world; whether we take angels, dominion, power - all of them and, in general, all creation awaits the grace of the Holy Spirit 163. In Didymus we also encounter this thought, although it is revealed differently in him: all creatures, he said, are divided into visible and invisible or corporeal and incorporeal. The spirit does not belong to corporeal creatures, because He is the inhabitant of their soul and feelings (animae et sensus habitator), the producer for them of words, wisdom and knowledge (sermonis et sapientiae et scientiae effector); yet incorporeal substances receive from the Spirit the substance of sanctification; The Holy Spirit himself is not only not the bearer of someone else's sanctification (non est capax sanctificationis alienae), but the Creator and giver of sanctification from above (insuper attributor est et capax) 164. Another proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit for St. Ambrose serves the immutability of the Spirit in contrast to the changeability of the creature. “Every creation can change, not only that which has already changed due to sin or the quality of the elements (quae jam peccato aliquo aut elementorum conditione mutata est), but also that which can still be subject to corruption due to the vice of nature (vitio naturae), although not yet subjected to it due to fidelity to discipline (nondum est studio disciplinae)” 165. But, while all creation is changeable, the Holy Spirit remains good and unchangeable, “for He who removes all illnesses and forgives sins cannot be subject to any vice. Can He who transforms others through sanctification to grace undergo change, while He Himself remains unchanged? 166. How do we change He Who remains always good? For in no case is the Holy Spirit evil (malus), who always gives us good 167. In Didymus, the concept of immutability is also of great importance as proof of the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is the Sanctificator, then He is not changeable, but an unchangeable substance; He is constant and unchangeable (immutabilis et inconvertibilis); and since immutable substance, according to the testimony of Scripture, belongs only to God and His Only Begotten Son, yet all creatures have a changeable and impermanent nature (convertibilem et mutabilem substantiam), then the Holy Spirit is not %G [o$mooúsion of creation 168. St. proves in a similar way. Ambrose and the natural goodness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the Source and Origin of goodness (fons sit principiumque bonitatis); for just as the Father has goodness and the Son has goodness, so the Holy Spirit has goodness 169. – “What is the Holy Spirit if not the fullness of goodness (plenus bonitatis)? Although He is of an incomprehensible nature (inaccessibilis natura), He is perceived by us because of His goodness (receptibilis tamen propter bonitatem suam nobis est)” 170. – “So the Spirit is good, but good not as one who has received, but as one who imparts goodness (quasi impertiens bonitatem). And he does not receive anything from creatures, but the Holy Spirit receives; just as he is not sanctified, but he himself sanctifies: the creation is sanctified, but the Holy Spirit sanctifies” 171. This is, in fact, a brief summary of what Didymus sets out in much more detail. The Holy Spirit is essentially good (substantialiter bonum est) and cannot be a participant in extraneous goodness, since He Himself distributes goodness to everyone else 172; Divine Nature, in contrast to created nature, is the source and beginning of goodness (fons et principium bonorum), makes others good by communicating itself (quibus se impertit), but the good itself is not from another, but original (subsistens) 173. It is noteworthy that what is not in Didymus’s treatise, we also do not find in St. Ambrose. We have seen that the method of proof in Didymus and St. Ambrose is of a rather practical nature: analyzing the various properties attributed in Scripture to God and creatures, they prove the difference in nature by the difference in these properties. But both of them “make no attempt to construct the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit from the very concept of the Divine nature, which places their teaching about the Holy Spirit significantly lower than the teaching of the Cappadocians, who deductively deduced the existence of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit from the very concept of the essence of God” 174. Thus, the existence of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in St. Ambrose and Didymus are only in external relations to the existence of the remaining Two Persons of the Trinity. Then, according to Adamov’s remark, when presenting the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and St. Ambrose and Didymus, in their work “De Spiritu Sancto,” omitted a whole series of evidence that at that time had already gained great importance in the Church consciousness. “In the history of dogma, we encounter the phenomenon that long before we began to seriously talk about any religious truth, the undoubted existence of this truth was already assumed by Church consciousness and practice. Subsequently, when the truth in question became the subject of dogmatic dispute or research, the recognition of it by the Church from ancient times was seen as evidence in its favor” 175. This is precisely the fate that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit suffered. Long before the 4th century, when the doctrine of the Hypostasis of the Third Person of the Trinity became a special subject of theological research, the name of the Holy Spirit, as God, had already been invoked in the Church from its very foundation. Moreover, many Church ceremonies were imprinted with this name. St. Ambrose does not use evidence of this kind at all. But with all these shortcomings and incompleteness in the method of argumentation, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit for St. Ambrose stands beyond any doubt. The independence of His Hypostasis seems just as undeniable to him. In this regard, St. Ambrose is more decisive and determined than his Western predecessors. Among the latter, at least among some of them, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is distinguished by one feature that the writers of the Eastern Church never knew. This feature, according to which the Son of God is understood identically with the Spirit, has received the name binitarianism in science 176. Binitarianism is very strongly expressed in Tertullian, who sometimes identifies the Divine Word (Sermo) and the Spirit (Spiritus), so that the Son of God until the moment of the Incarnation is equally called by him both Sermo and Spiritus Deï “Spiritum is understood in the sense (in mentione) Sermonis and Sermonem is known in nomine Spiritus; for both Spiritus substantia est Sermonis and Sermo operatio Spiritus, et duo unum sunt" 177. What, in the sense of binitarianism, can be said about St. Ambrose? From a review of his works it follows that he reinterprets this tradition in his own way. At St. Ambrose, the wordus from the individual Tertullian concept for Sermo-Filius becomes a general name for the Trinity in general: Filius is Spiritus, but Pater is also Spiritus, for that which is not enclosed in a created body is Spiritus (“quod non est creaturae corpus, hoc spiritus est”) 178. This gives him the opportunity to very definitely defend the non-fusion of the Third Hypostasis with the First and Second Hypostases: “The Holy Spirit does not merge with the Father and the Son, but is distinct from both the Father and the Son (non confusus cum Patre et Filio Spiritus Sanctus, verum et a Patre distinctus est et a Filio)” 179. From these words it clearly follows that St. Ambrose stands above any suspicion of binitarianism. So who, according to St. Ambrose, this Spiritus? Certainly not Filius Dei, because, having said that the Holy Spirit could not die, St. Ambrose immediately adds: “The Son of God was crucified, having taken on bones and flesh (sed crucifixus est Dei Filius, qui carnem et ossa suscepit)” 180. It becomes clear that in Christ there was both Spiritus and Filius Dei, as two different and independent Hypostases. Another difference is that Filius Dei stands in closer relation to humanity than Spiritus, because the former has assumed flesh and bones (carnem et ossa suscepit), while the latter has no flesh and bones (carnem et ossa non habuit) 181 . Same thing with St. Ambrose says a little higher: “The Holy Spirit did not die, Who could not die, because He did not take on flesh and the eternal Divinity could not participate in death, but Christ died according to the flesh” 182. In more extensive explanations of St. Ambrose does not go into detail, but in his words, if you really want to, you can see the remnants of binitarianism, adapted to the new understanding. Among other things, I.I. Adamov brings up the idea that the ancient Western identification of Sermo and Spiritus in Tertullian is associated with the idea that Spiritus is separated from Sermo from the moment of the Resurrection and Ascension of the Incarnate One to heaven, then existing in the form of a completely different and non-merging Hypostasis with Him. Therefore, Tertullian, identifying, on the one hand, Sermo and Spiritus, on the other, speaks of Spiritus as the third name of God and the third degree of power (tertium nomen Divinitatis et tertium gradus majestatis). It is likely,” he continues, “that on this idea of ​​the original identity of Sermo and Spiritus, Western writers developed the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son 183. As for the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose we will encounter some ambiguity and uncertainty. This question is almost not considered by him, just like the question of from whom the Spirit comes. Sometimes St. Ambrose simply says that the Holy Spirit is generally ex Deo 184, sometimes simply a Patre 185. But at the same time, he quite often comes across the idea of ​​dependence and some kind of subordination in the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the Son: “For the Spirit is also of the Son” (quia Filii quoque est Spiritus) 186. But often we are talking not only about dependence, but also about proceeding from both the Father and the Son: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio)” 187, or simply from the Son: “Procedit ex Filio” 188. These are, in general terms, the features of the pneumatology of St. Ambrose, set out in his treatise “De Spiritu Sancto”. To summarize, we can note the following. Although St. Ambrose was an entirely Western thinker, inclined more towards rationalism than to Eastern mysticism and philosophy (which was manifested in his rather practical approach in describing the intra-Trinitarian relationship of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son), but he managed to avoid those stumbling blocks that his Western predecessors stumbled over. The teaching of St. Ambrose about the Holy Spirit is presented by him in the spirit of the established Western tradition (here we mean, first of all, the principle of binitarianism, according to which Tertullian and his followers identified the Spirit and the Son, without drawing a clear hypostatic distinction between them). In his treatise, St. Ambrose, based on Scripture, provides logical evidence that the Holy Spirit is not created and does not serve anyone, but, being God Himself, gives sanctification, grace and gifts to everyone. It shows that the eternal and unchanging Spirit is the source and giver of goodness. As for the question of the procession of the Spirit, it is practically not considered by the saint. In certain places of the treatise one can see that, along with the mention of the descent from the Father, St. Ambrose also speaks of the procession from the Son. Summing up the results of our research, it is necessary to say the following. Having gone through a long and difficult path of development, the teaching of the Church about the Holy Spirit by the 4th century. was a mosaic of heterogeneous ideas. Having gone through the “eastern” systematization and rethinking of St. Athanasius and Didymus, it was updated and used by St. Ambrose to combat the heresy of the Arians and Pneumatomachians in the West. But the saint, under the influence of Tertullian’s trinitarian views, introduced into it a number of elements characteristic of the “Western mind,” including binitarianism, subordinationism and the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Due to the fact that St. Ambrose of Milan was the most influential statesman of his era; his treatise “On the Holy Spirit,” addressed to Augustus Gratian, served not only as a textbook of faith, but also as a lever of political influence for the bishop in his fight against heretics and enemies of the state, of which he was always a faithful son. The use of the contextual method in our study made it possible to correlate the pastoral, preaching and theological activities of Bishop St. Ambrose with the historical and political processes then taking place in the dying western part of the empire. Through the prism of this method, we were able to trace not only the borrowing of St. Ambrose of Western ideas, but also the influence of learned contemporaries from the East on his theology. 1. Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. M.: Publishing house. MP, 1969. 1371 p. 2. Septuagintä Id est Vetus Testamentum graece juxta LXX interpretes. Deutsche Bibelstiftung Stuttgart, 1935. 3. Nova Vulgatä Bibliorum Sacrorum edition. Liberia editrice Vaticana, 1979, 2154 p. 4. St. Ambrosius, Mediolanensis Episcopus. De Fidë libri quinque // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 16. – Paris, 1845. 5. St. Ambrosius, Mediolanensis Episcopus. De Spiritu Sanctö libri tres // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 16. – Paris, 1845. 6. St. Ambrosius, Mediolanensis Episcopus. Epistolae in duas glasses distributae // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 16. – Paris, 1845. 7. St. Ambrosius, Mediolanensis Episcopus. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 16. – Paris, 1845. 8. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Tomus ad Antiochenos // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 9. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola ad Jovianum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 10. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola ad Afros Episcopos // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 11. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola I ad Serapionem // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 12. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola II ad Serapionem // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 13. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola III ad Serapionem // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 14. St. Athanasius, Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Epistola IV ad Serapionem // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T. 26. – Paris, 1857. 15. Didyme l'Aveugle. Traité du Saint-Esprit. Paris, 1992. 449 p. 16. St. Eusebius Hieronymus, Stridonensis presbuteros. Liber de viris illustribus // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 23. – Paris, 1845. 17. St. Eusebius Hieronymus, Stridonensis presbuteros. Interpretatio libri Didymi de Spiritu Sancto ad Paulinianum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 23. – Paris, 1845. 18. Vita Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis Episcopi, a Paulino ejus notari ad Beatum Augustinum conscriotor // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. T. 14. – Paris, 1845. 19. Ammianus Marcellinus. Roman History (Res Gestae). St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1996. 556 p. 20. Athanasius the Great, St. Creations: in 4 volumes. T. 1. M.: Publishing house. Spaso-Transformation Valaam convent, 1994. 478 p. 21. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1996. Cathedrals. 597 pp. 22. Sozomen. Church history. St. Petersburg, 1851. 636 p. 23. Theodoret of Cyrus, blessed. Church history. M.: Rosspan, 1993. 238 p. 1. L’Apologie d’Eunome / Introduction, traduction et notes de Bernard Sesboué // Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1983. No. 305. 2. Athanase d'Alexandrie. Lettres a Sérapion sur la Divinité du Saint-Esprit / Introduction et traduction de Joseph Lebon // Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1947. No. 15. 3. Basile de Cesarée. Traité du Saint-Esprit / Introduction, traduction et notes de Benoit Pruche O.P. // Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1946. No. 17. 4. Basile de Cesarée. Contre eunome. Suivi de Eunome Apologie. T. I / Introduction, traduction et notes de Bernard Sesboué // Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1947. No. 299. 5. Basile de Cesarée. Contre eunome. Suivi de Eunome Apologie. T. II / Introduction, traduction et notes de Bernard Sesboué // Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1983. No. 305. 6. Didyme l'Aveugle. Traité du Saint-Esprit « Introduction, texte critique, traduction notes et index par Louis Doutreleau // Sources Chrétiennes. No. 386. Paris, 1992. 7. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. Milano, 1941. 267 rub. 8. Adamov I.I. The doctrine of the Trinity by St. Ambrose of Milan. Sergiev Posad: Type. St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1910. 63 p. 9 . Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. M., 1994. T. 4: History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. 599 pp. 10. Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary. SPb.: Type. Ephron, 1891. T. 5: Buny - Walter. 517 pp. 11. Broglie, de, hertz. Life of Saint Ambrose of Milan. St. Petersburg: Kolokol, 1911. 154 p. 12. Boissier G. The Fall of Paganism: A Study of the Last Religious Struggle in the West in the IV Century. M., 1892. 584 p. 13. Vladimir (Blagorazumov), bishop. St. Athanasius of Alexandria: His life and works: scientific, literary and polemical-dogmatic activity. Chisinau, 1895. 414 p. 14. Ilyutochkin K. Corpus of Didymus the Blind as a monument to Church writing of the 5th century / Dis. Ph.D. theologian [Typescript] Sergiev Posad, 2005. 216 p. 15. Kazakov M.M. Bishop and empire: Ambrose of Milan and the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Smolensk, 1995. 331 p. 16. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. M.: Republic, 1994. 541 p. 17. Kirill (Lopatin), archimandrite. The teaching of St. Athanasius the Great about the Holy Trinity (compared with the teaching on the same subject in the first three centuries). Kazan: Type. Imp. Univ., 1894. 301 p. 18. Lavrov V.V. On the nature of power among the Goths in the 4th century. n. e. //Ancient Society - 2. Abstracts of the scientific conference on October 29–30, 1996. St. Petersburg, 1996. 24 p. 19. Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church: before the division of the Churches - 1054. Brussels: Life with God, 1964. 608 p. The first book translated by the author of the article was published: Ambrose of Milan, St. By August Gratian had three books about the Holy Spirit. Book 1 // Christian reading. 2010. No. 3 (34). pp. 9–45. There on ss. 6–8 the translator provides brief information about the treatise. – Approx. resp. ed. Broglie, de, hertz. Life of Saint Ambrose of Milan. St. Petersburg: Kolokol, 1911. P. 79. See: Paredi A. Sant’ Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 77–78. Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. Smolensk, 1995. P. 31. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 78. Boissier G. The Fall of Paganism: A Study of the Last Religious Struggle in the West in the IV Century. M., 1892. P. 429. Theodoret of Cyrus, blessed. Church history. IV, 7. M., 1993. Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 39. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P.87. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. pp. 131–137. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. Ep. in duas glasses distributae // PL. T. 16. Ep. 17, 13. Ibid. Ep. 57, 3: “Valentinianus tunc temporis audivit suggestionem meam, nec fecit aliud, nisi quod fidei nostrae ratio poscebat. Acquieverunt etiam comiti suo.” See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 150. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio // PL. T. 16. C. 28: “Et mihi dulce illud officium fuit pro salute tua primo, deinde pro pace atque pietate.” Vita Sancti Ambrosii Mediolan. Ep., a Paulino ejus notari ad Beatum Augustinum conscriotor // PL. T. 14. V. 19: “Admonens ut effusi sanguinis domini sui, et quod est gravius, innocentis.” Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 171. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. in duas glasses distributae. Ep. 20, 19: “Ad imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem Ecclesiae. Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum est, non sacrorum.” See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. pp. 216–219. Sozomen. Church history. VI, 25. St. Petersburg, 1851. Theodoret of Cyrus, blessed. Church history. V, 17. Sozomen. Church history. VII, 25. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 232. Vita Sancti Ambrosii // PL. T. 14. C. 24. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 212. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 243. Vita Sancti Ambrosii // PL. T. 14. C. 45: “Comes Stilico dixisse fertur quod, tanto viro recedente de corpore, interitus immineret Italiae.” Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 260. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 51. Ammianus Marcellinus. Roman History (Res Gestae). XXXI, 13:10. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1996. P. 516. Theodoret of Cyrus, blessed. Church history. V, 36. P. 173. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Fidë libri quinque // PL. T. 16. P. 136: “Progredere plane scuto fidei septus, et gladium spiritus habens: progredere ad victoriam superioribus promissam temporibus, et divinis oraculis prophetatam.” Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 129. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, 2. Ibid. L. I, 17: “Nam etiam Constantinopolis jam Dei verbum recepit, et evidentia meruit tui documenta judicii. Etenim quamdiu venena Arianorum suis fovebat inclusa visceribus, bellis finitimis inquieta, muros armis circumsonabat hostilibus. Postea vero quam fidei exsules abdicavit, hostem ipsum judicem regum, quem semper timere consueverat, deditum vidit, supplicem recepit, morientem obruit, sepultum possidet.” Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary. SPb.: Type. Ephron, 1891. T. 5: Buny - Walter. C. 403. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, 17. See: Lavrov V.V. On the nature of power among the Goths in the 4th century. n. e. // Ancient Society - 2. Abstracts of reports of the scientific conference on October 29–30, 1996. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 7–8. Quote by: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 331. See: Paredi A. Sant’ Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 108. Ammianus Marcellinus. Roman history. XXXI, 10, 18, pp. 510. Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 96. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 124. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De obitu Valentiniani consolatio // PL. T. 16. P. 6: “Flet igitur Ecclesia pignus suum, et lacrymae ejus in maxillis ejus... Percussa eras, Ecclesia, in maxilla tua; cum amitteres Gratianum... Ploras igitur, Ecclesia, et fletu genae tuae velut fluentibus quibusdam stillicidiis pietatis exundant... In obitu igitur fidelium imperatorum quidam fidei pudor, quaedam Ecclesiae verecundia est: et in tam immatura morte piorum principum omnis Ecclesiae moestior pulchritudo est.” See: Paredi A. Sant’ Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 171. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, 19. Athanase d'Alexandrie. Lettres a Sérapion sur la Divinité du Saint-Esprit // SC No. 15. P. 56; St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sanctö Libri Tres // PL. T. 16. L.I. prol. Ibid. V. IX, 107: “Suscepit enim quod non erat, ut celaret quod erat: celavit quod erat, ut tentaretur in eo, et redimeretur quod non erat; ut ad id quod erat, per id quod non erat, nos vocaret.” See: Paredi A. Sant’ Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 134–135. Rome has spoken, the matter is over (lat. last). Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 135. See: Kazakov M. Bishop and Empire. P. 295. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 137. St. Eus. Hieronymus. Interpretatio libri Didymi… Col. 104Ä “Et ut auctorem titulo fatear: malui alieni operis interpres existere, quam (ut quidam faciunt) informis cornicula, alienis me coloribus adornare. Legi dudum cujusdam libellos de Spiritu sanctö et juxta Comici [Scil. Terentii] sententiam ex Graecis bonis, Latina vidi non bona. Nihil ibi dialecticum, nihil virile atque districtum, quod lectorem vel ingratis in assensum trahat: sed totum flaccidum, molle, nitidum, atque formosum, et exquisitis hinc inde odoribus pigmentatum... Certe qui hunc legerit, Latinorum furta cognoscet: et contemnet rivulos, cum coeperit haurire de fontibus.” St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. Ep. in duas glasses distributae. Ep. 13, 4. See: Paredi A. Sant’ Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 138–139. St. Eus. Hieronymus. Liber de viris illustribus // PL. T. 23. C. CXXIV. Paredi A. Sant' Ambrogio e la sua eta. P. 244. See: St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, I, 23. See: St. Eus. Hieronymus. Interpretatio libri Didymi… Col. 4. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, I, 23. Ibid. L. I, V, 63. See: St. Eus. Hieronymus. Interpretatio libri Didymi… Col. 5: "Non erit creaturae %Г [o$mooúsion". St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, V, 69. Adamov I.I. Doctrine of the Trinity of St. Ambrose of Milan. Sergiev Posad, 1910. P. 22. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, IX, 106. See: Adamov I. The Doctrine of the Trinity... P. 26. St. Ambrosius, Mediolan. Ep. De Spiritu Sancto. L. I, I, 24.