Trinity of Godhead and Unity of Humanity

Let them be one, as we are (John 17:11). This is how the Lord Jesus Christ prayed to His heavenly Father on the last day of his earthly life before his saving suffering. Christ founded the Church, a new society of people in which they should unite with each other through some special internal and spiritual unity. The Kingdom of Christ is not like the kingdoms of the earth, where people are united by artificial legal norms, but at the same time can be completely separated from each other by their entire being, by their entire moral nature. Christ himself likened the unity of believers to the organic unity of the branches of one tree. (John 15:1–7). In his last prayerful, solemn address to the Father, Christ points out, as it were, the ideal of church unity of humanity saved by Him. Such an ideal in the words of Christ is that essential unity that unites the three Divine Persons into the One Trihypostatic Deity. The Deity is Trinity in Unity. Saved humanity, i.e. The Church must be unity in diversity. The great fathers of the Church thought a lot about this similarity of church humanity to the unity of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and the theological contemplations of their God-enlightened minds can give us much to understand the truth of the trinity of the Divinity and the unity of humanity in the Church. We will present the most important of these patristic contemplations in this essay, accompanying them with the necessary explanations 1 . We find the idea of ​​the unity of humanity in the Church in the image of the trinity of the Divine in early church writers, starting from the middle of the 3rd century. The first patristic work specifically devoted to the issue of the Church is the treatise of St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Catholic Church.” Throughout his literary career, St. Cyprian devoted primarily to revealing the concept of the Church, and all his church activities, sealed by his blessed martyrdom, to defending the unity of the Church from the attacks of “evil-minded heretics and schismatics.” The entire universal Church for St. Cyprian there is some special unity. “God commands that only peaceful, concordant and unanimous people should live in his house. He wants those regenerated to remain the same as He made them by the second birth, so that those who have become sons of God will remain in the peace of God - so that we, who have one Spirit, will have one heart and feeling. For God, a great sacrifice is our peace and fraternal harmony, a people united in the unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 2. The members of the body copulate in the unity of the universal Church and are bound by the bonds of Christian love 3 . The Church is the unanimous and harmonious people of God 4. “The sons of God should be peaceable, meek in heart, simple in speech, agreeable in mutual disposition, faithfully united with each other in a union of unanimity. Such unanimity once existed under the apostles: thus the new people of believers, observing the instructions of the Lord, adhered to mutual love. This is confirmed by Divine Scripture, which says: the believing people have one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)" 5. "This is what it means to be true children of God by spiritual birth! This is what it means to imitate, according to heavenly law, the truth of God the Father." 6 And then the truth of the unity of all humanity in the Church is brought into direct connection with the truth of the Divine Trinity. "Christ He prayed to the Father for everyone, saying: “I pray not for these only, but also for those who believe their words in Me, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in me, and I am in You, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:20-21). Great is the goodness and love of the Lord in the arrangement of our salvation! Not content with redeeming us with His blood, He also asked for us! And when you ask, see what desire He had: that we too may remain in that very unity (in ipsa unitate) in which the Father and the Son are one.” 7 “The Lord says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). And again it is written about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: and these three are one (1 John 5:7)! Who will think that this unity, based on the immutability of the Divine and united with the heavenly sacraments, can be disrupted in the Church and fragmented by the discord of opposing desires? No, he who does not keep such unity does not keep the law of God, does not keep faith in the Father and the Son, does not hold on to life and salvation” 8. “The Lord, instilling in us that the unity of the Church comes from Divine power, affirms and says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and, directing His Church to such unity, adds: and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16) 9. Thus, for St. Cyprian, the unity of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is the basis of church unity. The will of God is such that in the Church people abide in the same unity in which the three Persons of the Divine Trinity abide from eternity; It was towards this unity that the Lord Jesus Christ directed His Church. His new people, revived by His coming to earth. St. Cyprian sees the expression of church unity in common prayer, in charity, in the unity of faith and in the unity of the bishopric. All Christian virtues are established by St. Cyprian in connection with the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church; this teaching is based on the truth of the trinity of the Divine. Consequently, all Christian morality in the works of St. Cyprian is the moral consequence of the dogma of the trinity of the Divine, a consequence derived through the teaching of the Church. The truth of the Church stands, as it were, between the dogma of the Holy Trinity and Christian moral teaching. From the same third century, Anastasius Sinaite preserved for us the following passage from the writings of St. Methodius of Patara. “The three ancestral heads of all humanity, these consubstantial persons, were transformatively some likeness of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, namely, having no (earthly) culprit of his existence and unborn Adam represented the image and likeness of the beginningless Author of everything, the Almighty God and the Father, his begotten son represented the image of the begotten Son and the Word of God, and Eve, who came (from him), meant the emanating face of the Holy Spirit" 10. Here, as we see, the unity of the ancestral heads of all humanity is affirmed, they are even called consubstantial persons (ομοουσιοι υποστασειζ), and this unity of the ancestors of humanity is revered as some semblance of the consubstantial Trinity. But especially often and very persistently, a parallel was drawn between the unity of humanity and the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity during dogmatic disputes about the dogma of the Trinity, in the 4th century, when this dogma was even talked about in squares and markets. The entire Church was shocked by the heretical teaching of Arius. To the intellectual of our day, indifferent to questions of his salvation, completely unaware of even the ABCs of theology and church life, the dogmatic movements of the 4th century often seem like just an unnecessary game of an idle hierarchy, overly carried away by the dialectical art. But the Church knew what the Aryan heresy was and how it threatened the religious life of mankind. Given the general tension in church life, everyone understood perfectly well that with the distortion of the truth of the Trinity, the moral life of humanity must certainly perish, which would then be deprived of hope for renewal and revival, for a person cannot become immortal and incorruptible without the incarnation of the immortal and incorruptible Only Begotten Son of God, Consubstantial with God the Father. The greatest Fathers of the Church stood at the head of the dogmatic movements of the 4th century. In the brilliant constellation of the fathers of the 4th century, the brightest star was St. Basil the Great 11. Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa themselves consider themselves disciples of Basil 12. But at St. Basil, we encounter the idea of ​​the consubstantiality of humanity, similar to the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, precisely in his letter to brother Gregory, shortly after his consecration as Bishop of Nyssa, “On the difference between essence and hypostasis.” Here St. Vasily writes: “Some names, used about many and numerically different objects, have a certain general meaning; such, for example, is the name: man. For he who uttered this word, denoting by this name a general nature, did not by this saying define one particular person, actually signified by this name; because Peter is no more a man, like Andrew, and John, and James... Other names have a particular meaning, by which is meant not the community of nature in the signified, but the outline of an object according to its distinctive property... Such a saying has nothing to do with general nature, but depicts by names the concept of certain specific objects, separating them from the collective meaning” 13. Similar, according to St. Vasily, one can also say about Presv. Trinity. “What concept have you acquired about the difference between essence and hypostasis in us, transfer it to divine dogmas, and you will not sin” 14. The unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity lies in the fact that “there is between them some ineffable and unthinkable communion and division; neither the difference of hypostases dissolves the continuity of nature, nor the community of essence merges the distinctive features 15. The last words characterize the relationship between the persons of St. Trinity. The same should be said about church society, but modern St. For Vasily, reality did not allow him to do this. Dogmatic disputes divided church society into parts that disagreed with each other, and, of course, it was difficult to even imagine an analogy between the mutual relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, on the one hand, and the members of the Church, on the other. St. Vasily presented the ideal body for the Church of his time. The Church must be one body. But where does the discrepancy between the relationship of the Persons of the Triune Divinity and the mutual relationships of the members of the one Church come from? From there, answers St. Vasily, that the single human nature is cut by sin into many warring parts. The incarnation on earth of the Only Begotten Son of God opened up the possibility of restoring the unity of human nature. If people follow Christ, then they reach a state where their multitude does not share a single nature, and humanity, since, of course, this is possible for limited beings, is likened to the Triune Godhead. The realization of this ideal of the Church, or at least the approach to it of St. Vasily sees in monastic communities where people freely unite so much that their unified nature is clearly visible, which is not destroyed and which is in no way contradicted by the existence of individual individuals. “What is this life equal to? But what is more blessed than this? What is more perfect than such closeness and such unity? What is more pleasant than this fusion of morals and souls? People who have advanced from different tribes and countries have brought themselves into such perfect identity that in many bodies one soul is seen, and many bodies turn out to be instruments of one will. They are equally slaves and masters of each other, and with irresistible freedom they mutually show perfect slavery to each other - not that which is forcibly introduced by the necessity of circumstances, plunging those captured into slavery into great despondency, but that which is joyfully produced by freedom of will, when love subordinates the free to each other and protects freedom by self-arbitrariness. God wanted us to be like this in the beginning; For this purpose He created us. And they, blotting out the sin of the forefather Adam, renew primitive kindness, because people would not have division, strife, or war if sin had not cut their natures. They are exact imitators of the Savior and His life in the flesh. For just as the Savior, having formed the ranks of the disciples, even made Himself common to the Apostles: so these too, who obey their leader, perfectly observing the rule of life, exactly imitate the life of the Apostles and the Lord. They compete with the lives of the Angels, like them, strictly observing sociability... They anticipate the good of the promised kingdom, in their praiseworthy life and communication, presenting an exact imitation of the life and state there. They clearly showed human life how many benefits the Savior’s incarnation brought us, because human nature, torn apart and cut into thousands of parts, is, to the best of its ability, again brought into unity with itself and with God. For this is the main thing in the Savior’s economy in the flesh - to bring human nature into unity with itself and with the Savior and, having destroyed the evil section, restore the primitive unity; just as the best physician uses healing medicine to reunite a body that has been torn into many parts” 16. Thus, according to St. Basil the Great, human nature before the Fall was precisely an image of the Divine triune Essence. The purpose of the Church is to restore this one human nature damaged by sin. “Love binds those on high; love brought these into agreement with each other” 17. There are many persons in the Church, but its nature is one and the Church itself is unity in plurality, where individual individuals are only bearers of a single nature without division among themselves. In science, Basil the Great and other Cappadocian fathers are often accused of trebism 18 . Heretics did the same back in the 4th century. Eunomius mocked St. Vasily for his reasoning about the essence and hypostases of Peter and Paul and accused him of recognizing three gods. But the thought of St. Vasily was completely assimilated and, above all, by his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory of Nyssa had a special reason to discuss in detail about the previously cited St. Basil analogies between the unity of Divine and human nature. The Arians attacked one of his admirers and disciples, the name of Aulavius, using the analogy of St. Vasily, proved to him that he is a trebozher. Avlavius ​​turned to St. for clarification. Gregory, who wrote him a detailed answer, where he proves that the Arians are wrong when they deduce from such an analogy the idea of ​​the existence of three gods. Aulavius ​​expressed his bewilderment, aroused in him by the Arians, as follows: Peter, James, John, as their humanity is one, are called three people, and there is nothing absurd in calling those united by nature, if there are many of them, in the plural by the name of their nature. Therefore, if custom allows us to do this, and no one forbids us to call two two, and if there are more than two, then three; why in the mysterious dogmas, confessing three hypostases, and not noticing any difference in nature in them, in some way contradict the confession, asserting that the Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, while forbidding calling them three Gods? 19 Answering Ablavius, St. Gregory speaks in detail about the unity of human nature. He strongly asserts that the expression: many people is completely inaccurate. “There is a certain incorrect use of words in the custom of calling those who are not divided by nature in the plural by the same name of nature and saying: many people, which would be similar if you say: many human natures” 20. “We express ourselves this way due to imprecise usage of words, and not in the proper sense, out of some kind of habit.” Nature is one, united with itself and exactly an indivisible unit, not increased by application, not diminished by despair; but, just as there is one, so, although it appears in multitude, the existing one is indivisible, indivisible, entirely, not allocated to its participants in a special part to each 21. The name of nature, according to custom, is erroneously used to mean multitude, because neither diminution nor increase in the true sense occurs in nature when it is seen in many. About gold, although it is fragmented into many different types of parts, we say that it is one, and is called one; we call coins and staters many, without finding any increase in the nature of gold in the multitude of staters; This is why it is said about gold that there is a lot of it when it is seen in large quantities, or in vessels, or in coins, but because of the abundance of substances in them, it is not said that there are many golden substances... Therefore, just as there are many golden staters, but only one gold; So in human nature there are many people taken individually, for example, Peter, James, John, but there is only one person in them 22. “Peter, Paul, Barnabas by the name: man are one person, and by the same name, by the name: man, they cannot be many; they are called many people by imprecise usage of words, and not in the proper sense. But what is said in the inaccurate sense is not preferred by sensible people to what is said in the proper sense 23 . Already at the very creation of man, “the whole is called one man... All nature, stretching from the first people to the last, is a single image of the Being” 24. The Arians' reference to the Holy Scriptures, where the name man is also used in the plural (Gen. 18:2, Ps. 36:8, Heb. 6:16 et cetera), St. Gregory eliminates, declaring that Scripture, guided by the custom of the dominant dialect, uses the word in accordance with the dominant custom 25. Scientific usage of words is not given in the Holy Scriptures; it must be installed independently of it. It is not in essence that Paul differs from Peter, who are given the name: man; they differ in the hypostasis of the person... The name: person means something general in essence, and not a special person, let’s say, for example, Paul or Barnabas. Therefore, the name: man, according to the rules of science, is in no way accompanied by the word: such and such. But if general usage has a need for this, and incorrectly uses the names of essence to mean persons, then this is not done according to the exact rule of logical knowledge 26. “We must say: not such and such a God, or such and such a person, but such and such a hypostasis of God, and such and such a hypostasis of man. For we rightly affirm that one person has many hypostases, and the one God has three hypostases” 27. So human nature is one. There are only a lot of individuals. In all his writings, St. Gregory of Nyssa constantly talks about this single nature, but he also makes a distinction between the corrupted nature of man and the restored, saved nature. St. himself Gregory says that “Christianity is the imitation of divine nature”, “the elevation of man to ancient well-being” 28. The Fall caused division in human nature. “Our nature was divided through sin, since in death the soul was separated from the body 29. In Christ human nature is renewed. “The Word, existing in the beginning, and with God, and the Word Himself existing is God, Who in the last days, through communion with the humiliation of our nature, was made flesh out of love for mankind, and, united through it with man, took into Himself all of our nature, so that through dissolution with the Divine (nature) the human would be deified, and with the firstfruits thereof the entire composition of our nature would be sanctified 30. “Our nature again returns to its previous state, since the gap that took place in us through the resurrection of man in Christ has grown together completely” 31. “For just as He, having destroyed the mediastinum of the fence, created both with Himself into one new man, creating the world (Eph. 2:14-15), so we must reconcile (with ourselves) not only our external enemies, but also those who are at enmity within ourselves, so that the flesh no longer desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit - what is contrary to the flesh, but so that, having subordinated the carnal way of thinking to the divine law, we have peace with themselves, transforming into a single new and peaceful person, and from both becoming one. For peace can be defined as the agreement of warring parties. So, when the internecine strife in our nature is destroyed, then we will become peace and show that we truly and truly bear this name of Christ” 32. We have cited only the most striking passages characterizing the views of St. Gregory of Nyssa for the salvation of the human race by Christ. This work of salvation is thought of by St. the father, by the way, and as the restoration of the primitive nature, into which division was introduced by sin, the restoration of precisely its unity. It is important that the thought of the unity of human nature, which St. Basil the Great expressed briefly, St. Gregory consciously adopted it and resolutely defended it against heretics. True, speaking about the consubstantiality of humanity, St. the father does not mention the Church, but it is clear that he considers “the elevation of man to ancient well-being” and “imitation of divine nature” to be the work of the Church. Image of St. Gregory of Nyssa of that blissful state, “when internecine warfare in our nature is destroyed,” when peace reigns both among people and within each individual, this image makes us remember the inscription of St. Basil the Great in his “Ascetic Rules” depicts the image of a monastic community, where precisely the single and inseparable life of a single human nature is manifested. We see that, along with the ordinary idea of ​​the Church as a single body, the idea is expressed of the Church as a regenerated human nature, in which individual human personalities become, as it were, consubstantial in some similarity to the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. “One body” and “one nature,” of course, express almost the same thing if they are attributed to the Church: both speak of the complete unity of humanity, which is achieved by the destruction of sin, as the principle of dividing and isolating. Speaking about the “single nature,” the two great Cappadocian brothers connected the dogma of the Church with the main Christian dogma of the Trinity. We find almost identical thoughts on our question in St. Cyril of Alexandria and these thoughts must be noted especially because this St. father we are talking specifically about the Church. Unity of humanity St. Kirill sees it precisely in the Church. St. Cyril of Alexandria in his writings says that “God the Father was pleased to renew everything in Christ and to recreate what was created in its original state, sending the Only Begotten to us from heaven” 33 . The Only Begotten Son of God destroyed himself in order to transform human nature in Himself, the very first, and through Himself again into that original beauty 34. Those who believed accepted spiritual childhood in Christ and rebirth in God. This newborn child in Christ, that is, the new people of circumcision through faith, rejects death 35. The barrier that stood in the middle has been destroyed, and we, who have been separated and separated by sin since ancient times, together with Christ, enter through Him and in Him to God and the Father 36 . Explaining the passage from the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus Christ, where He prayed for the unity of those who believe in Him (John 17:20–21), St. Kirill writes: “What kind of petition is this and what does it consist of? So that, he says, we may be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may be one in us. So, he asks for a union of love, like-mindedness and peace - a union that brings believers to spiritual unity, so that they agree in everything and inseparably unanimous unity reflects the features of the natural and essential unity conceived in the Father and the Son. However, this union of love between us and the power of like-mindedness, of course, by no means reach such inseparability as the Father and the Son have, preserving unity in the Divinity of essence. Here the unity of nature, true and contemplated in existence itself, is thought of, and there is the appearance and imitation of true unity.” St. Cyril thus believes that there is a difference between the unity of the Persons of St. Trinity and the unity of the followers of Christ, because there is an unlimited distance between the Divinity and humanity, and the shortcomings of our nature cannot be made a rule for God. But the consubstantial Persons of St. The Trinity should have as its moral consequence the unanimity and unity of believers. “As an example and image of inseparable love, harmony and unity, conceived in unanimity, Christ, taking the essential unity that the Father has with Him, and He, on His part, with the Father, wants in some way to unite us with each other, obviously, just like the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, so that the whole body of the Church is conceived as one, rising in Christ through the fusion and union of two peoples into the composition of a new perfect... This is accomplished the fact that those who believe in Christ have unanimity among themselves and have adopted, as it were, one heart, through complete similarity in religion, obedience in faith and a good-loving mind... The image of divine unity and the essential identity of the Holy Trinity, as well as the most perfect interpenetration, must be reflected in the unity of unanimity and unanimity of believers.” But St. Kirill speaks not only about unanimity, but also about the natural unity of saved humanity - the Church. “We will try to show the natural unity by which we are connected with each other and all with God, perhaps not without bodily unity, I mean with each other, although we are separated by the separation of bodies, so each of us is, as it were, contained in our own boundary and hypostasis. So, for example, Peter cannot be called Paul, and Paul cannot also be called Peter, although in relation to unity through Christ both of them are thought of as one.” St. Cyril finds and indicates the foundations of the physical and spiritual unity of people. “The Only Begotten determined a certain, refined way, by the wisdom appropriate to Him and the advice of the Father, so that we ourselves would converge and mingle in unity with God and with each other, although each separated from the other with souls and bodies into a special personality - namely (such a way): in one body, obviously His own, blessing those who believe in Him through the sacramental communion (Eucharist) - makes them co-corporeal as Himself, and each other. Who could really separate and tear away from their natural union with each other those who through one holy body are united in unity with Christ? Therefore, the Church is also called the Body of Christ, and we are individual members, according to Paul’s understanding”... “Concerning unity in the Spirit, let us say again that all, having received one and the same Spirit, I mean the Holy One, are united in some way with each other and with God... Just as the power of the holy Flesh makes co-corporeal those in whom it will be, so exactly, I think, in the same way, the one inseparably living Spirit of God in all leads everyone to spiritual unity... So, one is all we are in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I understand one thing by the identity of properties, and by uniformity in religion and communion with the Holy Flesh of Christ, and by communion with one and the Holy Spirit" 37 . “In Christ we have become co-corporeal, having partaken of one Flesh and anointed into unity by one Holy Spirit, and since Christ does not divide, we are all one in Him. That is why He said to the Heavenly Father: may they be one, just as We are one. You see how in Christ and the Holy Spirit we are all one, both in body and in spirit. As we are, so the Son is one with the Father." 38 Thus, St. Cyril of Alexandria primarily speaks of the unanimity of believers as an image of the unanimity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but in the Church he also sees the creation of a single physical and spiritual nature, so that the members of the Church already have natural unity among themselves. It is also remarkable that in the quoted words of St. Cyril combines the idea of ​​the Church as a body with the doctrine of the natural unity of individual people in it: for him, both are just different forms of the same thing. Christ prayed that all who believe in him would be united in some likeness with the consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity; ap. Paul depicts this same unity under the guise of a single body of the Church, the head of which is Christ. Finally, it should be said that the thoughts we noted among the great representatives of Eastern theology were not alien to Western writers, namely those who, like the Eastern ones, focused their attention primarily on revealing the dogma of the Holy Trinity in the fight against Arianism. We mean mainly the “Western Athanasius” - Hilary of Pictavia, who was in close relations with Eastern theologians, in particular with St. Basil the Great 39. In polemics with the Arians, Orthodox theologians often referred to the words we cited above from the high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to His other words: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Arians, however, interpreted these words in such a way that they did not contain the thought of the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Son and the Father. In parallel with these words they put (Acts 4:32): the multitude of believers had one soul and one heart, and also (1 Cor. 3:8): he who plants and he who waters are one. In these latter, the Arians said, we are talking only about unanimity, about the moral agreement of people. The same relationships should be transferred to the Persons of the Holy Trinity: The Persons of the Holy Trinity are one not by the unity of being, nature, but by the consent of the will 40. The Arians, therefore, had the reverse order of thought. The Orthodox concluded from the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to the consubstantiality of humanity; Arians from the moral unity or like-mindedness of people - to the same unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Hilary takes and discusses the same parallels, the same passages of Holy Scripture, but draws from them a conclusion opposite to the Arian one. “Were those who had one soul and one heart one through the faith of God? Of course, through faith; for through her there was one heart and one soul for all. And I ask: was there one faith or different? Obviously, there is one, as the Apostle himself preaches, that there is one faith, as there is one Lord and one baptism, and one hope, and one God. So, if they were all one by faith, i.e. by the nature of one faith, then how do you think that there was non natural unity (non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem) in those who were one by the nature of one faith? After all, they were all reborn to innocence, immortality, knowledge of God, to faith and hope. And if these cannot be different from each other, for the hope is one, and God is one, just as the Lord is one and the baptism of regeneration is one, (then they cannot be different); if these are one more by agreement than by nature, then ascribe unity of will to those who are reborn in them. If they are regenerated into the nature of one life and eternity, thanks to which their soul and heart are one, then there is no place for unity of agreement in those who are one in the regeneration of the same nature (qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae) 41. According to the teaching of the word of God, the unity of humanity must be considered precisely the unity of nature, and not just like-mindedness. The Apostle Paul specifically says that the unity of believers is based on the nature of the sacraments. Believers are all one in Christ, despite any differences in tribes, conditions, gender (Gal. 3:27-28). Obviously, such unity cannot be based on the consent of the will alone 42. The same should be said about the unity of the planter and the waterer. They were also regenerated by a single baptism, and therefore they are one by nature, and not by will only 43. In the words of the High Priestly Prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ, Hilary sees a prayer specifically for the natural unity of humanity, and not only for moral unity. “The Lord prayed to the Father that those who would believe in Him would be one, and as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so that all would be one in them. Why do you introduce like-mindedness here, the unity of soul and body in agreement of the will? If the will made them one, then the Lord, for completeness and accuracy, would pray like this: Father, as We desire one thing, so let them also desire one thing, so that we may all be one in like-mindedness. Or perhaps He Who Himself is the Word did not know the meaning of words, and He Himself is the Truth, did not know how to speak, and, being Wisdom, fell into error, and, being Power, was in such weakness that he could not say what he wanted to make clear? He clearly expressed the true and immutable mysteries of the evangelical faith... In the words of Christ, firstly, there is a prayer for those about whom it is said: that they may all be one, - then the limit of unity is shown by the example of unity, when it is said: as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, and they in Us, - so that as the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so in the image of this unity (per hujus unitatis formam) all were one in the Father and the Son" 44. Through this the world will believe in the sending of the Son by the Father, that all who believe in Him will be one in the Father and the Son. And how they will be can be seen from the following words: I have given the glory to Me, and I have given it to them. And now I ask whether glory is the same thing as will, whereas will is the movement of the soul, while glory is either the image or the dignity of nature. So, the Son gave to all who believe in Him the glory received from the Father, and not the will, for if the will were given, then faith would have no reward, since the necessity of the given will would impart faith. What the giving of received glory produces is shown by the words: that they may be one, even as We are one. So, the glory received is given in order that all may be one, and therefore all are one in glory, because the glory is not given other than that which is received, and is not given for anything other than that all may be one. “The Lord, who leaves nothing unclear for believers, taught the very image of this natural action, saying: let them be one, as We are one. I in them, and You in Me: that they may be made perfect into one. To those who think there is a unity of will between the Father and the Son, I ask whether Christ now abides in us by virtue of the authenticity of nature, or by the consent of the will? If indeed the Word became flesh and we truly partake of the incarnate Word at the Lord’s Table, then how can one think that He who, having been born as a man, took on the nature of our flesh to the point of inseparability, and mixed the nature of His flesh with the nature of eternity (i.e., His Divinity) in the sacrament of the flesh, which we must partake of, is not by nature (non naturaliter) in us? So, we are all one, since the Father is both in Christ and Christ is in us. Therefore, whoever wants to deny that the Father is by nature in the Son must first deny his being in Christ, and Christ in him.”46 For Hilary, the reality of the incarnation of the Son of God and the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist are all proofs of the real unity of all members of the Church of Christ 47. Such a representation of real unity, according to Hilary, would be insane and impudent if Christ Himself had not taught about it, but He taught about it and we must believe 48. Hilary himself summarizes his reasoning in this way: “the mystery of true and natural unity is proven by the glory of the Son given to us, and by the fact that the Son abides bodily in us, and also by the fact that we are united in Him bodily and inseparably” 49 . Thus, in “Western Athanasius” we see a very decisive parallel between the consubstantial unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the unity of human nature, renewed by Jesus Christ and realized in the Church. The unity of faith and sacraments and disparate human personalities seem to gather into the unity of nature. The idea of ​​the unity of human nature in Orthodox theological science meets with the most varied reception. The very example of the consubstantiality of human individuals given by St. Basil the Great is considered "somewhat rude and unfortunate." St. Gregory of Nyssa, they say, can be reproached for the fact that he “invented” human consubstantiality, this non-existent real unity 50. Others, quite the opposite, consider the idea of ​​the unity of human nature to be the main thing in the dogma of the Church 51. If we take into account and appreciate the fact that the idea of ​​the unity of human nature is expressed and defended by the outstanding great fathers of the Church, then, I think, an Orthodox theologian cannot leave without due attention to this patristic thought when revealing the dogma of the Church. The Church has never looked at Christ only as a teacher of truth. She saw in Him the incarnate Son of God, Who, having assumed human nature into the unity of hypostasis, thereby renewed and recreated this nature. And, of course, it is not the individual person who is restored to the first goodness, but precisely human nature. Our Church, despite its deviation from school theology, still sings in its services about the renewal of human nature. The unity of humanity, destroyed by sin, has been restored. In the Church, the unity of humanity is achieved, which people dream about even outside the Church, but which they cannot achieve without the Church, for only in the Church “the lower power of the Divine Spirit united into one agreement the language of people divided in ancient times, who agreed to evil, admonishing the faithful with the knowledge of the Trinity.” These words of the canon of Pentecost express precisely the truth that the Church is the unity of humanity, similar to the trinity of the Divine. Associate Professor at Moscow Theological Academy In Russian theological literature, the idea of ​​the unity of church humanity in the image of the essential unity of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity was pointed out 20 years ago by Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in his article: “The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity,” and then in the article: “The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity.” But the work indicated by our theologian has not yet been completed - testing this thought according to the patristic works (see Complete Works, vol. 2, ed. 2. St. Petersburg 1911, p. 76, note 1). What follows will be an attempt to collect patristic material that confirms the main idea of ​​these articles by the highly revered Saint and theologian of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the Lord's Prayer, ch. 23. Creations, part 2 (Kiev 1891), p. 217. Letter 36 to Cornel. Ch. 1. Creations, part 1, page 197. Letter 59 to Stephen, ch. 2. Creations, part 1, page 330. On the unity of the Church, chap. 24, 25. Creations, part 2, p. 197. O benefactor. and alms, ch. 25. Creations, part 2, pp. 288–189. On the Lord's Prayer, ch. 30. Creations, part 2, page 221. On the unity of the Church, ch. 6. Creations, part 2, p. 181. Letter 62 to Magnus, ch. 5. Creations, part 1, pp. 363–364. Mai. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio. t. 9. p. 619. Russian translation prof. E.Lovyagin in the complete collection of works of St. Methodius. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg 1905, p. 287. See prof. A.A. Spassky. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils, vol. 1. Sergiev Posad 1906. pp. 478–479. Comp. Victor Nesmelov. The dogmatic system of Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Kazan 1887, pp. 51–52, 53. Letter 38. Creations, ed. 4. part 6. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra 1902, p. 80. Ascetic statutes, ch. 18. Creation, part 5, pp. 358 359, 360. Prof. talks about this. A.A. Spassky. Quote cit., p. 503. V. Nesmelov. Quote cit., pp. 302–303. Creations of St. Gregory, bishop Nissky, part 4. Moscow 1862, p. 12. To Avlavius. Creations, part 4, page 114. To the Hellenes on the basis of general concepts. Creations, part 4, page 182. To Avlavius. Creations, part 4, page 115. To Avlavius. Creations, part 4, pp. 127–128. To Avlavius. Creations, part 4, page 184. On the structure of man, ch. 16. Creations, part 1. Moscow. 1861, pp. 144, 145. To Avlavius. Creations, part 4, pp. 128–130. To the Hellenes. Creations, part 4, pp. 184–186. To the Hellenes. Creations, part 4, page 190. To the Hellenes. Creations, part 4, pp. 186–187. To Armenia. Creations, part 7. Moscow 1865, p. 217. Antirritik. 55. Creations, part 7, page 192. Antirrik. 15. Creations, part 7, page 86. Antirrik. 15. Creations, part 7, page 192. About perfection. To Olympius the monk. Creations, part 7 p. 235. On worship and service in spirit and truth, book. 2. Creations, ed. Moscow Spirit. Acad., part 1. Moscow 180, p. 119. Interpretation of the Gospel of John, book. 11, ch. 10. Creations, part 15. Sergiev Posad 1912, pp. 97–98. On Worship, book. 2. Creations, part 1, page 133. On Worship, book. 2. Creations, part 1, page 167. Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Book 11, ch. 11. Creations, part 15, pp. 105–106, 107, 108, 109, PO, 111, 112. Similar thoughts in the first dialogue De saucta Trinitate. Cyrilli Alexandriae, Archiepiscopi operum t.5. Cura et studio loannis Auberti. Lutetiae MDCXXX. coll. 406–409. Da sancta Trinitate doal. 1.1. 5, coll. 407E-408B. See Al. Orlova Trinitarian views of Ilarius of Nictavia. Sergiev Posad 1908, LXIII. De Trinitate. VIII, 5. Sancti Hilarii pictavorum episcopi opera... studio et labore monachorum ordinis S. Biniditi. Parisiis MDCXCIII, coll. 950D. 951 A. De Trinitate. VIII, 10, coll. 952C. De Trinitate. VIII, 7. Opera, col. 851B-E. De Trinitate. VIII, 8. Opera, col. 951E-952A. De Trinitate. VIII, 9. Opera, col. 952B. De Trinitate. VIII, 11. Opera, coll. 952E-953B. De Trinitate. VIII, 12. Opera, coll. 953C-954A. De Trinitate. VIII, 13. Opera, coll. 954C-955A De Trinitate. VIII, 13. Opera, coll. 955B. De Trinitate. VIII, 14. Opera, coll. 955B-956A. De Trinitate. VIII, 17. Opera, coll. 957D-E. V. Nesmezov. Dogmatic System of Saint Gregory of Nyssa, pp. 302, 307. Archbishop Anthony. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church. Complete works, vol. 2. p. 17. sll. Srvn. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Ibid., pp. 69–71. You might be interested in: