А. А. Спасский. Учение каппадокийцев о единстве Святой Троицы 187

Arianism with its various modifications, which worried the Church throughout the 4th century, put forward new heretical principles in the fight against church teaching. Before Arianism, the starting point of heretical teachings was the unity of the Divine. They rejected the Trinity of Persons. According to the nature of heresies, the Church before the advent of Arianism, revealing dogmatic teaching, was mainly concerned with clarifying the trinity of the Hypostases in contrast to the monarchianism of the heretics. The unity of the Divine was not as revealed by representatives of the church teaching of this period as the trinity of Persons, because heretics did not reject it either. Arianism emerged from the opposite principle. Recognizing the trinity of Persons, Arius could not reconcile it with the unity of the Divine, remaining on the basis of church teaching, that is, recognizing three consubstantial and equal Hypostases. In order to reconcile trinity with unity, he rejected the consubstantial Persons and thus came to the same monarchianism, only in a new form. The new direction in the teaching of the heretics forced the Church, the guardian of dogmas, to determine at the Council of Nicaea the consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity. However, the Nicene creed was not quickly established in the Church. With that love for abstract questions and religious disputes, which Gregory the Theologian testifies to, the Greeks could not be satisfied with a dry definition of religion. They needed a philosophical justification for the doctrine of the unity of the being of God in the trinity of Persons. The holy Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus, who was called the Theologian for his lofty teaching, were among the first to try to satisfy this request of their contemporaries. The works of the Cappadocians were the first to mark the beginning of the golden age of Christian literature. Their works in the field of Christian dogma, exegesis and preaching will forever remain exemplary. In particular, the doctrine of the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity was so understood by them and brought closer to our minds that the dogmatists of subsequent times could not add anything to their teaching in essence. Brought up on the writings of Origen, the Cappadocian fathers were able to take advantage of the principles of his teaching about the Holy Trinity, at the same time eliminating the possibility of drawing conclusions from their teachings similar to Arianism. The teaching of the Cappadocians about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is essentially the same. They all teach about God being one in essence and three in Persons. But the philosophical side of their teaching is not the same, so we will present the teaching of each separately. In first place we must put the teaching of Basil the Great. This great father of the Church, a talented and strong-willed man, united by the charm of his personality a small circle of defenders of the Nicene Creed in his homeland and in the East in general. Both Gregory used his instructions in their teaching. The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa on the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity bears clear traces of the influence of Basil. By the way, both Gregory accepted Basil's terminology in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Vasily's terminology played a very important role in the history of dogma of the Orthodox Church. Establishing and clarifying its meaning is Vasily’s greatest service to the Church. In the East, before Basil established the trinitarian terminology to designate the Divine Being, the synonymous terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις were used indifferently. The persons of the Holy Trinity were identified by the word πρόσωπον, and sometimes - ὑπόστασις. Such inaccurate terminology gave rise to accusing church dogmatists of heresy. If they used the term πρόσωπον to designate a Person, they were accused of Sabellianism. Πρόσωπον means “face”, “mask”, “role”. Consequently, they could be credited with recognizing Persons as only a form of manifestation of one and the same Deity 188 . If they taught about three Hypostases, they were credited with tritheism (the recognition of three completely independent Gods) on the grounds that the term ὑπόστασις did not differ from the term οὐσία 189. To avoid such quibbles with the teachings of the Church, Vasily uses exclusively the term ὑπόστασις to designate a Person. He constantly explains in his sermons and letters to various persons in what sense this term should be understood as applied to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and indicates its difference from the term οὐσία 190. Defining the logical relationship of the terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, Basil at the same time develops his teaching about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. In general, we use the term οὐσία in the sense of a general or generic concept, teaches Vasily, and the term ὑπόστασις - in the sense of a particular concept. Thus, the word “man” is a general concept. It denotes the essence of their nature common to all people. Each of us is no more and no less human than the other. Therefore, we use the concept “man” when speaking of several persons as belonging to one entity, without regard to their differences from each other. But if we need to point out certain persons, then we use proper names, which denote the distinctive features of those who have the same nature. It is these distinctive features that constitute the hypostasis of a famous person. Hypostasis is a concept “which is general and unlimited in a certain object, defines and describes through indicated features” 191. In exactly the same sense, one must understand οὐσία and ὑπόστασις in the dogma of the Holy Trinity. “Whatever the thought of the being of the Father represents to you... imagine the same about the Son, and likewise the same about the Holy Spirit... But when in the Trinity it is necessary to formulate an unfused distinction according to the distinctive signs, then for the definition of the distinctive we will not take the universal imaginable, such as, for example, uncreatedness, or inaccessibility by any concept, or something similar to this, but we will seek that one thing, by which the concept of each is clear and not mixing will separate from what is represented together” 192. So, Vasily teaches us to understand οὐσία in the sense of a generic concept, and ὑπόστασις - in the sense of a particular one. But if he had transferred the generic and particular concept in the exact sense into the dogmatic doctrine of the Trinity, he would have fallen into tritheism. The generic concept is abstract. It is realized only in individuals of a given genus. Understanding οὐσία in the sense of a generic concept, Basil would be forced to recognize in the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity three independent and separate bearers of the Divine essence. Based on his teaching, we see that he recognized one indivisible Divine being. Consequently, we must conclude that he transferred the general and particular concepts into dogmatic terminology not in the strict sense, in order to more clearly highlight hypostasis with the unity of the existence of Persons in one essence. In the being of God, Basil the Great does not allow any division. It would testify to the complexity of the Divine. On the contrary, Vasily insists on the simplicity and indivisibility of the being of God as the All-Perfect. How careful Vasily was regarding the assumption of the idea of ​​three independent deities is evident from the fact that he does not even allow the use of the concept of number in relation to the Deity. The concept of number is associated with the concept of quantity, and the latter leads to the idea of ​​a limited being. Therefore, we can think of the nature of God as one not in number, but one in the sense of uniqueness, the singularity of the All-Perfect Being, just as Scripture calls God one in contrast to pagan polytheism 193. Basil's teaching about the singularity of the Divine essence with the trinity of the Hypostases is clearly evident from his teaching about the relationship of the Hypostases to the Divine essence and among themselves. The hypostatic properties of the Father (ungeneracy, originlessness of being), the Son (birth) and the Holy Spirit (holiness) serve to ensure that we seamlessly distinguish three Hypostases in the Divinity. There is no substantial difference between these Hypostases. They all undividedly possess the same Divine essence. According to their hypostatic properties, the Son and the Spirit have as their beginning, the source of their existence, the Hypostasis of the Father 194. However, the origin of the Son and the Spirit from the Father does not introduce division into the Divine being. About the birth of the Son, Basil clearly says that it did not bring about the multiplication or division of the Divine essence: “The Son was not produced from the Father by command, but was born from nature; was not separated from the Father, but the perfect one shone forth from the one who remained perfect” 195 . About the procession of the Spirit, Vasily says that it happened “inexpressibly” 196. Proof of the indivisibility of the Divine nature in the trinity of Hypostases, according to the teachings of Basil, is the absence of space and time between Them. No space separates the Persons of the Holy Trinity in Their Divine Being. There is no extraneous intermediate object between Them, so that the Persons of the Divine Trinity cannot be represented one without the other. Just as, taking a chain by one end, we together pull the other end of the chain by the intermediate links, so “whoever imagined the Father in his mind, he also imagined Him in Himself and at the same time embraced the Son in thought. But whoever has the Son in his mind does not separate from the Son and the Spirit” 197. No matter how difficult it is to imagine the coexistence of three Hypostases in a single Divine being, it is nevertheless possible to find a similarity and, as it were, a shadow of this truth in natural phenomena. Observing a rainbow in the clouds, we see in it different colors that are not separated from one another and imperceptibly transform into one another. So in the Holy Trinity, “with a common essence, distinctive properties shine in each Person” 198. Although the Son and the Spirit have the Father as their origin, they are co-eternal with Him. “No century lies between Them,” says Vasily, “and our soul does not allow even the thought of separation, so that either the Only Begotten would not always be with the Father, or the Holy Spirit would not exist together with the Son” 199. Thus, the hypostatic properties of the Son and the Spirit - Their origin from the Father - do not introduce division into the one Divine being. Without dividing the Divine being and at the same time raising the Hypostases to one beginning, the hypostatic properties of the Persons satisfy the philosophical requirement of the unity of the All-Perfect and eliminate the reason for accusing the Orthodox teaching of the Trinity of plurality 200. Consistently coexisting in a single Divine essence, the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity have a close, unbroken moral unity. The life of the three Hypostases is completely identical and one, as we recognize it from its manifestations in the world. In all actions towards the world, the Persons of the Holy Trinity manifest themselves in complete agreement and unity. Attributing a certain action to any Person of the Holy Trinity, according to His hypostatic properties, primarily, we at the same time do not exclude from this action other Persons. On the contrary, we assume a single action of all Hypostases with the unity of will in Them. “It is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit who sanctify, give life, enlighten, comfort, and all similar things,” says Vasily. – And let no one attribute the power of sanctification solely to the action of the Spirit, hearing that the Savior in the Gospel says to the Father about the disciples: “Father! ...Hallow...them in Thy Name” (John 17:11, 17). And also everything else, equally by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, acts in those who are worthy: all grace and power, guidance, life, consolation, transformation into immortality, elevation into freedom and, if there is any other good, descending on us” 201. The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity serves as a continuation and development of the teaching of Basil the Great on the same logical basis. Gregory of Nyssa, like Basil the Great, taught that by essence in the doctrine of the Trinity we mean the species, and by hypostasis the indivisible. But he was presented with a dilemma: either, recognizing by essence the species, and by hypostasis the indivisible, we must recognize three independent Gods, as we recognize three people in Peter, James, and John, or, recognizing the One God, not attribute deities to the Son and the Spirit 202. Resolving this dilemma, Gregory says that he recognizes in the Father, Son and Spirit a single, indivisible being, which we call God. Although the name “God” extends to the entire Trinity, it cannot be counted, it cannot be said that we have three Gods 203. Proving why it is impossible to count the name of the being of God, Gregory examines the custom of counting the species in general and finds it incorrect and unsuccessful. We use the species name in the plural. We say, for example, “many people,” but this concept is equivalent to the concept “many human natures.” Meanwhile, human nature is one - “a unit united with itself and exactly an indivisible unit, not increased by addition, not diminished by withdrawal. Although it appears in many, one remains, not given a special part to each of its participants” 204 ​​. Therefore, says Gregory, to designate at least many people the word “man” must be used in the singular, just as to designate many people we use the words “people”, “crowd”, “army” in the singular 205. Likewise, Scripture designates the nature of the entire human race with the word “man” in the singular: “man is like the grass of his days” (Ps. 102:15) 206. Thus, according to Gregory's conclusion, the use of the concept of species in the plural is generally incorrect, and he advises correcting this custom. But customs are difficult to correct, and those who calculate the concept of species in everyday speech can find justification for themselves in the fact that human nature is added and decreased through the birth of some and the death of others, although the change concerns the persons themselves, and not the species. In the Divinity we find no such reason for using the name of God in the plural. In the Trinity there is no addition or subtraction of Persons. Then the custom finds its basis in the fact that the addition of persons does not occur directly from one reason. One and the same person itself comes from another, and can be the cause of the origin of a third person. In the Trinity, on the contrary, there is one cause (the Person of the Father), from which the Son comes through birth and through the procession the Spirit 207. On these grounds, we cannot count the name “God” in any case, but must always say in accordance with Scripture: “The Lord God... is one” (Deut. 6:4). Scripture, which, in accordance with custom, sometimes allows the use of the name of human nature in the plural, never allows this in relation to the name “God,” which teaches us, like science, to speak of God only in the singular 208. So, in accordance with the rules of logic, according to Gregory, the name “God” cannot be used in the plural. However, this reasoning of Gregory does not prove the internal unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. It proves only formally that we should not talk about three Gods, so as not to fall into polytheism; so there remained the possibility of suspecting Gregory of tritheism. Another proof of Gregory that in our Trinity there are not three Gods concerns the internal relationship of the Persons. Gregory says that we cannot count the being of God, for it is incomprehensible and indefinable. Any definition that we give to the Divine, either according to our own essence, or on the basis of Holy Scripture, concerns only something cognizable by us in the Divine being, and not the essence itself. We do not and cannot have words to define the being of God. True, we are accustomed to thinking that the name “God” defines the being of God. But in fact, this name does not refer to the being of God, but defines one of the properties of this being - visual activity, or, in modern theological language, omniscience. Having recognized this property of the Divine, we give Him the name “God” 209. The visual ability, according to the teaching of Scripture, belongs to all three Persons: “God is our protector and seer” (Ps. 83:10); “When Jesus saw their thoughts” (Matthew 9:4); “For Satan will cause your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:3) 210. It would seem that on the basis that omniscience belongs to all three Persons of the Divine, we need to count the name “God”, just as we count the names of people of one profession, we say: three philosophers, three geometers, three rhetoricians. But Gregory, comparing the activity of God with the activity of people, comes to the opposite conclusion. People of the same profession each act independently, separately from others. The activities of each of them bear a unique imprint. This is not what we see in the Divine. Here, in every act of the Divine will, all three Persons act inseparably. “Every action that extends from God to creation...,” says Gregory, “and is named according to many different concepts about it, comes from the Father, extends through the Son and is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the name of action is not divided into many active ones, since there is no special care for anything acquired by everyone. But whatever happens, whether it concerns the industry about us, or the Economy and the composition of the universe, everything is produced by the Three, however, the works are not three” 211. Gregory explains the unity of action using an example. According to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, we receive life from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, the triplicity of those who bestowed does not give us the right to conclude that from each they received a special life - in this case we would have three lives. “One and the same life,” says Gregory, “is put into action by the Father, prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Spirit” 212. In the same way, in everything the Trinity acts inseparably. “Every good deed and name, not in time, without interruption, depending on the beginningless power and will, is carried out in the power of the Spirit by the Only Begotten God, and there is no extension of time or is not imagined by thought in the movement of the Divine will from the Father through the Son to the Spirit” 213. Hence, Gregory concludes, “just as we do not call three Life-Giving Ones who produce the same life, nor those contemplated in the same goodness as three Good Ones, so we cannot call three Gods, collectively and inseparably through each other, bringing into action on us and on all creatures this Divine, that is, supervising, power and activity” 214. Gregory confirms his conclusion with a reference to the Apostle Paul, who says: “there is one Savior for all men, especially for those who are faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10). The Apostle teaches us to name the one Savior. Nevertheless, we confess that “the God of all is the Savior of all, while the Son accomplishes salvation by the grace of the Spirit” 215. In the same way, recognizing the entire Trinity as participating in the supervising activity, we must call It one Deity. Thus, according to the teachings of Gregory of Nyssa, God Himself is incomprehensible, and to the extent that His activity is manifested in the world, we must conclude that He is one in essence. More definitely, the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity was essentially developed by Gregory in his teaching about the mutual relationship of the Hypostases. The doctrine of the trinity of Hypostases, Gregory teaches, does not contradict the unity of the Divinity on the grounds that it resolves the question of the different mode of existence of Persons, and not of their difference in essence. “Confessing the indifference of nature, we do not deny the difference between being a cause and coming from a cause, we understand that this is the only way to differentiate One from the Other, namely, that, as we believe, One Person is the cause, and the Other is from the cause. And in that from the cause, we again imagine another difference; for the One is direct from the First, the Other is from the First through the mediation of That which is direct from Him, which is why the only-begottenness undoubtedly remains with the Son, and the Spirit undoubtedly also belongs to being from the Father, because the mediation of the Son and Him preserves the only-begottenness and the Spirit does not remove it from natural rapprochement with the Father” 216. The whole difference between the Hypostases lies in the fact that One of them is the cause of the existence of the Other Two. But this difference between the Hypostases does not introduce any division into the nature of God. On the contrary, the hypostatic properties, indicating only the way of being of Persons, prove the unity of the being, because the Hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, having the Hypostasis of the Father as the reason for their existence, retain close unity with It. To prove the inseparability of the essence of God in the Hypostases, Gregory cites the same considerations as Basil the Great: “The Persons of the Divine are inseparable from each other neither in time, nor in place, nor in will, nor in undertakings, nor in activity, nor in undergoing anything similar to what is seen in man, except for one thing only, that the Father is the Father, and not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit - neither Father nor Son" 217. The teaching of Gregory the Theologian about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity serves as the completion of the teaching of the Cappadocians. His teaching about the unity of Persons is essentially clearer and more definite than that of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. The relationship of the Hypostases to the essence and among themselves is developed more precisely. Briefly, Gregory the Theologian himself sets out his teaching as follows: “The Beginningless, the Beginning and the Existing with the Beginning - one God. The name of the Beginning is the Father, the Beginning is the Son, the One who is with the Beginning is the Holy Spirit, and the one nature in the Three is God, and the Unity is the Father, from Whom the Others and to Whom They are raised, not merging, but coexisting with Him and not divided among themselves by time, desire, or power. For this makes us something many, because everyone is at odds with himself and with others. But for those whose nature is simple and their existence is identical, unity befits” 218. From this brief summary of Gregory's teachings, the following theses of his teaching about the Holy Trinity are visible. God is one in essence and threefold in persons. The unity of the being does not merge the Trinity Persons, but the Persons do not share the Divine nature, which is simple and therefore indivisible. Nothing violates the unity of the Hypostases, in contrast to the fragmentation of human personalities and the duality of self-consciousness even of individual individuals: the Persons of the Holy Trinity are one in time, will and power, so that Their existence is identical. Developing these theses, Gregory teaches that the being of God, incorporeal, simple and indivisible, 219 indifferently belongs to all three Hypostases. “Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son also, except unbegottenness; everything that the Son has belongs to the Spirit, except birth. And unbornness and birth do not distinguish essences, in my opinion, but differ in one and the same essence” 220. Speaking about the indivisibility of the incomprehensible being of God in the three Persons, Gregory resorts to an analogy to express his thoughts more clearly: “The Divinity in the Divided is indivisible, as in three suns, which are contained in one another, one dissolution of light” 221. This analogy gives a clear idea of ​​Gregory’s teaching about the unity and inseparability of the being of God in three Hypostases. The hypostatic difference of Persons does not merge into the unity of the essence of these Persons, without dividing in turn a single being. “The difference in the manifestation [of Persons] or mutual correlation produces a difference in their names,” says Gregory. – For the Son lacks nothing to be the Father (since sonship is not a deficiency), but He is therefore not yet the Father. Otherwise, the Father also lacks something to be the Son, because the Father is not the Son. But this does not mean a lack (where does it come from?) and a decrease in essence. This very thing - to be unborn, to be born and to proceed - gives names: the first - to the Father, the second - to the Son, the third - to the Holy Spirit... so that the unity of the three Hypostases is observed in the single nature and dignity of the Divinity. The Son is not the Father, because the Father is one, but the same as the Father. The Spirit is not the Son, although from God, because the Only Begotten is one, but the same as the Son. And the Three are one in Divinity; and the One is Three according to personal properties, so that there is neither one - in the Sabellian sense, nor three - in the sense of the current evil division" 222. Thus, the unity of a being, according to the teachings of Gregory, is not violated by the fact that it belongs to three Hypostases. To clarify this issue, Gregory uses analogies, but extremely carefully. In a limited world, it is impossible to find an exact expression of the relationships between the Persons of the All-Perfect Being, and there is always a reason to attribute to the Divine properties that do not belong to Him. Gregory points out the weaknesses of the analogies used by his contemporaries, eliminating the possibility of reinterpretation of his teaching 223. Gregory considers the most suitable analogy for determining the relationship of Persons to beings to be the unity of mind, thought and soul. “Just as it is impossible to imagine any division or section between the mind, thought and soul,” says Gregory, “it is equally impossible to imagine any division or section between the Holy Spirit, and the Savior, and the Father, because... the nature of the intelligible [soul] and the Divine is inseparable” 224. The hypostases of the Son and the Spirit have the Hypostasis of the Father as the reason for their existence. But this in no way violates the unity of God’s being, for the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity are not separated by time. “It would be extremely inglorious for the Divine, as if due to a change in His advice, to come to the fullness of perfection,” says Gregory 225. Consequently, the immutability of the Divinity, as an All-Perfect being, already speaks for the fact that the Persons are co-eternal with each other. Although the Son and the Spirit are not without origin in relation to the Father, as the Author of His existence, 226 they are coeternal with Him: “If it was when the Father was not, then it was when the Son was not. If it was when the Son was not, then it was when the Holy Spirit was not. If there was One from the beginning, then there were Three" 227. Discussing the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, Gregory says: they took place “before the very time.” If it is necessary to express it a little more boldly: then, like the Father. But when is Father? It never happened that there was no Father. And also it never happened that the Son was not and the Holy Spirit was not” 228, “for they are not under time from whom time” 229. Therefore, according to the teachings of Gregory, one must avoid even such expressions as “when”, “before”, “after”, “from the beginning” in relation to the Persons of the Divine Trinity, because they do not exclude the concept of time 230. The Trinity of co-eternal Hypostases does not introduce division into the inner life of the Divine. People have disagreements not only with others, but even with themselves due to the struggle of our “I” with different motives. The Persons of the Holy Trinity in this regard represent such unity and identity that They do not have even a shadow of division. Possessing an equal degree of power, the Persons of the Holy Trinity demonstrate complete unity of the Divine will. “Each of the Persons of the Divine, by identity of essence and power, has the same unity with the United One as with Himself,” says Gregory 231. Explaining the words of the Savior, “The Son came down from heaven, not to do His will, but to Him who sent it” (John 6:38), Gregory teaches: “...this is said not because the Son’s own will is really different from the will of the Father, but because there is no such will, and the meaning contained in the words is this: “Let me not do My will, because I have no will separate from Yours.” will, but there is only a will that is common to Me and You. Just as We have one Divinity, so there is one will”" 232. Summarizing the teaching of the Cappadocian fathers about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, we find that they taught about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in essence and identity of being. Published in: Faith and Reason. 1911. No. 15. pp. 301–315. See: St. Basil the Great. Letter 189. To Eustathius, chief physician // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 711. See: St. Basil the Great. Letter 8. To the Caesarea monks // Ibid. P. 503. In his confession of faith, Basil, who calls himself the continuer of the work of the Nicene fathers, proves that at the Council of Nicaea the word ὑπόστασις was used to designate a Person, and not a being. See: St. Basil the Great. Letter 125. List of confessions of faith // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 631. St. Basil the Great. Letter 38. To Gregory, brother // Ibid. P. 504. St. Basil the Great. Letter 38. To Gregory, brother // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. pp. 504–505. See: St. Basil the Great. Letter 8. To the Caesarea monks // Ibid. P. 457. See: St. Basil the Great. Conversation 24 // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 1079. St. Basil the Great. Letter 38. To Gregory, brother // Ibid. T. 2. P. 506. St. Basil the Great. Letter 38. To Gregory, brother // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 508. St. Basil the Great. Conversation 24 // Ibid. T. 1. P. 1079. St. Basil the Great. Letter 189. To Eustathius, chief physician // Ibid. T. 2. P. 715. See: Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Creations. Part 4. M., 1862. To Avlavius ​​about the fact that there are not “three Gods.” See: Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Creations. Part 4. pp. 182–183. The ability to see in Greek is called θεατικὴ, hence the one with this ability is Θεὸτης (Deity). See: Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Creations. Part 4, pp. 117–119. Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Creations. Part 4. P. 123. Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Creations. Part 4. P. 130. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 42 // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 1. P. 503. See: St. Gregory the Theologian. Letter 243. To the monk Evagrius // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 2. P. 559. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 41 // Ibid. T. 1. P. 492. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 31 // Ibid. P. 382. See: St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 31 // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 1. pp. 390–391. St. Gregory the Theologian. Letter 243. To the monk Evagrius // Ibid. T. 2. P. 560. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 41 // Ibid. T. 1. P. 491. See: St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 29 // Ibid. P. 352. See: St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 31 // Ibid. P. 377. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 29 // St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 1. P. 352. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 31 // Ibid. P. 383. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 30 // Ibid. P. 370.