С. М. Зарин. Учение святого Василия Великого о Святом Духе 233

The fourth century of the Christian era was a time of special excitement in theological thought and in this regard, in all justice, can be called the “golden age.” He rendered an irreplaceable service to our dogma in general and, in particular, to the matter of revealing and clarifying the question of the Holy Spirit. Such luminaries of theological thought as Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and among them the Holy Father Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, worked in this field. He lived and acted during the height of the Arian and so-called Doukhobor (the latter often under the guise and name of Arianism) unrest. Of course, the direct followers of Arius also represented a danger for the Church on the issue we are considering - the creatureliness of the Holy Spirit logically followed from Arian views. But such a danger on the part of the Arians was tempered by the fact that these heretics had already been condemned by the Ecumenical Council 234. As for the so-called Doukhobors from among the former Semi-Arians, who accepted the Nicene faith and at the same time denied the deity of the Holy Spirit, 235 these were much more dangerous, especially dangerous because they hid their errors under the guise of orthodoxy and even showed themselves to be its defenders. “The faith set forth in Nicaea,” they objected, according to St. Epiphany, to the Orthodox, we also confess; prove, do mercy, on the basis of it, that the Holy Spirit is included in the Divinity” 236. Basil the Great armed himself against these heretics not only with words in his sermons, but also in writing. Thus, in defense of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit, he wrote “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius”, “On the Holy Spirit. To Saint Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium"; letters - to brother Gregory, to the Caesarea monks, etc. 237 Of his works on the issue of the Holy Spirit, the first two are especially remarkable - “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” 238 and “On the Holy Spirit. To Saint Amphilochius." In them, he collected everything that could be collected against the Doukhobor heretics - he collected, it should be noted, so thoroughly that these works would not lose their significance for the Church even now, if it had to fight against this kind of heretics. The task and, so to speak, the nature of the content of these works of Basil the Great were determined by the objections made by the Doukhobor heretics. The main position of these latter was - the Holy Spirit is a work, a creature of the Son, and, as a work, He is, without a doubt, lower than the Son and the Father and therefore is not consubstantial with Them 239. As an argument in favor of the createdness of the Spirit, they cited, among other things, the fact that the denial of the createdness of the Spirit leads to the denial of His hypostasis, since after the denial of createdness, two other possible predicates of His existence - ungeneracy and begetting - lead Him to merge with either the Father or the Son 240. Having in mind such positions of heretics, Basil the Great tries to prove mainly that the Holy Spirit is not a creature of the Son, but God, equal to the Father and the Son and consubstantial with Them, on the one hand; and on the other hand, that the denial of creatureliness does not lead to the denial of hypostasis, but that the Holy Spirit is the same hypostasis as the Son and the Father. Thus, the starting and main point in the teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but God, equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. He pays special attention to the explanation of this position; he devotes almost the entire III and V books of “Refutations to the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” to it and devotes significant space in the essay “On the Holy Spirit. To Saint Amphilochius." Basil the Great himself indicates both the plan and the method of proving the truth he defends. “Since the general properties of the creature,” he says, “cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit, and what is characteristic of the Spirit cannot be attributed to the creature, then from this the conclusion is drawn that the Spirit is not a creature. Since what the Father and the Son have in common, the Spirit also has in common with Them, and since the same distinctive properties that are assigned to God the Father and the Son in Scripture are also assigned to the Holy Spirit, then from this the conclusion is drawn that the Spirit is one Divinity with the Father” 241. This similarity with the Father and the Son and the difference from creation, sufficient to prove the deity of the Holy Spirit, Basil the Great draws from the names, actions and properties of the Spirit. Thus, if we summarize the essence of the evidence of Basil the Great, we get the following: that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but God, this is clear from the names, actions and properties attributed to Him by the Holy Scriptures. As for the names, first of all, Basil the Great resorts to them as evidence several times: he shows that the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture uses the same names as God the Son and God the Father. Thus, He is called the Spirit, the Holy, the Righteous, the Good, the Sovereign Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Wisdom, the Spirit of Power, the Comforter, and even the Lord and God 242. The importance that Basil the Great attaches to names is evident from the fact that he devotes an entire chapter 243 from his work “On the Holy Spirit” to calling the Spirit “Lord.” True, the Holy Father, contrary to the heretics, insists that identity is not yet known from similarity 244, but he himself compares names in such a way, selects such texts from the Holy Scriptures that for him the Holy Spirit has common names with the Father and the Son for no other reason than “by natural unity with Them” 245. So, for example, according to Basil the Great, “by what the Lord said: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter” (John 14:16), He shows that He Himself is our Comforter. And therefore the very name of the Comforter serves in no small way as proof of the glory of the Holy Spirit” 246. A much greater degree of persuasiveness compared to the names of the Doukhobor heretics should have been given to another type of evidence by Basil the Great, namely, the activity of the Holy Spirit, precisely because the heretics themselves recognized the important significance of actions and from the difference in actions they deduced the difference in essences 247 . In view of this, Basil the Great focuses his special attention on the activity of the Holy Spirit. He depicts the Holy Spirit as always performing the same and even the same acts that both the Father and the Son perform - moreover, he depicts it so comprehensively and clearly that the deity of the Holy Spirit, His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son, become beyond any doubt. According to the teachings of Basil the Great, the Holy Spirit, along with other persons of the Holy Trinity, possesses creative, providential, and economic-saving actions. Together with the Word, the Holy Spirit is the “cause of creation” 248, namely: He is the creator of the firmament and heaven 249, participates in the creation of Angels 250 in the Spirit through the Word man is created in the image (of God) 251. The justice of all this, according to Basil the Great, is confirmed by the text: “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their power” (Ps. 32:6) 252, as well as by the place where God the Father consults with other Persons, saying: “Let us make man in Our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26) 253. But St. Basil does not limit himself to the general indication that the Holy Spirit is the same Creator as the Son and Father. He also depicts what exactly the creative activity of the Holy Spirit consists of in comparison with the same activity of the Son and Father. “In the creation of them [that is, the Angels], - he says, - imagine the original cause of what was created - the Father, and the creative cause - the Son, and the perfecting cause - the Spirit; so that ministering spirits have existence by the will of the Father, but are brought into existence by the action of the Son and acquire perfection in being by the action of the Spirit” 254. Thus, the Father is the source and beginning of creation, the Son is in the proper sense the Creator, 255 and the Spirit is the finisher, and, moreover, not only of the Angels, but of everything in general. “The Divine Spirit,” says Basil the Great, “always finally accomplishes everything that happens from God through the Son, both in the new creation... and in that which was of old in the beginning” 256. What is this final accomplishment of the Spirit? For everything that exists in general, it is that “by the message and communication of the Spirit the receiving principle of being is brought into being” 257 , in particular for Angels this will be affirmation in shrines, in goodness 258 , for man it is “revitalization by the Spirit in creating him in his image” 259 , that is, the communication to him of that spark of God, thanks to which he is the image of God. Thus, the activity of the Holy Spirit during creation, according to the teachings of Basil the Great, consists mainly in the affirmation of goodness and holiness in everything that exists, and the Spirit is a necessary participant in creation, and moreover, to such an extent that “whoever takes away the Spirit cuts off the final completion of what is created” 260. Having created the universe, God did not leave it to itself, but constantly provides for it - supports its existence, promotes good, suppresses evil. Of course, the heretics could not deny such activity of God, and they had no desire. And so Basil the Great, in various places in his writings, although, however, quite briefly, shows that the Holy Spirit is also a Provider and, as such, is involved not in the creature, but in the Divine. Undoubtedly, in this position He is depicted by Basil the Great, when He is called the “Giver of life” 261, “everything that is from God and through the Son, supporting in being” 262, governing rational nature 263, helping people achieve a natural virtuous end 264 - when it is said about Him that the order and structure of the Angels, their perfection and shrine 265. No less, if not greater, than creative and providential activity, proof of the divinity of the Spirit is His, according to the teachings of Basil the Great, His saving and sanctifying activity. Wherever there is talk of the salvation of fallen man, the Holy Spirit, together with the Son of God and God the Father, is the author of this salvation. “The economy of man,” says Basil the Great, “which, by the goodness of God, was accomplished by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, is finally filled with the Holy Spirit” 266. Even in the Old Testament, the blessings of the patriarchs, help in laying down the law, prototypes, prophecies, miracles 267 - all this was through the Holy Spirit. As for the New Testament, “the entire dispensation of the coming of the Lord in the flesh” was accomplished through the Spirit, namely: the Son of God, according to the will of the Father, is incarnated for the salvation of fallen man, and the Spirit inseparably abides with the flesh of the Lord, having become its anointing (John 1:33; Acts 10:38); The Son of God is tempted by the devil, and the Spirit is present with Him, just as He who led Him into the wilderness was tempted (Matthew 4:1); The Son of God performs miracles, but “by the Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28) 268. The Son of God brings the devil into inaction, but in the co-presence of the Spirit. Therefore, we can say with certainty that through the Spirit there is redemption of sins 269. But not only in the act of redemption itself, but also in the act of sanctification, in the process of assimilating redemption to people, along with other persons of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit also takes part. God sanctifies people, according to the teachings of Basil the Great, precisely through the Spirit 270. That is why the Spirit is the “beginning of sanctification” 271. How does the Holy Spirit sanctify? In order to assimilate redemptive merits and thereby be saved, it is necessary to believe and be baptized. “Faith and baptism,” says Basil the Great, “are two methods of salvation, related and inseparable.” 272 But it is impossible to believe without the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit: “no one can speak of the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). “The Spirit in Himself shows the glory of the Only Begotten and in Himself communicates to the true worshipers the knowledge of God” 273 - this is on the one hand. On the other hand, it is not enough to believe or be baptized only in Christ 274 or in God the Father. “The main thing in our salvation and the perfect tradition of the Divine, for the sanctification of those who are baptized,” says Basil the Great, “to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 275. Only in three Persons, and not in one or two, are both faith and baptism saving. Therefore, “to add or subtract anything (of course from the words of the Savior: “Go and teach all tongues to baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)) means to clearly fall away from eternal life” 276. If, therefore, saving faith is only when it is in the name of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, if in baptism, along with other Persons, the Holy Spirit necessarily regenerates us, which is why in the formula of baptism it is placed along with other Persons, if without the assistance of the Spirit we cannot even believe in Christ, then it means that the Spirit is not a creature, but God, equal to God the Father and God the Son 277 . Wanting to weaken the meaning (in favor of the deity of the Spirit) of the Savior’s words: “Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” the Doukhobor heretics referred, on the one hand, to the fact that once people were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2) and believed in Moses, the saint of God, as well as in God (Ex. 14:31), and, however, we do not consider Moses equal to God 278: we are baptized into water - and yet we consider it a creature, and not God 279; on the other hand, to the fact that the Apostle Paul, pointing to God the Father and the Lord Jesus as his witnesses, includes Angels as witnesses (1 Tim. 5:21) - and, however, we do not glorify them on an equal basis with God 280. Regarding the first objection of the Doukhobors, Basil the Great notes that between baptism in Moses and our Christian baptism in the name of the Trinity there is only “one common name, but in fact there is as much difference as, perhaps, between dreams and reality, between shadows or images and what independently exists” 281 ; the first was only a prototype of the second 282 and therefore cannot be referred to. As for faith in Moses, it, according to Basil the Great, does not prove that faith in the Spirit is unimportant, but rather “detracts from the confession of the God of all,” of course, from the point of view of heretics 283. There is no more validity in the heretics’ objection that we are baptized in water. The fact is that water, according to Basil the Great, used at baptism, does not save us, it only symbolically “represents death, taking the body as if into a tomb, and the Spirit (in whose name we are baptized) imparts life-giving power, renewing our souls from sinful deadness into the original life” 284. As for, finally, the reference of heretics to that place from the epistles of the Apostle Paul, where he, along with God the Father and the Lord Jesus, calls Angels witnesses, then it does not lead to belittling the importance of the Holy Spirit in comparison with the Son and Father, because “both the Spirit (in the words “go and teach ...”) and Angels (in the indicated words of the apostle) are mentioned differently; but the Spirit is called the Lord of life, the Angels are added as helpers of slaves like them and as faithful witnesses of the truth” 285. Having thus regenerated us in the sacrament of Baptism, making us a new creature, free 286, the Holy Spirit adopts us as sons to God 287, which is why it is called the Spirit of sonhood 288. Through such activity of the Holy Spirit we become so perfect that we receive the dignity of a prophet, apostle, and Angel of God 289 . But the activity of the Spirit in favor of our salvation does not end with such benefits. Having placed a person on the true path to the Kingdom of Heaven, the Holy Spirit leads him along it further: He teaches those who believe 290, guides the weak and perfects the successful 291, governs the entire community of believers, the entire Church 292, and divides gifts for the benefit of its members 293. As a result of the house-building and saving activity of the Spirit, it turns out for people - shrine, eternal life, immortality 294, “heavenly residence, standing with the Angels, endless joy, abiding in God, likeness to God and the extreme limit of what is desired - deification” 295. Finally, according to the teachings of Basil the Great, the Holy Spirit, along with the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, also takes part in the final fate of people and the world - at the Resurrection of the Dead and the Judgment 296. All of the indicated activity of the Holy Spirit - both creative and providential, and economic-saving and rewarding - necessarily leads to the recognition that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but God, equal to God the Father and God the Son and consubstantial with Them. This conclusion was all the more irresistible for the Doukhobor heretics because the Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of Basil the Great, performs not only the same actions as the Son and the Father, but also the same ones, that is, that in His activity He is inseparable from the Father and the Son. Basil the Great repeatedly insists on this in his writings. He teaches that the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son in general in all His actions 297, such as: in creation 298, in particular in the creation of the mental world, that is, Angels 299, in the Economy of our salvation 300, in the renewal of people, in gifts, in prophecies 301. Basil the Great sees a clear indication of such inseparability of the activities of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the words of the Apostle Peter to Sapphire: “Why do you agree to tempt the Spirit? She lied not to nature, but to God” (see Acts 5:9, 4) 302 and especially in the vision of the prophet Isaiah. The essence of the last indication is this: the prophet Isaiah says that he saw the Lord of hosts, that is, God the Father, on the throne (Is.6:1), and the evangelist John testifies (John 12:39-41) that Isaiah saw the Son of God, according to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25) 303. Thus, the identity of the actions of the Holy Spirit with the actions of the Father and the Son undoubtedly proves the deity of the Holy Spirit. But it is not only by this very identity that the actions of the Holy Spirit lead to such an important conclusion, but also by the fact that they testify to such properties of the Spirit that can belong to Him only as God, just as they can belong only to God - the first and second Persons of the Holy Trinity, namely: if the Holy Spirit is the Creator of the universe, the performer of miracles, the conqueror of death itself, then He is omnipotent; if He knows the needs of everyone and helps everyone in accordance with their needs, directs people to the true goal of their existence - blissful union with God, then He is omniscient and wise; if He can communicate shrines to everyone, then He Himself is holy, as the source of shrines; if He forgives us our iniquities, makes us His God, saves us, then He is good. We can find in the writings of Basil the Great direct indications of both these and some other Divine properties of the Spirit. Thus, Basil the Great ascribes to the Spirit originality 304, pre-eternity 305, immutability 306, omnipresence 307, infinity in power, “infinity in greatness” 308, sovereignty 309, mind 310, knowledge of the mysteries of God 311, holiness 312, goodness 313 , all-bliss 314. Of course, all these properties cannot belong to the creature, but only to God. In fact, a creature, precisely because it is a creature, is entirely dependent in its existence on an external cause; only God, as the author of His existence, is original; creation, as dependent on being, is subject to change; only God, as an original being, is unchangeable either in essence or in actions 315 and so on. The most important thing in proving the deity of the Holy Spirit, according to the teachings of Basil the Great, is that property of the Spirit by which He knows the secrets of God. Only “he can experience the depths of God’s judgments,” says the holy father, “who is involved in the mysteries of God, who is not alien to God, who is not foreign to Him”; but “No one knows God’s message, but the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11), which means the Spirit is not alien to God, but is of the same nature with Him 316. Basil the Great gives importance to these properties as evidence of the deity of the Spirit, especially due to the fact that he looks at them not as something separate from the essence of the Spirit, but as related to it, constituting one with it 317. He often uses expressions such as: the Spirit is holy by nature, good by nature, sovereign by nature 318, and in one letter he directly proves that holiness belongs to the very essence of the Spirit 319. These are the data that Basil the Great cites as evidence of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Of course, some of them taken separately, for example names, are insufficient for this purpose. But all of them, taken together, undoubtedly convince of the truth of the position that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but God, equal to God the Father and God the Son and consubstantial with Them. But despite this, Basil the Great is not limited to the specified data. Desiring to place the divinity of the Spirit beyond any doubt even for the most prejudiced persons, he insists that the Spirit is not only consubstantial with the Father and the Son, but is also inseparable from Them. “Do not divide,” he says, “the indivisible, do not cut the uncut. For even if you wanted to, the Divinity is not dissected, and although heretics are dissolved, the Trinity will not be dissolved; on the contrary, it remains as it is, although it does not appear to be so to others. For the Holy Trinity is a twisted rope (σπεῖρα) and is venerable in one and eternal glory, everywhere has the same one Divinity, inseparable, uncut, indivisible” 320, and the Holy Spirit “always inseparably abides with God” 321. Basil the Great sees the basis for such inseparability of the Spirit in the words of the Apostle Paul: “Who is the message of man that is in man, but the spirit of man living in him? In the same way, no one knows God’s message, but the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11), where it is indicated that the Spirit is in the same relationship to God as his spirit is to each person 322. With this, the first task of Basil the Great - the positive side of clarifying the Divinity and the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the other Persons of the Holy Trinity - can be said to be exhausted. Now let's move on to the second. The Doukhobor heretics, as stated above, said: if the Spirit is not a creature, then He is either born or unborn, but both will lead to His merging with the Father or the Son and, therefore, to the denial of His hypostasis 323. Therefore, for Basil the Great it was necessary to clarify that the denial of createdness does not yet lead to the denial of hypostasis 324. He could achieve this same goal only by showing how the Holy Spirit comes into being; he really shows it. The Holy Spirit “is from God,” he says, “not like all things from God, but as proceeding from God, proceeding not through generation, like the Son, but as the Spirit of the mouth of God” 325. This means that the method of origin of the Spirit is different from that of the Son—procession, not birth. However, it should be noted that with the word “origin” Basil the Great did not want to designate the very image of the origin of the Spirit. According to his teaching, “the very image of the procession of the Spirit is inexplicable” 326, and the word “procession” only indicates that the Spirit is from God differently than the Son 327. Because of this “otherwise”, because of the special mode of origin that is always inherent in the Spirit 328, the Holy Spirit is always a Hypostasis, a perfect Person 329. “As one God the Father,” says Basil the Great, “ever abiding with the Father, eternally being what he is; and one Son, begotten by eternal birth... who is ever and ever what He is, God the Word and the Lord - so there is one Holy Spirit, truly the Holy Spirit, Whom the prophet David calls the Spirit of the mouth (Ps. 32:6)” 330. “No one can confuse God and the Spirit of God,” says Basil in another place, therefore “do not try to assert that the Spirit of God is the same as God... The Spirit of God is one; and let no one say that there is more than one, although the Lord calls God (that is, the Father) Spirit (see John 4:24)” 331. Basil the Great did not understand hypostasis in the sense that the Holy Spirit possesses the Divine nature completely separately from other Persons and independently and constitutes the third God along with the Father and the Son. He declares more than once that “we confess the difference of Hypostases and remain under unity of command”, that there is one God 332, “we have never heard of a second God even until now” 333. According to his teaching, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father jointly own one Divine being, as evidenced by their inseparability (see above). The hypostasis of the Spirit (as well as other persons) lies in the fact that He inseparably possessed the common Divine nature with other Persons; nevertheless, He also has His own special property - originality, which distinguishes Him from other Persons 334. Finding out that the Holy Spirit is the same hypostasis as the Father and the Son, and that the method of His origin is different compared to the method of origin of the Son, Basil the Great naturally had to say who is the author of His existence, and in general, in what relationship He is to the Father and the Son. He actually talks about this. According to his teaching, the Father is the author of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This can be seen from those places in his writings where it is said that the Holy Spirit “is from God, not like everything else from God, but as proceeding from God... that He came from God, has Him as its author and His source, from which it flows” 335 and so on. This means that the relationship of the Spirit to the Father is the dependence of the Spirit on the Father in existence. That this is exactly how Basil the Great solved this question does not arouse anyone’s doubts. As for how he taught about the relationship of the Spirit to the Son, disagreements arise in the understanding of the Spirit to the Son. Many Catholic theologians, wanting to prove the antiquity of the filioque, insist that Basil the Great taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. But one has only to carefully read the works of Basil the Great that we are considering in order to be convinced that Catholic theologians are imposing their own teaching on him, and that Basil the Great taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father. That this is so is evidenced first of all by those passages in Vasily’s writings where the Father is presented as the culprit of the existence of both the Son and the Spirit. Such, for example, is the following: “God does not give birth as a man, but truly gives birth; He manifests birth from Himself - the Word, the word is not human, but reveals this - the Word truly from Himself. He brings out the Spirit with his lips, not in a human way; but the Spirit is from Him, and not from elsewhere” 336. This can be seen even more clearly from the places where it is said that the Holy Spirit has existence only from the Father, and is in a different relationship to the Son. Such, for example, are the following: “That the Spirit is from God,” writes Basil the Great in one place in his work “Against Eunomius,” “the Apostle clearly preached about this, saying: “by receiving the Spirit who is from God” (1 Cor. 2:12). And that the Spirit appeared through the Son, this the Apostle made clear, calling Him the Spirit of the Son, as well as the Spirit of God, and calling Him the mind of Christ...” 337 Here it is clearly said that the Spirit has its existence from God the Father, and about the Son it is said that through Him the Spirit only appeared (πεφηνέναι), of course a temporary appearance in the world, as thinking gives the right verb “appeared” – πεφηνένα. In another place, having said that the Spirit “is from God, not like everything else is from God, but as coming from God,” a little lower Basil the Great adds that “He [the Holy Spirit] is also called the Spirit of Christ, as united with Christ by nature,” 338 which means not because he has existence from Him. From these places it is clear that Basil the Great taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father 339. But so that absolutely no doubts remain in this regard, let us also consider those passages from the writings of Basil that at least somewhat suggest the idea of ​​filioque and to which Catholic theologians refer. Of these passages, the following first of all attracts attention: “...as the Son relates to the Father, so the Spirit relates to the Son” 340. Catholic theologians interpret these words as follows: if the Spirit relates to the Son as the Son relates to the Father, and the relation of the Son to the Father is a relation of dependence in being, then the relation of the Spirit to the Son will also be a relation of dependence in being 341. But this passage can only be understood in this way if we take it fragmentarily, and considered in the context of speech it has a completely different meaning. Having said that the Spirit relates to the Son, just as the Son relates to the Father, precisely “according to the phrase given in baptism,” Basil the Great draws the following conclusion: “...and if the Spirit is placed along with the Son, and the Son is placed along with the Father, then it is obvious that the Spirit is placed along with the Father. Therefore, is it appropriate to say about names placed in the same connection that one of them is counted, and the other is counted” 342. This is what Basil the Great is talking about here - that the Holy Spirit is not counted with the Father and the Son, but is equal to Them! Where is the indication of filioque here? In addition to this place, Catholic theologians see the indication of filioque in various figurative expressions of Basil the Great relating to the Spirit, namely in the names of His image of the Son 343, the Spirit of the mouth of God 344, the finger of God 345. In their opinion, the Holy Spirit is called by Basil the Great the image of the Son - precisely because it has existence from the Son 346. The culpable participation of the Son in the existence of the Spirit is indicated, they say, by the name of the Spirit by the finger of God, connected to the body by means of a hand, and under the hand of Basil the Great is meant the Son 347. What can be said about such views of Catholic theologians? The fact that they are only the fruit of casuistry and preconceived thoughts, nothing more. In fact, one has only to carefully read those places where the Spirit is called the image of the Son, the finger of God, etc., in order to be convinced beyond doubt that Basil the Great, with these expressions, wanted to indicate not the dependence of the Spirit in being on the Son, but something completely different. Thus, he uses the word “image” to express the idea of ​​the complete similarity 348 between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. In this sense he applies it to both the Son and the Spirit. “If the image is similar in everything,” says Basil the Great, “and the creature is in no way similar to the Creator, on the contrary, is not similar in everything, then the Son, being the image of the Father, cannot be His creature” 349 ; Basil calls the Holy Spirit “the true and natural image of God and the Lord,” an image not in the sense in which we are called. People, as created beings, have been imprinted in the image of God since a certain time. And the Spirit is the Image of God not due to an act of imprinting that ever took place, but from the beginning by nature. “The Spirit is the true image, and not in the image of God, as we are. Therefore, he who creates in the image is not himself created and the anointing is not anointed” 350. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is called here the image of the Lord not in the sense of dependence on Him in being, but to designate the complete similarity between Them in nature. In addition, by calling the Spirit the image of the Son, Basil the Great meant His relationship to the Son according to the Economy of our salvation, namely, that He makes believers “conformed to be conformed to the image of the Son” of God (Rom. 8:29) 351. One cannot see any indication of the origin of the Spirit either from the Son or in calling Him the Spirit of the mouth of God. The justice of this is confirmed by the fact that by the mouth of God Basil the Great did not understand the Son, as can be seen from his following words, in which the lips of the Father are presented as giving existence not only to the Spirit, but also to the Son: “... it is written: “The Spirit of His mouth” (Ps. 33:6),” and in another place, as we find, it is said: “The word of His mouth” (Is. 11:4), so that we would understand that The Savior and His Holy Spirit are from the Father 352. Basil the Great uses this expression “the Spirit of the mouth of God” in the sense that the Holy Spirit truly comes from God, and not from here 353. As for, finally, calling the Spirit the finger of God, we find direct indications of the sense in which Basil the Great used this expression: “The Spirit is called the finger of God,” he says in one place, “not because He has the same small power with God as the body has a finger; since one of the gifts distributed by the Spirit is the gift of miracles and healings, and Scripture does not call all the gifts of the Spirit the finger” 354. Where is there even the slightest hint of the dependence of the Spirit in existence on the Son? The formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ can be translated by the words: “with the help of the Son”, “with the assistance of the Son” and undoubtedly indicates the mediatorial participation of the Son, but it can also be equivalent to the expressions “with the Son”, “together with the Son”, “in the Son” 355. It goes without saying that the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ, no matter which of the indicated meanings we translate it, can be used to designate the relationship of the Spirit to the Son both in being and in the Economy - in appearance in the world. Thus, it turns out that the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ, if we consider it on the basis of philological data, has several meanings 356 and in itself does not say anything either in favor of the mediatorial participation of the Son in the existence of the Spirit, or against it; the whole point is what meaning to connect with it. Since the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ was used in the Church both before Basil the Great, and in his time by the Fathers of the Church, one can think that Basil uses it in the same sense in which other Orthodox theologians, both preceding and contemporary, used it - one can think so with all the more right that this saint is known as a strict zealot of paternal tradition. What meaning did the ancient Church, as well as modern theologians, connect with the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ? There is relatively little evidence coming from deep Christian antiquity about the use of the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ. We find the most ancient indication of it in the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker. The words from this symbol relating to the case we are considering are the following: “... and there is one Holy Spirit, who has being from God and through the Son appeared, that is, to people (καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐκ Θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καὶ διὰ Υἱοῦ πεφηνός δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις)" 357 . No one will argue that the expression “through the Son” is used here in the sense of the temporary manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. Further, we find the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ in the works of Tertullian and Origen. The first of them, although he did not hold a completely correct view of the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity 358, used the formula “through the Son” according to church usage - in the sense of the temporary procession of the Spirit through the Son 359. As for Origen, he used the expression “through the Son” really in the sense of the mediatorial participation of the Son in the existence of the Spirit. But such a phenomenon, by his own admission, was not based on Church Tradition, but was a matter of his personal opinion 360. It was not in the sense of the mediatorial participation of the Son in the existence of the Spirit that the expression δι᾽ Υἱοῦ was used by the Orthodox theologians contemporary to Basil the Great - Athanasius the Great and Gregory of Nyssa 361 . The first of them used this formula sometimes to designate the temporary procession of the Spirit from the Son, and sometimes to express the idea that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, and therefore with the Father, since the Son is consubstantial with the Father. An example of the last use of the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ can be the following passage from the works of Athanasius: “As the Son says: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), writes Athanasius the Great to Serapion, “so we will find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit.” That what is meant here is not the dependence of the Spirit in existence from the Son, but only His consubstantiality with the Son, is evident from the following words: “And if the Son, by His nature, is with the Father,” writes Athanasius further, “and because He is the own birth of His essence, is not a creature, but is consubstantial with the Father, then the Holy Spirit, by His nature, is with the Son and because He is given to all from the Son 362 and what He has, belongs to To the son (καὶ ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ δίδοται πᾶσι, καὶ ἃ ἔχει τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔστιν), there will be no creation" 363. As for, finally, Gregory of Nyssa, he used the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ sometimes to designate the mediation of the Son in the manifestation of the Spirit to the world, and sometimes to express the thought of the joint origin of the Spirit with the Son. An example of the latter type of use of the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ is the following place. “Let’s imagine,” writes St. Gregory against Eunomius is not a ray from the sun, but from the regenerated Sun another Sun, which, together with the first, shone through birth from Him. and then another Light of the same kind and in the same way, not separated by a period of time from the Light that was born, but shining through It, and having the cause of being from the primitive Light” 364. That here the expression “through Him” does not designate the Spirit’s receipt of existence through the Son, but the jointness of Their origin, this is revealed by the fact that the radiance of the Spirit through the Son is opposed to His receipt of existence. Thus, it turns out that both the Ancient Church and contemporary theologians of Basil the Great used the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ to designate either the temporary procession of the Spirit from the Son, or the jointness of their receipt of existence from the Father, or even the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son, but not in the sense of the mediatorial participation of the Son in the Spirit receiving existence. Only Origen connected the latter meaning with this formula. But in this case he could not have any influence on Basil the Great, since, on the one hand, Origen’s theological views favored the Doukhobor heretics 365 with whom Basil the Great fought, on the other hand, in using the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ in the indicated meaning he contradicted the paternal Tradition, of which Basil was a strict zealot. If the fathers and teachers of the Church, who could and should have influenced Basil the Great, did not connect the meaning of the Catholic filioque with the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ, then, one wonders, why on earth would Basil himself begin to connect this meaning with it, especially since it was both inconvenient and even dangerous for him to do so in view of his struggle with the Doukhobor heretics. It is much more natural to think that Basil the Great used the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ in the meaning in which his predecessors and the contemporary Fathers of the Church used it. That this is so, we will be convinced of this by an analysis of those places from the works of Vasily where the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ is found. Of these passages, what attracts attention first of all is the following: “How can the inseparable Word of God and the Spirit be separated from God through the Son?” 366 What is being said here is not about the Spirit receiving existence through the Son, this is clear from Basil’s reasoning preceding these words. Directing his speech against the Doukhobor heretics, who placed the Spirit as a creature of the Son, away from God, Basil the Great first says that just as the Son comes from God, so does the Spirit; then moving on to depicting the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, he shows that the Son and the Spirit are inseparable in their activity towards the world, namely: the Spirit animates everything that has received its beginning through the Son. The holy father concludes this speech with these words: “Therefore, how can the inseparable, the Word of God and the Spirit, be separated from God through the Son?” Since these words are the conclusion of the previous ones, and before there was no talk of the Spirit receiving existence from the Son - only His origin from the Father was spoken of - then they must be understood in the sense that the Spirit comes from God and through the Son appears or reveals His actions in the world 367 . One cannot see any indication of filioque in the following words of Basil the Great, to which Catholics also refer: “The path of knowledge of God is from the one Spirit, through the Only Begotten Son to the one Father. And vice versa - natural goodness and natural holiness and royal dignity from the Father through the Only Begotten extend to the Spirit" 368. Here we are talking only about grace-filled Divine actions that have as their subject the salvation of man. In the first half of this place, as well as in the words preceding it, it is said that the Spirit communicates the knowledge of God - without the Spirit it is impossible to believe in Christ, and in the second - about the process of our salvation, namely: Divine goodness, and holiness, and royal dignity - in a word, all our rebirth, all our salvation comes, in the words of Basil the Great, from the Father, as the source, through the Son, as our redeemer, to the Spirit, Who communicates him to us. An excellent commentary on this particular understanding of this passage are the words of Vasily, in which he calls the Father the source and wine of goods, the Son the sender, and the Spirit the dispenser of goods 369 . There is much more validity, at least at first glance, in the reference of Catholic theologians to the following passage from the writings of Basil the Great: “Why is the Spirit not the Son of the Son? Not because it has existence from God not through the Son (ὅτι οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἐκ Θεοῦ δι᾽ Υἱοῦ), but so that the Trinity is not considered an infinite multitude, stopping at the thought that She has sons from sons, as is the case with people" 370. Here lies, apparently, irrefutable proof that Basil the Great was a supporter of the filioque. Let's see if this is true? In the words of Basil the Great just quoted, the fact is truly affirmed that the Holy Spirit came into being through the Son. The justice of this is evident from the fact that a little further on Basil the Great refutes the idea of ​​the heretics that the Spirit did not call the Son son because he was unworthy of such a name, and then declares that the apostle also made it clear that the Spirit appeared through the Son, but “was careful not to call Him the son of the Son.” This means that Basil the Great recognized the Spirit as worthy of the name “Son,” and if he did not call Him by that name, it was not because he considered Him to have existence not through the Son, but for other reasons - “so that the Trinity would not be considered an infinite multitude,” and the Apostle, according to Basil the Great, recognized the Spirit as the son of the Son and was only careful not to call Him that. Now there is no doubt that in the place we are considering, Basil the Great used the expression “through the Son” to designate the act of the origin of the Spirit through the Son. Just in what sense should we understand this receipt of existence by the Spirit through the Son - that is the question. That this refers to the temporary procession of the Spirit from the Son is clear from the context of the speech. Before solving the question of why the Spirit is not a son of the Son, Basil the Great expresses himself, among other things, as follows: “The proof of the one Divinity is that neither the Father creates without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit. Therefore, the Son is the Word of God, the Spirit is the verb of the Son. and since the Spirit is the verb of the Son, it is also the verb of God.” After this, he poses the question: “Why is the Spirit not the Son of the Son?” - and solves it: “... not because it has its existence from God not through the Son.” From the preceding words it is clear that here we are not talking about the Spirit receiving existence in the proper sense and about the appearance of the Spirit into the world for providential activity. In fact, according to Basil the Great, the Son is so united with the Spirit that he does not create anything without Him, and if he does, he does what is with Him and, so to speak, through Him. Therefore, “The Spirit is called the verb of the Son, who Himself in His activity is the verb and Word of the Father. The Spirit, thus, is the instrument of the Son’s activity, the instrumental force emanating from Him into the world. If, according to the idea of ​​the holy father, the Holy Spirit in His activity in the world is a verb or Word, emanating from the Son in essence, then the question naturally presented itself to him: “Is not the Spirit the son of the Son, just as the Word of the Father is the Son of the Father?” It is clear that if the reason for the question of sonship was the temporary procession of the Spirit for external activity, then both the question and the answer can only talk about this kind of existence of the Spirit from the Son and nothing else. Basil’s further reasoning speaks in favor of this understanding of the passage we are considering, where the Spirit’s receipt of existence from the Father is contrasted with His appearance through the Son, and with this appearance through the Son the name of the Spirit is connected – Son of the Son 371 . Summarizing everything we have said about how Basil the Great taught about the relationship of the Spirit to the Son and Father, we must repeat that this holy father denied that the Spirit received existence from the Son - he considers the Father to be the only culprit of the existence of the Spirit, and only the temporary procession of the Spirit is dependent on the Son. If so, if the only author of the existence of both the Son and the Spirit is the Father, then in what relation are the Son and the Holy Spirit to each other after they receive existence from the Father? This question was raised by Basil the Great in his works “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” and “On the Holy Spirit. To Saint Amphilochius” does not solve. Only a very weak hint of the compatibility of the origin of the Son and the Spirit can be seen in such expressions: “neither the Father was ever without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit,” “there is always the Word... there is always the Spirit” 372. These are the questions related to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that Basil the Great resolved in his works “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” and “On the Holy Spirit. To Saint Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium" 373. Reviewing everything we have said in this regard about Basil the Great, we see that his teaching about the Holy Spirit is distinguished by a strictly Orthodox character; The main and essential point in his teaching about the Holy Spirit is the question of the Divinity of the Spirit - His uncreatedness, consubstantiality and equality with the Father and the Son and the closest unity with Him, reaching the point of indivisibility. He devotes almost the entire third and fifth books of “Refutations to the Defensive Speech of the Evil Eunomius” to this issue and devotes significant space in the essay “On the Holy Spirit.” He reveals it so clearly and accurately that there can be no doubt what his teaching is in this regard - so thoroughly that his writings should have been of decisive importance in the eyes of the Doukhobor heretics. Another important point in the teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Spirit is the question of the hypostasis of the Spirit, as a negative path leading to confirmation of its main position. This question is addressed by Basil the Great with no less clarity than the first, although not nearly as fully and thoroughly. In resolving these main questions, Basil the Great naturally had to touch upon, and indeed touched upon, some secondary 374 questions: the question of both the method of origin of the Spirit and His relation in existence to the Father and the Son. The first of them is still distinguished by significant clarity and accuracy. As for the second, in its disclosure by Basil the Great we do not notice either the completeness and thoroughness that we saw in the question of consubstantiality, or even the clarity and accuracy in its formulation. However, this latter is not found at all among the fathers of the 4th century when they addressed the question of the relationship of the Holy Spirit in existence to the Father and the Son. For the first time we find it only in the father of the 5th century, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, who, with certainty not subject to any doubts or reinterpretations, denied the completely mediatory participation of the Son in the receipt of being by the Spirit, considered the Father to be the only culprit of the Spirit, and called the relationship of the Spirit to the Son the name of coexistence (συνῆν) and companionship (παρομαρτοῦν) 375 . But despite the lack of this precision in the formulation, which gave rise to disputes and disagreements, we, through the removal of various passages from the writings of Basil, can say with certainty - which we did - as He taught about the relationship of the Holy Spirit after He received existence to the Father and the Son. Now it is clear to us what the merit of Basil the Great as a theologian is in the matter of teaching about the Holy Spirit: he revealed the question of the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son with remarkable completeness and thoroughness, he clarified other questions, and some, such as, for example, the question of the relationship of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, so to speak, put it on the back burner. Reprinted from: Zarin S. M. Teaching of St. Basil the Great on the Holy Spirit // Voice of the Church. 1915. No. 4. P. 75–86; No. 5. P. 72–82; No. 6. pp. 80–90. Links to pages of works of St. Gregory the Theologian here and further in the book are given according to the edition: St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Works: In 2 volumes. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2007. (Complete collection of the works of the holy fathers of the Church and church writers in Russian translation; vol. 1, 2). (Hereinafter - St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations). – Ed. We are talking about the First Ecumenical Council - Nicaea. – Ed. This is clear from the letters of St. Athanasius the Great to Serapion, Bishop of Tmuis, written around 358. “You wrote to me not without sadness,” says St. Athanasius to Serapion, - that although some have retreated from the Arians for their blasphemy against the Son of God, they nevertheless think wrongly about the Holy Spirit and claim not only that He is a creature, but also that He is one of the ministering spirits and differs only in degree from the Angels! (St. Athanasius the Great. To Serapion, Bishop of Tmuis, Epistle I // Works of St. Athanasius the Great. M., 1853. Part 3. pp. 1–2). Kokhomsky S.V. The teaching of the Ancient Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit (see: Christian reading. 1875. pp. 260–261). Some features of the teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Spirit can also be found in Discourse 15 “On Faith” (see: St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 1. pp. 1008–1012), in Discourse 24 “Against the Sabellians, Arius and Anomeans” (see: Ibid. pp. 1074–1083), in “Conversation on the thirty-second psalm” (see: Ibid. pp. 516–528), in letter 236 (see: Ibid. T. 2. p. 824), etc. This work is not all devoted to the question of the Holy Spirit, but only an insignificant end of book II and almost the entirety of books III and V. Regarding books IV and V, it should be noted that some Western (for example, Garnier and Schrenck), and even our Russian (such as Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky), author of the “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church”) theologians consider them inauthentic. Archbishop Filaret argues his view of these books in this way. “The now well-known last two words against Eunomius,” he says, “cannot be called the work of Basil for anything - neither in private expressions, nor in syllable, nor in order, nor in evidence; this is nothing more than a collection of some remarks against Eunomius, and in some ancient manuscripts only three words are written” (Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky). Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. St. Petersburg, 1859. T. 2. P. 135 in notes). Regarding all these considerations, it should be noted that they do not yet speak decisively against the authenticity of Books IV and V. The fact is that similarities and differences in syllable, order, evidence, in private expressions often have the nature of subjectivity: where one sees similarity, another sees difference, and vice versa. There are many examples of this. Let's take our Apocalypse, for example. While some saw in the manner of speech of the Apocalypse a huge difference in comparison with the Epistles and Gospel of John the Theologian and saw in this proof of its inauthenticity, others found in them, on the contrary, similarities, and not without reason. If we now turn to books IV and V of Basil against Eunomius, we will find in them many similarities with the first three. We will not analyze them in detail, since this is not our task, but we will only point out the following. The main idea in Book V, for example, of the book is that the Spirit is not a creature, but God, equal to the Father and the Son and consubstantial with Them; the way to prove this position is through names, properties, actions. But we see the same thing in book III. As for that comment by Archbishop. Philaret, that in some ancient lists there are no IV and V books, then some parts of the current Divinely inspired books and even entire books are not in all ancient lists, and, however, on this basis we do not deny their authenticity. The conclusion from what has been said is this: to this day the inauthenticity of the IV and V books of Basil against Eunomius has not been proven beyond doubt, and therefore we do not have the right to exclude them from the works of this holy father. See: St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. Book II // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 252–253. The Doukhobors said: “He [the Spirit] is not begotten or begotten; if not begotten, then the Father; if begotten, then a Son; and if neither one nor the other, then a creature” (St. Basil the Great. Conversation 24. Against the Sabellians, Arius and Anomeans // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 1080). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. Book V // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 289. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 138–139; It's him. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 310, 261–262. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit. Ch. 21 // Ibid. pp. 142–143. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 138. Right there. pp. 262, 310; It's him. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 127–128. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 302. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 311. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 127–128. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 310. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 128–129. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 113. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 307. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 113. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 139. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 297. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 114. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 299. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 118. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 264 St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 120–121 St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 119–120 St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 122 St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 116; It's him. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 291, 310. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 125–126; It's him. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 297. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 262, 310. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 262. The Holy Spirit is depicted in the Holy Scripture as dividing gifts, just as the Son is dividing ministries and the Father is dividing actions (1 Cor. 12:4-6), which means that the Spirit is acting in the same way as the Father and the Son, and, moreover, autocratically and independently of Them (1 Cor. 12:11), as befits God (St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 263, 270–271). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 317. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 298. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 127–128. Right there. pp. 126–127, 129–130. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 298, 304; It's him. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 126–127. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 127. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 294–295. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 302. Right there. P. 290; St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 113, 138. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 304, 317, 310; It's him. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 113–114, 144–145. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 113–114, 144–145. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 260, 290. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 263, 310; About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 146. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 261, 290. Right there. P. 261; St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 146. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 113. Basil the Great does not have any system in presenting the properties of the Holy Spirit - they are scattered in various places in his writings. We find a weak indication of some kind of system only in one place, where Basil the Great says that “The Holy Spirit is the proper and main name” of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, as a name for something ethereal and uncomplicated. This means that the Spirit is a purely spiritual and simple essence; hence - He cannot be limited or subject to change; hence - He is “an intelligent being, infinite in power, limitless in greatness, immeasurable over time or centuries, not lacking in goods” (cf.: St. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. P. 113). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 290. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 263. Of course, by this Basil the Great did not deny the real meaning of the properties of God. He himself rebelled against the heretics, who identified the properties of God with each other to the point of indifference (even unbornness and birth - see: St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. pp. 181-182). He taught that the properties of God really differ from each other, and he saw the basis of this difference in God, in His different relationships to the world (St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. pp. 184–185, 186–187, 190). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 261. St. Basil the Great. Letter to Evpatery and his daughter // Ibid. T. 2. P. 671. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. T. 1. P. 312. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 310. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 305. We find very clear indications of the inseparability of Divine persons in other works of Basil the Great, for example in his Discourse “Against the Sabellians, Arius and Anomeans” (St. Basil the Great. Works. Vol. 1. P. 1079), and especially in a letter to brother Gregory (St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 2. pp. 507, 511). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 266; It's him. Conversation 24. Against the Sabellians, Arius and the Anomeans // Ibid. P. 1079. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 266. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 136. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 301. The reason for the unity of the Divine, according to Basil the Great, is, firstly, the unity of nature (St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. P. 202), and secondly, the fact that in God there is one beginning of being (Ibid. P. 301; He. Conversation 24. P. 1082–1083, 1079). St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 135. See above; We find clear indications of the hypostasis of the Spirit in the letter of Basil the Great to Amphilochius (written around 376) (see: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 824), in the list of his confession of faith (in 373) (see: Ibid. T. 1. P. 631), in Conversation 24 “Against Sabellian, Arius and Anomeev" (Ibid. pp. 1079, 1080), in a letter to brother Gregory (Ibid. T. 2. pp. 502–511). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 318; It's him. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 136; see also: Same. Against Eunomius. pp. 300, 301–318, from other works of Basil the Great, especially in the “Discourse on the Thirty-Second Psalm” (St. Basil the Great. Works. T. 1. P. 521). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 301. We find even more striking confirmation of this teaching of Basil in his other works, especially in the Conversation “Against the Sabellians, Arius and Anomeans” (Ibid. P. 1079), where the Father is called the root and source of the Son and the Spirit. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 300. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 136. This can be seen from other works of Basil, especially “Against the Sabellians, Arius and Anomeans” (St. Basil the Great. Works. T. 1. P. 1080). This teaching of Basil the Great was in complete harmony with the views of the contemporary Fathers of the Church - Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa. For example, we can point to at least this passage from the works of St. Gregory the Theologian: “To the Son belongs everything that the Father has, except guilt, and everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Spirit, except Sonship and what is said about the Son bodily” (St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. Vol. 1. pp. 419–420). See similar views of Gregory of Nyssa “Against Eunomius” (Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Part 5. M., 1863). St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 134. Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology. T. 2. Kiev, 1881. P. 450. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 296, 310. Right there. pp. 301, 310; St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. pp. 128, 136. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. pp. 301, 310. A detailed objection was made, for example, by Le-Quien (M. Lequen). He says, among other things, the following: “If the property of the natural image is to be produced from the prototype, then why shouldn’t the Spirit also come from the Son?” In the same sense, the expression “Spirit is the image of the Son” is interpreted by Schwane and Langen (see: Bogorodsky N. The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, set forth in connection with the theses of the Bonn Conference of 1875. St. Petersburg, 1879. P. 137). Such objections are made by Prof. Langen. See: Bogorodsky N. Teaching of St. John of Damascus about the procession of the Holy Spirit. P. 174. In other words, consubstantial, as can be seen from his following words: “For this reason the Son is called the radiance and image of the Father’s hypostasis (Heb. 1:3), so that from this we may recognize Him as consubstantial with the Father” (St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. Book I // St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 1. P. 203). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. Book IV // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 279. Right there. pp. 296, 297. That Basil the Great did not call the Holy Spirit the image of the Son in the sense of dependence on Him in being, proof of this can also be the fact that it was not the custom for the Fathers of the Church, both preceding and contemporary to Basil, to connect such a meaning with this expression. Thus, Gregory the Wonderworker, calling the Son “the image of the Divinity” and the Spirit “the perfect image of the Son,” meant only to point out the independence of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (against the anti-Trinitarians). The justice of this is revealed from the following words of Gregory himself: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the True God, that is, the image of the true God” (St. Gregory of Nyssa. A Word about the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker // Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Part 8. M., 1872. P. 146). Another holy father, Athanasius the Great, called the Son the image of the Father in the sense that the Son, in His properties, is the most perfect likeness of the Father, not at all different from him, as if a repetition of the Father (St. Athanasius the Great. First Homily, in Arian // Works of St. Athanasius the Great. Part 2. M., 1852. pp. 188–689). He connected no other thought with calling the Spirit the image of the Son (He. To Serapion, Bishop of Tmuis, Epistle I // Creations. Part 3. M., 1853. P. 40–41). St. Basil the Great. Discourse on the thirty-second psalm // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 521. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 301. Bogorodsky N. Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the procession of the Holy Spirit. pp. 42–44. It is impossible, however, to deny the possibility of connecting with it and such a meaning that does not strictly follow from philological data. Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky). An Orthodox response to the proposed Old Catholic scheme about the Holy Spirit. Kiev, 1879. P. 6. He considered the Holy Spirit, so to speak, unequal in essence to other persons and especially to the Father (Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Vol. 2. P. 338), as if part of a single Divinity (Ibid. P. 334), although he allowed both His consubstantiality with Them and inseparability (Ibid. P. 335). Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology. T. 2. P. 332. In Gregory of Nazianzus the formula δι᾽ Υἱοῦ does not appear at all. Here we are not talking about the dependence of the Spirit in being, but about what belongs to Him according to the Economy precisely because of His inseparability with the Father and the Son. St. Athanasius the Great. To Serapion, Bishop of Tmuis, Epistle III // Works of St. Athanasius the Great. Part 3. pp. 68–69. St. Gregory of Nyssa. First book against Eunomius // Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Part 5. P. 203. He preached in his writings complete subordinationism in the Holy Trinity. According to his teaching, God the Father is as superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit as these latter are all created things (Kokhomsky S.V. The Teaching of the Ancient Church on the Procession of the Holy Spirit // Christian Reading. 1875. Part 1. P. 252), while the Spirit is lower than the Son in His dignity (Ibid. P. 255), in strength (Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of the Orthodox dogmatic theology. T. 2. P. 357) and, so to speak, in its eternity (Ibid. P. 353), as having happened through Him (Ibid. P. 353) and therefore subordinate to Him. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // Ibid. P. 137. Prof. refers to these words of Basil the Great. Langen (see: Bogorodsky N. The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. P. 178). St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 127. Wed: St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // Ibid. P. 299. St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. pp. 299–301. This is how Bogorodsky interprets this passage (see his work “The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the Procession of the Holy Spirit”). St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius // St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 309, 302. The above passages from the works of Basil the Great on the indivisibility of the Holy Trinity that we are considering can also be included here. But prof. Langen does not agree that in the writings of Basil the Great one can find an indication of the simultaneous origin of the Spirit and the Son. In his opinion, the holy father (in the essay “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius”), on the contrary, makes a certain indication of the origin of the Spirit and from the Son - in naming Him with the verb (ῥῆμα) of the Son (Bogorodsky N. The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the Origin of the Holy Spirit. P. 177). Against this, it can be said that Basil the Great used this name not to express the thought of the origin of the Holy Spirit behind the Son, but to indicate that the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world depends on the Son. The justice of this is revealed from the following words of Basil: “The proof of the one Divinity is that neither the Father creates without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit. Therefore the Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the word of the Son" (St. Basil the Great. Against Eunomius. P. 299). It is not in Langen’s favor that Basil the Great clearly showed in other writings that he recognizes the simultaneous origin of the Spirit and the Son. For example, we can point to his letter to his brother Gregory (see especially: St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 2. P. 505), where, among other things, it is said that “The Son, through Himself and with Himself, makes it possible to know the Spirit proceeding from the Father, having alone shone forth from the unborn Light.” The procession of the Holy Spirit and the radiance (i.e., birth) of the Son from the Father are presented here as occurring simultaneously. Here is another detail in the teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Spirit. The Doukhobor heretics said that in the Holy Scripture, in application to the Holy Spirit, the preposition ἐν is used, and in application to the Son and Father, the prepositions διὰ and ἐκ. From this difference in the use of prepositions, they deduced the difference in nature between God the Father, the Son and the Spirit (St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit // St. Basil the Great. Creations. Vol. 1. P. 99). Therefore, Basil the Great in his essay “On the Holy Spirit” devotes significant space to discussions about prepositions. According to him, the use of these prepositions indicated by heretics in the Holy Scriptures is not strictly observed: these prepositions are used in application to all the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Ibid. pp. 98–102). Moreover, the expression “in (ἐν) the Spirit” does not indicate the lower dignity of the Spirit compared to the other Persons of the Trinity, but His attitude towards us, namely the action of His grace in us (Ibid. p. 156). Of course, they can be called such only in relation to its main task. Bogorodsky N. Teaching of St. John of Damascus about the procession of the Holy Spirit. pp. 102, 105.