Слово 20

On the installation of bishops and the dogma of the Holy Trinity When I look at the growing disease of the tongue today, at the hasty sages, at the newly-produced theologians, for whom it is enough to just want to become wise, then I feel the need for higher wisdom, I look with Jeremiah for “the last refuge” (Jer. 9: 2), and I want to be alone with myself. For for me it seems better than anything to close off my senses, to renounce the flesh and the world, to not touch anything human without extreme need, to converse with myself and with God, to live above the visible, to always carry within myself divine images, pure, not mixed with earthly and deceptive impressions, to be and continually become, as it were, an unclouded mirror of God and the divine, to acquire light towards the light - to the less clear, the most radiant; until we ascend to the Source of those insights and reach the blissful end, when reality makes mirrors unnecessary. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone is able to overcome the substance that drags them down, unless they have already trained themselves with long-term wisdom, and have gradually torn away from the low and associated with darkness what is noble and light-like in the soul, or have been rewarded with God’s mercy, or, in addition to both, have made every possible effort to lift their gaze to grief. In the meantime, there is no strength to overcome the material, it is enough to clear your ears and thoughts; Until then, it is not safe to take charge of souls and go into theology. And what has brought me into such fear? Do not honor me as fearful beyond measure; on the contrary, even praise my foresight. I hear from Moses himself that when God spoke with him, although many were called to the mountain, and among them Aaron and his two sons, the priests, it was commanded that the others worship from afar, and only Moses came to God, but the people were not allowed to ascend the mountain (Ex. 24: 1-2). And not long before this, lightning, thunder, trumpets, the whole mountain smoking, terrible threats and other similar formidable phenomena kept the people at the bottom of the mountain, and for them it was a lot, after proper cleansing, to hear one voice of God. Meanwhile, Moses ascends the mountain, and enters into the cloud, and approaches God, and accepts the law - the law written for the people, and the law of the spirit for those who are higher than the people. I also know what happened to the priest Elijah and, somewhat after him, to Uzzah. The first suffered punishment for the iniquity of the children, which they dared to do during sacrifices, although he not only did not approve of their wickedness, but repeatedly gave them severe reprimands. Another dared only to touch Kyoto, carried away by the calf, and although he supported Kyoto, he himself died; This is how God protected the integrity of Kyoto! I also know that it was not safe for the common people to touch the walls of the church, which is why other external walls became necessary (1 Kings 6:5). And not everyone was allowed to consume the sacrifices themselves, not at all times and not in every place, much less did they dare to enter the Holy of Holies often, and not only touch, but even look towards the veil, or the purgatory, or the Icon. Knowing all this, and at the same time the fact that he is not worthy of the great God and Sacrifice, and the Bishop, who does not present himself as a living sacrifice to God, or, better to say, does not himself become a holy and living church of the living God - knowing all this, could I both thoughtlessly begin to teach the doctrine of God, and approve of someone who boldly approaches this? And the desire is not commendable, and the enterprise is difficult! Therefore, we must first purify ourselves, and then talk with the Pure One. Otherwise, we will experience the same thing that happened to Manoah, and having seen God appear, we will have to say: we, wife, perished, “for we have seen God” (Judges 13:22)! Or, like Peter, we will begin to send Jesus away from the ship as unworthy of such a visit. Or, like the centurion, we will ask for healing, but we will not accept the Doctor. Of course, some of us (while he is a centurion, prevails over many in evil, and still serves Caesar, the ruler of the world who is drawn down) will say about himself: “I am not worthy for you to come under my protection” (Matthew 8:8). But when I see Jesus, although I am small in stature spiritually, like Zacchaeus, I will nevertheless ascend the fig tree, “having mortified the members of the earth” (Col. 3:5) and having worn out “the body that was humbled” (Phil. 3:20); then I will receive Jesus to myself and hear: “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9); Then I will really receive salvation, I will begin to become more and more perfectly wise, squandering what I have collected in bad ways, that is, both money and teaching. Since I have defined in the word what a theologian should be, I will offer a brief teaching about God, trusting in the help of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit himself, about whom we have the word. But I pray to God that, like Solomon, I will not think or say anything of my own about Him. For when Solomon says: “I am more ignorant than any man, and I have no human understanding” (Prov. 30:2), of course, he does not say this with the intention of exposing his complete foolishness. For is it possible in one who most of all asked God for intelligence and received wisdom and the gift of contemplation, and breadth of heart - more abundant and inexhaustible than the sand of the sea (1 Kings 3:29)? And how could one who was so wise and honored with such a gift begin to call himself the most insane of people, if not in the sense that he does not have his own wisdom, but the wisdom of God and the most perfect acts? And Paul, when he says: “It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), he does not mean that he is completely dead, but that he lives a more perfect life than many others, because he has become involved in true life, to which no death sets an end. So we worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, separating personal properties and uniting the Godhead. We do not mix the three (hypostases) into one, so as not to fall into the illness of the Sabellians, and we do not divide the one into three (entities), heterogeneous and alien to each other, so as not to reach the Arian madness. For why, like a plant that is crooked on one side, bend with all your might in the opposite direction, correcting the crookedness with the crookedness, and not be content with straightening it only to the middle and stopping within the limits of piety? When I speak about the middle, I mean the truth, which alone should be kept in mind, rejecting both inappropriate confusion and even more absurd division. For in one case, out of fear of polytheism, having reduced the concept of God into one hypostasis, we will leave ourselves with only bare names, recognizing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and affirming not so much that They are all one, but rather that each of Them is nothing, because, passing and changing into each other, they cease to be what They are in themselves. And in another case, dividing the Divinity into three essences, or (according to Ariev, beautifully so-called madness), one alien to the other, unequal and separate, or without beginning, not subordinate and, so to speak, anti-God, then we will indulge in Jewish poverty, limiting the Divinity to one unborn, then we will fall into the opposite, but equal to the first evil, presuming three principles and three Gods, which is even more absurd than the previous one. One should not be such a lover of the Father as to take away from Him the property of being a Father. For whose Father will he be when we remove and alienate from Him, along with creation, the nature of the Son? One should not be such a lover of Christ that He does not even retain the property of being the Son. For whose Son will he be if he does not relate to the Father as the author? One should not diminish the dignity of the Father - to be the beginning that belongs to Him as the Father and Parent. For it will be the beginning of something low and unworthy if he is not the author of the Divinity contemplated in the Son and Spirit. All this is not necessary when it is necessary to maintain faith in one God, and to confess three Hypostases, or three Persons, moreover, each with His personal property. In my opinion, faith in one God is observed when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the one Author (but not add them up or confuse them with Him) - attribute them both according to the same (I will call it that) movement and will of the Divine, and according to the identity of essence. We also maintain faith in the three Hypostases, when we will not imagine any confusion or fusion, as a result of which, among those who honor more than one thing, everything could be destroyed. Personal properties will also be observed when we imagine and name the Father as beginningless and beginning (beginning, as the Author, as a source, as an ever-present Light); and the Son is not in the least beginningless, but also the beginning of all things. When I say “beginning”, do not introduce time, do not put anything in between the One who gave birth and the one who is born, do not divide the nature by putting something bad between the coeternal and the coexistent. For if time is older than the Son, then, without a doubt, the Father became the author of time before the Son. And how would the Creator of times be He Who is Himself under time? How could He be Lord of all, if time anticipates Him and possesses Him? So the Father is beginningless; because he did not borrow existence from anyone else, not even from himself. And the Son, if you imagine the Father to be the culprit, is not without beginning (because the beginning of the Son is the Father, as the culprit); if you imagine the beginning in relation to time, it is beginningless (because the Lord of times has no beginning in time). And if from the fact that bodies exist in time, you conclude that the Son must also be subject to time; then you will attribute the body to the incorporeal. And if, on the basis that what is born among us did not exist before, and then comes into being, you begin to assert that the Son also had to come from non-existence into being, then you will equate the incomparable with each other - God and man, the body and the incorporeal. In this case, the Son must both suffer and be destroyed, like our bodies. You conclude from the birth of bodies in time that God is born in this way; and I conclude that He is not born this way, from the very fact that bodies are born this way. For what is not alike in being is not alike in birth; Can you really admit that God is subject to the laws of matter in other respects, for example, he suffers and grieves, thirsts and hungers, and endures everything that is characteristic of both the body and both the body and the incorporeal. But your mind does not allow this; because we have a word about God. Therefore, allow no other birth than Divine. But you ask: if the Son was born, how was he born? Answer me first, persistent questioner: if He was created; then how was it created? And then ask me: how was He born? You say: “And there is suffering in birth, as there is suffering in creation. For without suffering, can there be a compilation of an image in the mind, tension of the mind, and disintegration into parts of what is represented? And in birth, too, time as a created thing is created in time. And here is the place, and there is the place. And failure is possible in birth, just as there is failure in creation (I have heard you say this); for often what the mind intended, the hands did not carry out.” But you also say that everything is composed by word and will. “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it appeared” (Ps. 32:9). When you affirm that everything was created by the word of God; then you introduce a non-human creation. For none of us does what he does with words. Otherwise, there would be nothing lofty or difficult for us, if it were only worth saying, and the word was followed by the execution of the deed. Therefore, if God creates what He creates with the word, then He does not have a human image of creation. And you, either show me a person who would do something with a word, or agree that God does not create like a man. Designate your city according to your will; and let a city appear to you. Wish that you have a son; and let the child appear. Wish something else would happen for you; and let the desire turn into the deed itself. If for you nothing of the sort follows from volition, whereas in God volition is already action, then it is clear that man creates differently, and differently - the Creator of everything - God. And if God does not create in a human way, then how do you demand that He give birth in a human way? You never existed, then you began to be, and then you yourself give birth, and thus bring into being that which did not exist, or (I’ll tell you something more profound) perhaps you yourself produce something that did not exist. For Levi, as the Scripture says, was “still in the loins of his father” (Heb. 7:10) before he was born. And let no one catch me at this word, I do not say that the Son came from the Father in the same way as existing before in the Father, and then coming into being; I’m not saying that He was at first imperfect and then became perfect, which is the law of our birth. Making such connections is typical of hostile people who are ready to attack every spoken word. We don't think that way; on the contrary, confessing that the Father has existence unbegotten (and He always existed, and the mind cannot imagine that there was never a Father), we confess together that the Son was begotten, so that the existence of the Father and the birth of the Only Begotten coincide with each other, from the Father who exists, and not after the Father, unless we allow consistency in only the idea of the beginning, and of the beginning as the Author (I have already returned to the same word more than once the sensuality of your understanding). But if without inquisitiveness you accept the birth (when this should be expressed) of the Son, or His independence (υπόςασις), or let someone invent for this another, more appropriate speech for the subject (because what is intelligible and uttered exceeds the methods of my expression), then do not be inquisitive regarding the procession of the Spirit. It is enough for me to hear that there is a Son, that He is from the Father, that one thing is the Father, another thing is the Son; I am no longer curious about this, so as not to fall into the same situation. What happens to a voice that breaks from excessive stress, or to vision that catches a ray of sunlight? The more and in more detail someone wants to see, the more the sense is damaged, and to the extent that the object being examined exceeds the volume of vision, such a person loses the very ability of vision if he wants to see the whole object, and not such a part of it as he could have seen without harm. You hear about birth: do not try to know what the manner of birth is. You hear that the Spirit comes from the Father: do not be curious to know how it comes. But if you are curious about the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit; then I will also ask you about the union of soul and body: how are you both dust and the image of God? What is it that drives or is moved in you? How is it that the same thing both moves and moves? How does a feeling reside in the same person and attract the external? How does the mind dwell in you and give birth to a concept in another mind? How is thought conveyed through words? I'm not talking about what's even more difficult. Explain the rotation of the sky, the movement of the stars, their harmony, measures, connection, distance, the limits of the sea, the course of the winds, the changes of the seasons, the outpouring of rain. If you, man, do not understand anything in all this (you will understand, perhaps, over time, when you achieve perfection, for it is said: “I look upon the heavens, the work of Your hands” (Ps. 8:4), and from this you can guess that what is visible now is not the truth itself, but only the image of the truth; if you have not learned about yourself, who are you, reasoning about these objects; if you have not comprehended what even testifies to feeling, then how will you attempt to find out in detail what God is and how great this is? This shows great foolishness! If you believe a little in me, not a daring theologian, then I will tell you that you have already comprehended one thing, and in order to comprehend another, pray about it. Do not neglect what is in you; and let the rest remain in the treasury. Ascend through works in order to acquire what is pure through purification. Do you want to eventually become a theologian and worthy of the Divine? Keep the commandments and do not go against the commandments. For deeds, like steps, lead to contemplation. Work with your body for your soul. And can any person become so tall as to reach Pavlov’s measure? However, he also says about himself that he sees only “through a glass darkly,” and that the time will come when he will see “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). Let us assume that in words and we are superior to others in wisdom, however, without any doubt, you are lower than God. It may be that you are more prudent than the other; however, before the truth you are small to the same extent as your existence is distant from the existence of God. We are given the promise that someday we will know as we ourselves are known (1 Cor. 13:12). If it is impossible for me to have perfect knowledge here; then what else remains? What can I hope for? Without a doubt, you will say - the kingdom of heaven. But I think that it is nothing other than the achievement of the purest and most perfect. And the most perfect of all that exists is the knowledge of God. Let us partly preserve this knowledge, let us partly acquire it while we live on earth, and partly let us preserve it for ourselves in the treasuries there, so that as a reward for our labors we may receive the full knowledge of the Holy Trinity, that She is, as she is and so is (if I may be allowed to put it this way), in Christ our Lord Himself, to Whom be glory and dominion forever and ever, amen. If the Father came from Himself, then He could be separated from Himself, so that in one we could imagine two - one pre-existing and the other originating from Him. You might be interested in: