Слово 31

About theology fifth, about the Holy Spirit This is the word about the Son, and so it escaped those stoning, “passing through the midst of them” (John 8:59), because the word is not stoned, but, when it wants, it slays the beasts with stones and slings, that is, teachings that approach the mountain with evil intent! Now they ask: “What can you say about the Holy Spirit? Where do you introduce to us a God who is alien and unknown according to Scripture? And this is said even by those who speak moderately about the Son! For what we see in roads and rivers, which are separated from one another and come together, this also happens here due to an excess of wickedness: those who disagree on one agree on another, which is why it is impossible to know for certain what is accepted by them and what is disputed. It is true that the word about the Spirit is not without difficulty, not only because the opponents, weakened by the words about the Son, fight against the Spirit with even greater fervor (and they certainly need to be ungodly in some way, otherwise life is not life for them), but also because we ourselves, overwhelmed by many questions, are in the same position as people who lose the desire for food, so soon one food aroused in them disgust. Just as every food is equally unpleasant for them, so is every word for us. However, the Spirit will give, and the word will flow, and God will be glorified. But to carefully search and analyze in how many meanings the words “Spirit” and “Holy” are taken and used in Divine Scripture, to collect evidence in favor of speculation and to prove that in addition to this, the expression made up of both of my words, namely “Holy Spirit”, is taken in a special sense - I leave it to others who have philosophized about this both for themselves and for us, since we also philosophize about it for them. And I will turn to the continuation of the word. Those who are indignant at us for the Holy Spirit, as if we are introducing some alien and co-qualified God, and who firmly stand for the letter, let them know that they are afraid of fear where there is no fear (Ps. 13:5), and let them clearly understand that their attachment to the letter is only a cover for wickedness, as will soon turn out when we refute their objections to the best of our ability. And we so boldly believe in the Divinity of the Spirit, Whom we worship, that, referring to the Trinity the same sayings (although this seems somewhat daring to others), we will begin theology in this way. “There was the true Light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), that is, the Father. “There was the true light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world,” i.e. Son. “There was the true light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world,” that is, another Comforter. “Was” and “was” and “was”, but “was” is one. Light, and Light, and Light, but one Light, one God. David also presented the same thing earlier, saying: “in Your light we see light” (Ps. 35:10). And now we have seen and preach a brief, in no way excessive Theology of the Trinity, having received from the Light - the Father - the Son in the Light - the Spirit. “The plunderer plunders, the destroyer devastates” (Is. 21:2), but what we understand is what we preach. If they didn’t hear us from below, we would climb a high mountain and cry out from there. Let us exalt the Spirit, let us not fear. And if we are afraid, then we should remain silent and not preach. If it was when the Father was not, then it was when the Son was not. If it was when the Son was not, then it was when the Holy Spirit was not. If there was One from the beginning, then there were Three. If you depose one, then I dare to say and say: do not claim that you exalt Two. For what is the use of an imperfect Godhead? It is better to say, what kind of Deity is it if It is imperfect? But how can one be perfect if something is missing for perfection? But something is lacking in the Divinity, which does not have the Holy One. And how can you have this without the Spirit? If there is any other Holiness besides the Spirit, then let them say what should be understood by it. And if this is the same, then is it possible not to be Her from the beginning? Is it better for God to never be perfect and without the Spirit? If the Spirit is not from the beginning; then He is placed along with me or a little higher than me; because over time we are separated from God. If He puts me on a par with me, then how does He make me a god, or how does He connect me with the Divine? But I’d rather talk to you about the Spirit, starting a little higher, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees did not even recognize the existence of the Spirit (since they did not recognize either Angels or the resurrection); I don’t know why they despised so many testimonies about the Spirit in the Old Testament. And among the pagans, their best theologians and those closest to us had an idea of ​​​​the Spirit, as it seems to me, but they did not agree on the name and called It the Mind of the world, the External Mind, and the like. As for the sages of our time, some considered Him to be an action, others to a creature, others to God, and others did not dare to say either one or the other about Him, out of respect, as they say, for Scripture, which supposedly did not express anything clearly about this; why do they not honor and deprive the Spirit of honor, remaining towards Him in some kind of average, or rather, very pitiful disposition. Even among those who recognized Him as God, some are pious only in their hearts, while others dare to be pious with their lips. But I have heard from other even wiser measurers of the Divinity, who, although in agreement with us they profess the Three intelligibles, nevertheless divide them so much among themselves that they consider One to be unlimited both in essence and in power, the Other - unlimited in strength, but not in essence, and the Third - limited in both, imitating, in a different form, those who call them Creator, Helper and Servant, from the order of names and grace concluding about the gradualness of those named. We will not say a word to those who do not even admit the existence of the Spirit, or to pagan vain talkers, so as not to anoint the words with the oil of sinners, but we will talk with others in the following way. It must be assumed that the Holy Spirit is something either independent or represented in another; and those who know this call the first “essence”, the last – “belonging”. Therefore, if the spirit is an accessory, then He will be the action of God. For what can we call Him then, except action, and whose action, besides God's? The same situation is more decent and does not introduce complications. And if He is an action, then, without a doubt, He will be produced, and not producing, and together with production will cease. For such is all action. But how does the Spirit “act” (1 Cor. 12:11), and speak (Matthew 10:20), and separate (Acts 13:2), and be offended (Eph. 4:30), and be “angry” (Is. 63:10), and produce all that is characteristic of the mover, and not of the movement? If the Spirit is an essence, and not an accessory to an essence; then it will be necessary to assume that He is either a creature or God, for those who create the Tragelathi will not invent something in between the creature and God, or not involved in either one, or a complex of both. But if he is a creature, then how can we believe in Him? How are we made perfect in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe in something and to believe in what. We believe in the Divine, but we believe in every thing. But if God is not a creature, then He is no longer a work of art, not a servant, and not at all one of those bearing low names. Now the word is yours, let your slings throw; let your conclusions intertwine! “Spirit, without a doubt, is either unborn or born. And if unborn, then two without beginning. And if begotten, then (again you subdivide) born either from the Father or from the Son. And if from the Father, then two Sons and Brothers (think, if you want, that they are either twins, or one is older and the other is younger, for you are extremely carnal!). And if from the Son, then (you say) God the grandson appeared to us? But could anything be stranger than this? This is how those who are “intelligent in evil” (Jer. 4:25) reason, but do not want to write good things. But I, finding division necessary, would accept those named without fear of names. For when the Son is Son in some higher respect and, besides this name, we cannot signify by any other that which is from God consubstantial with God, then we should not think that it is already necessary to transfer to the Divinity and all the lower names even of our kinship, or perhaps you will assume God the husband on the basis that God is called both the Father and the Divinity (η θεότης), by the force of the name itself, recognize it as something feminine. The Spirit is neither husband nor wife, because it does not give birth. And if you also give free rein to your imagination and say from old nonsense and fables that God begot the Son from His will, then now we have God introduced - husband and wife together, like Marcian and Valentinus, who invented new Aeons. But since we do not accept your first division, according to which nothing in between the unborn and the born is allowed, then your brothers and grandchildren immediately disappear along with this notorious division, and like a polysyllabic knot whose first loop is loosened, they themselves disintegrate and are removed from theology. For tell me where to place the Outgoing One, which in your division turns out to be the middle member, and was introduced by the best Theologian - our Savior, unless you, following your third testament, have already excluded from the Gospel this expression: the Holy Spirit. “Which comes from the father” (John 15:26)? Since He comes from the Father, He is not a creature. Since he is not begotten, he is not the Son. Since there is a mean between the Unborn and the Born, then God. Thus, having escaped the snares of your conclusions, He turns out to be God, Who is stronger than your divisions! “Therefore, what is procession?” Explain to me the ungeneracy of the Father, then I too will dare to speak about the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. Then, having penetrated into the mysteries of God, we will both come to amazement - we, who cannot see under our feet and “count the sand of the seas and the drops of rain and the days of eternity” (Sir. 1: 2), not only delve into the depths of God and judge the nature so unspoken and inexplicable. You say: “What does the Spirit lack in order to be the Son? For if nothing were lacking; then he would be the Son." – We are not saying that anything is missing. For in God there is no lack. But the difference (I will say this) in the manifestation or mutual relationship produces a difference in their names. For the Son lacks nothing to be the Father (since Sonship is not a deficiency), but he is therefore not yet the Father. Otherwise, the Father lacks something to be the Son, because the Father is not the Son. But this does not mean a lack (where does it come from?) and a decrease in essence. This very thing - to be unborn, to be born and to proceed, gives names, the first to the Father, the second to the Son, the third to the Holy Spirit, about whom we have a word, so that the unity of the three Hypostases is preserved in the single nature and dignity of the Divinity. The Son is not the Father, because the Father is one, but the same as the Father. The Spirit is not the Son, although from God, because the Only Begotten is one, but the same as the Son. And the Three are one in Divinity, and the One is three in personal properties, so that there is neither one - in the Sabellian sense, nor three - in the sense of the current evil division. “So what? Is the Spirit God? - Without a doubt. “And consubstantial?” - Yes, because God. “Show me,” you continue, “that from the same one one is a son, and the other is not a son, and, moreover, both are of the same essence, then I will admit God and God.” - Indicate the imaginary God, and another nature of God, and then I will present to you the Trinity itself with the same names and names. And if there is one God, and the highest Nature is one, then where will I get a likeness for you? Or will you begin to look for it again in the things below and around you? Although it is extremely shameful, and not only shameful, but mostly useless, to take the likeness of things above in what is below, of the immovable in a fluid nature, and, as Isaiah says, “to ask the dead about the living” (Is. 8:19), however, I will try to please you and from here extract something to help the word. But I’m thinking of keeping silent about something else; although from the history of animals one can imagine a lot, partly to us, partly to a few, known about how nature artistically arranged the birth of animals. For they say that not only from those who are homogeneous will be born those who are similar, and from those who are heterogeneous, foreign ones, but also from heterogeneous ones, similar ones, and from homogeneous ones, foreign ones. And if anyone believes the legend, then there is another image of birth, namely: the animal destroys itself and is born from itself. But there are also animals that, due to the generosity of nature, are reborn, transforming from one kind and transforming into another. Even from the same thing, something else is not a generation, but another generation, however, both are of the same essence, which in some way comes closer to the real subject. But I, having presented one example that actually concerns us and is known to everyone, will move on to another reasoning. What was Adam? - a creature of God. And Eva? - part of the sowing creature. And Sif? - the product of both. So, don’t you notice that creation, part and generation are identical? - How can you not see? – And are they consubstantial or not? - Why isn’t it like that? – So, it is recognized that things that happened differently can be of the same essence. I say this not so that creation or separation, or anything else corporeal can be transferred to the Divinity (don’t let another word-wrestler attack me!), but so that all this serves as a kind of image of what is intelligible. But it is impossible for what is taken for comparison to completely correspond to the truth in everything. “And what is this for?” - you ask. “Not one person was born of one thing, and another of something else.” So what of this? Are not Eve and Seth from the same Adam? - From whom else? – Or are they both the offspring of Adam? - Without a doubt. - What is it? – Eve is a part, and Seth is a generation. – However, both of them are identical to each other; because both are people, which no one will argue about. So, will you stop arguing against the Spirit and asserting that He is certainly either a creation, or is not consubstantial and not God, although in what is akin to man we open the possibility of your opinion? And you, I think, would approve of it if you had not learned to be too stubborn and argue against the evidence. But you say, “Who worshiped the Spirit? Who is from the ancients or from the new? Who prayed to Him? Where is it written that we should worship and pray to Him? Where did you get this from? “I will present you with the most satisfactory reason for this later, when I discuss the unwritten.” And now it will be enough to say one thing: in the Spirit we worship and through Him we pray. For it is said: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). And again: “For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be expressed” (Rom. 8:26). And again: “I will pray with the Spirit, and I will also pray with the mind” (1 Cor. 14:15), that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. So, worship, or prayer by the Spirit, in my opinion, means nothing more than that the Spirit brings prayer and worship to Himself. Will any of the God-inspired men, who know well that the worship of the One is the worship of the Three, according to the equality of dignity and Divinity in the Three, not approve of this? Nor will I be frightened by the fact that, according to what was said, “all things came into being through Him” (John 1:3), as if the word “all” includes the Holy Spirit. For it is not simply said: “all,” but: “all that began to be.” The Father is not the Son, nor is everything that had no beginning of existence. Therefore, show that the Spirit had a beginning of being, and then give Him to the Son, and number Him among the creatures. Until you prove this, the comprehensiveness of the word will not help wickedness in the least. For if the Spirit had a beginning of being, then, without a doubt, by Christ, I myself will not deny this. And if He did not have it, then why should He include everything under the word, or be through Christ? So, stop honoring the Father badly by rebelling against the Only Begotten (for that is a bad honor when you deprive Him of the Son, and instead of the Son you give a most excellent creature), and stop honoring the Son badly by rebelling against the Spirit. The Son is not the creator of the Spirit, as something co-serving with Him, but is glorified with Him, as one of equal honor. Do not place alongside yourself any One of the Trinity, so as not to fall away from the Trinity, and do not take away from the One the Divine nature and equal worship, so that with the removal of One of the Three, everything is not taken away, or better yet, so that you do not fall away from everything. It is better to have an insufficient understanding of unity than to indulge in wickedness with all the insolence. Now my word concerns the most important thing. And although I grieve that a question that has long been dead is now being renewed. And having given way to faith, however, the need lies with us, who have the Word and stand for the Spirit, to resist the affectionate hunters of disputes and not to give ourselves up defenselessly into captivity. They say: “If God, God and God; then why not three Gods? And is not that which you glorify multi-principal? -Who says this? Are they those who have become perfect in wickedness, or those who occupy second place, that is, reason more prudently than others about the Son? Although I have a common word for both; however, there is also something special about the latter, namely the following. What do you say to us, you tritheists, who honor the Son, although you have apostatized from the Spirit? Are you not also tritheists? If you renounce the worship of the Only Begotten, then you will clearly take the side of the opponents. And then will it be necessary to show you humanity, as if you were not yet completely dead? And if you honor the Son and are still healthy in this regard, then we ask you, how will you defend your bigtheism if someone were to accuse you? If you have a clever word, answer, show us the way to the answer. The same arguments that you use to repel the accusation of bitheism will be sufficient for us against the accusation of tritheism. And in this way we will gain the upper hand, using you, the accusers, as our defenders. What is nobler than this? What is our common answer, what is the common word for both? We have one God, because there is one Godhead. And those who exist from God are raised to the One, although he believes in the Three, because just as One is not more, so the Other is not less is God, and One is not before, and the Other is not after: They are not separated by will, and are not divided by force, and all that does not take place that only happens in divisible things. On the contrary, to put it briefly, the Divinity in the Divided is indivisible, as in three suns, which are contained, one in the other, one dissolution of light. Therefore, when we have in our thoughts the Divinity, the first cause and the unity of command, then what we imagine is one. And when we have in our thoughts those in whom the Divinity is, those who exist from the first Cause, and those who exist from It before time and equally, then the Worshiped Ones are three. They will say: “Well? Isn’t it the same Godhead among the pagans, as those of them who were more philosophic than others teach? And we have a whole race - one humanity. However, the pagans, like us people, have many gods, not just one.” – But there, although the community has unity, represented, however, mentally, there are still many indivisibles, and they are divided among themselves by time, passions and strength. For we are not only complex, but also opposite both to each other and to ourselves; not to mention our whole life, we are not even one day exactly the same, but we constantly flow and change both in body and soul. But I don’t know if the angels and every heavenly nature other than the Trinity are perhaps the same, although they are simple and, due to their closeness to the Supreme Good, are firmly established in goodness. And as for the gods revered by the pagans and, as they themselves call them, demons, we do not need to be their accusers; on the contrary, according to the denunciation of their own theologians, they are given over to passions, rebellions, filled with evil and vicissitudes, they are in conflict not only with themselves, but also with the first causes, as they call Oceans, Tithys, Phanetes and I don’t know who yet, and finally some kind of child-hater - a god who, out of lust and insatiability, devours all others in order to become the father of all people and gods, miserably devoured and vomited. - If, as they themselves say in order to avoid obscenity, all these are fables and some kind of allegories; What will they say to explain the fact that everything is divided into three parts, and each part of beings is ruled by another god, different from the others both in substance and in dignity? But this is not our teaching. “This is not the lot of Jacob,” says my Theologian (Jer. 51:19). On the contrary, each of Them 227, by identity of essence and power, has the same unity with the United One as with Itself. This is the concept of this unity, as far as we comprehend it. And if this concept is firm, then thank God for the speculation! And if it’s not hard, we’ll look for something harder. And I don’t know what to call your arguments, with which you are destroying our unity: a joke, or something sensible? And what is your proof? - You say: “those of the same essence are counted, but those who are not of the same essence are not counted (by counting you mean the collection into one number), and therefore the inevitable conclusion is that you, on this basis, have three Gods, while we do not have this danger, because we do not call them consubstantial.” - So, in a word, you saved yourself the trouble and won a bad victory. Your action is somewhat similar to when someone, out of fear of death, puts a noose on himself. So as not to bother, standing for unity of command, you renounced the Divinity and handed over to your enemies what they were looking for. But even if it takes a little effort, I will not betray the Venerable One. But here I don’t even see any work. You say: those who are consubstantial are numbered; and those who do not have the same essence are imagined as units. Where did you get this? Which teachers and fabulists? Don't you know that every number shows the quantity of objects, and not the nature of things? But I am so simple, or rather, so ignorant, that three things, even if they were different in nature, in relation to number I call three. But one, one and one, although they are not conjugated in essence, I call the same number of units, looking not so much at things as at the number of things being counted. Since you very much adhere to the Scripture, although you oppose the Scripture, here is evidence for you from here. In Proverbs, “three have an orderly gait,” a lion, a goat and a rooster, “the fourth is a king among his people” (Prov. 30:29–31), not to mention the other four numbers named there, while the things being counted are different in nature. And in Moses I find two cherubim, numbered by one (Ex. 25:19). According to your nomenclature, how can we call those three, when they are so dissimilar in nature, and count the latter by one, when they are so homogeneous and close to each other? And if I call God and Mammon, who are so far apart from each other, under one number, two masters (Matthew 6:24), then perhaps you will laugh even more at such a number. But you say: “I call those objects countable and having the same essence, whose names are pronounced accordingly, for example: three people and three Gods, and not three some things, for what kind of correspondence is there?” This means giving a rule about names, and not teaching the truth. Therefore, for me, Peter, Paul and John are not three and not one in essence, until they are called three Peters, three Pauls and as many Johns. For either what you observed in the discussion of more generic names, we, following your invention, will demand more specific names in the reasoning, or by not conceding to us what was conceded to yourself, you will act unfairly. What about John? When in the Council Epistles he says, “that three testify on earth: spirit, water, blood” (1 John 5:8), is it really expressed awkwardly, in your opinion, firstly, because he dared to count things that are not of the same essence, while you assigned this to one of the same essence (for who will say that the named things are of the same essence?), and secondly, because he composed the words not accordingly, but on the contrary, the word three ( τρεις) putting in the masculine gender, contrary to the rules and regulations, both yours and the grammatical ones, brought three names of the neuter gender (το πνεύμα, τό υδωρ. το αιμα)? But what is the difference between saying the word three in the masculine gender and then representing one, one and one, or saying: one, one and one, calling them three not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender - what do you find indecent for the Divine? What is your cancer - animal cancer, weapon cancer and constellation cancer? What is your dog - the dog that lives on land, the dog of the sea and the dog of heaven? Don't you think that they can be called three crayfish and dogs? - Without a doubt, so. – Is that why they are of the same essence? Which sane person would say this? Do you see how your proof, taken from calculations, collapsed, and how it collapsed repeatedly refuted? For if things of the same essence are not always counted, and things that are not of the same essence can be counted, and names are pronounced about both, then what are the gains of your teaching? But I also take into account the following, and perhaps not without reason. Doesn't one and one add up to two? And don’t two again decompose into one and one? - Obviously so. - But if, according to your beginning, the components are of the same essence, and the divided ones are of a different essence; then what is the conclusion from this? The fact that the same objects are both of the same essence and of another essence. I also find it funny that you are number one and number less, about which you think so highly, as if the order of those named was in the order of names. For if the latter is true, then in the Divine Scripture the same people, according to the equality of their nature, are considered first before and sometimes after. Is there anything stopping one and the same person, on the same basis, from being both more honest and less honest than himself? I have the same reasoning about the words “God” and “Lord”, also about the prepositions: “from”, “through” and “in”, by which you so cleverly distinguish the Divinity, attributing the first preposition to the Father, the second to the Son, the third to the Holy Spirit. But what would you do if each of these prepositions were constantly assigned to one, when you prove with them such inequality in dignity and nature, whereas, as far as those who have practiced this know, all of them are used about everyone? And this is enough for people who are not completely irresponsible. But since, having once rushed into the struggle against the Spirit, it is most difficult for you to maintain your desire, and like a not timid boar, you want to persist to the end and press on the sword until the wound reaches the inside, then let’s see what else remains to be said to you. Again and more than once you repeat to us: “not known according to Scripture.” Although it has been proven that the Holy Spirit is not a strangeness and an innovation, but was known and discovered by both the ancients and the new, and has already been proven by many of those who discussed this subject, moreover, by people who studied the Divine Scripture not lightly and not superficially, but penetrated through the letter into the inner, were honored to see the hidden beauty and were illuminated by the Light of knowledge, however, I will show this as if in passing, and trying as much as possible not to give away the thought that I am undertaking for extra labor and more generous than proper, when I can build on someone else’s foundation. If, however, the motivation for blasphemy and the reason for excessive language and wickedness is the fact that in Scripture the Spirit is not very clearly called God and is not mentioned as often as first the Father and then the Son; I will cure you of this disease by discussing with you a little about things named and names, especially taking into account the use of Scripture. Of what is named, there is no other, but it is said in Scripture; the other is there, but not said; but another is not, and is not said, but another is, and is said. Will you ask me for proof of this? - ready to present. According to Scripture, God sleeps (Ps. 43:24), awakens (Dan. 9:14), is angry (Deut. 11:17), walks and has cherubim as his throne (Is. 37:16). But when did He have weaknesses? And have you heard that God is a body? What is presented here is something that is not there. For, in accordance with our concept, we also called God by names taken from ourselves. When God, for reasons best known to Him, ceases His care and does not seem to care about us; this means He is sleeping; because our sleep is similar inactivity and carelessness. When, on the contrary, He suddenly begins to do good, it means that He awakens, because awakening is the passing of sleep, just as attentive viewing is the passing of aversion. He punishes; and we made it out of it - he gets angry; because with us punishment comes out of anger. He acts here and there; but in our opinion, He walks; because walking is moving from one to another. He rests and, as it were, dwells in the holy Powers; we called this sitting and sitting on the throne, which is also characteristic of us. And the Divinity rests in nothing so much as in the Saints. We call swiftness flying, looking is called the face, giving and receiving are called the hand. And also every other power of God and every other action of God is depicted by us as something taken from the body. And on the other hand, where did you get the words: the unborn and the beginningless are your strongholds; where do we get the word: immortal? Show them to me literally; otherwise, either we will reject yours, and we will blot out ours, because they are not in Scripture, and then with the destruction of the names you also disappeared from your assumptions, this wall of refuge on which you hoped also perished; or, obviously, that, although this is not said in Scripture, it is nevertheless taken from words that contain the same thing... Which ones exactly? “From the beginning of days I” (Is.43:13), “I am the first and I am the last” (Is.44:6), “before Me there was no God and after Me there will be no” (Is.43:10); for Mine “is” is entirely, it has not begun and will not cease. Holding on to this, since there is nothing before God, and He has no cause that would precede Him, you called Him beginningless and unborn, and since He will not cease to be, immortal and indestructible. These are the properties of the first two cases. What is missing and not said? The fact that God is angry, that the ball is quadrangular, that the past has come, that man is not complex. For have you known a person who would have reached such a mental disorder that he would dare to think or say something like that? - It remains to show what is and is said - God, man, angel, judgment, vanity, that is, conclusions similar to yours, perversion of faith, abolition of the sacrament. And when there is such a difference between names and those named, why do you servile so much to the letter and indulge in Jewish wisdom, chasing syllables and abandoning the thing? If you say: twice five and twice seven, and I deduce from what was said: ten and fourteen, or if I replace a rational and mortal animal with the word man, then will you really think that I am talking nonsense? And how can it be if I say it’s yours? For these words belong not so much to me, who utters them, as to you, who makes them utter them. Therefore, just as here I looked not so much at what was said, but at what was understood, so I would not fail to say something else if there was something, although not said or unclearly said, but implied in Scripture, and I would not be afraid of you, who likes to argue about names. This is the answer we will give to half-reasonable people (and you cannot say even this; for you, who deny the names of the Son, no matter how clear or numerous they are, will, of course, not respect the names of the Spirit, even if they showed you the much clearer and more numerous known ones), but now, raising the word a little higher, I will explain to you, the wise men, the reason for all the obscurity. Over the course of centuries, there were two famous transformations of human life, called two Testaments and, according to the well-known saying of Scripture, upheavals of the earth (Hag.2:7). One led from idols to the Law, and the other from the Law to the Gospel. I also preach the good news about the third shock - about the transfer from here to there, unshakable and unshakable. But the same thing happened to both Testaments. What exactly? They were not introduced suddenly, not on the first occasion. For what? We needed to know that we were not being forced, but persuaded. For what is not arbitrary is also fragile, just as a stream or a plant is not long held by force. Voluntary is both stronger and more reliable. And the first is the business of the one who uses violence, and the last is actually ours. The first is characteristic of violent power, and the latter is characteristic of God's justice. Therefore, God determined that good should not be done to those who are unwilling, but to those who are willing. Therefore, He, as a teacher and a doctor, abolishes some fatherly customs, and allows others, allowing others for our pleasure, just as doctors give the sick medicine, skillfully seasoned with something pleasant, so that it is accepted. For it is not easy to change what has become a custom and has been respected for a long time. What do I mean? The fact that the first Testament, having prohibited idols, allowed sacrifices, and the second, having abolished sacrifices, did not prohibit circumcision. Then, those who once agreed to the abolition, they yielded and ceded, some - sacrifices, others - circumcision, and became Jews from pagans, and Christians from Jews, being drawn towards the Gospel by gradual changes. Let Paul convince you of this, who has already reached out from circumcision and cleansing to the point where he said, “Why do they persecute me, brethren, if I still preach circumcision?” ( Gal.5:11 ) This was necessary for the building of the economy, and this for perfection. I want to liken Theology to this, only in the opposite sense, for there transformation was achieved through abolitions, and here perfection through additions. But the fact is that the Old Testament clearly preached the Father, and not with such clarity the Son, the New Testament revealed the Son and gave instructions about the Divinity of the Spirit, now the Spirit abides with us, giving us the clearest knowledge of Him. It was not safe, before the Divinity of the Father was confessed, to clearly preach the Son, and before the Son was recognized (I will express myself somewhat boldly), to burden us with preaching about the Holy Spirit and expose us to the danger of losing our last strength, as happens with people who are burdened with food taken in excess, or whose still weak eyesight is directed towards the sunlight. It was necessary for the Trinity light to illuminate those who were being enlightened with gradual additions, as David says, “ascents” (Ps. 83:6), income from glory to glory and prosperity. For this reason, I think, the Spirit descends on the Disciples gradually, commensurate with the strength of those who receive it, at the beginning of the Gospel, after suffering, after ascension, it sometimes accomplishes powers through them (Matthew 10:1), sometimes it is given to them through a breath (John 20:22), sometimes it appears in tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). Yes, and Jesus proclaims Him gradually, as you yourself will see if you read carefully. “I will pray,” he says, “He will send the Father and another Comforter” to “you” (John 14:16.17), so that He will not be considered an adversary to God and speaking from some other authority. Then, although he uses the word “will send,” he adds, “in my name” (John 14:26), and leaving the word “I pray,” he retains the word “will send.” Then he says “I will send” (John 15:26), showing his own dignity. Then he said “he will come” (John 16:13), showing the power of the Spirit. You see the insights that gradually dawned on us and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to observe, not suddenly expressing everything, and not completely hiding everything, for the former is careless, and the latter is godless; and with some you can defeat strangers, and with others you can alienate your own. I will add to what has been said something that, although it may have already occurred to others, I still consider it to be the fruit of my own mind. The Savior, even after He preached a lot to the disciples, had something else that, as He himself said, the disciples (perhaps for the reasons I stated above) could not then “contain” (John 16:12) and that therefore He hid from them. And the Savior also said that we will be taught everything by the descending Spirit (John 16:13). This is where I include the Divinity of the Spirit itself, clearly revealed later, when this knowledge had already become timely and suitable, after the glorification (αποκαταςασιν) of the Savior, after they began to accept the miracle not with unbelief. And what more than this would either Christ have promised, or the Spirit have taught, if it is necessary to recognize both the promised and the preached as great and worthy of God’s greatness? I am so sure of this myself, and I would like that with me everyone who is my friend would honor God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three persons, one Divinity, inseparable in glory, honor, essence and kingdom, as one of the God-bearing men who lived shortly before us philosophized. Either he “does not see,” as Scripture says, “the morning glory” (Job 3:9), nor the glory of future illumination, who believes otherwise, or, considering the circumstances, is one or the other, and does not judge the most important subjects sensibly. If the Spirit is not venerable, then how does He make me god in Baptism? And if we worship, then how can we not? And if we are venerable, then why not God? Here one thing is held by another, this is a truly golden and saving chain. From the Spirit we have rebirth, from rebirth we have regeneration, from regeneration we have knowledge of the dignity of Him who recreated. All this could be said about the Spirit on the assumption that He is not attested to by Scripture. But now a swarm of evidence will appear before you, from which anyone who is not too dull-minded and alien to the Spirit will clearly see that the deity of the Spirit is very revealed in Scripture. Please note the following. Christ is born - the Spirit precedes (Luke 1:35). Christ is baptized - the Spirit bears witness (John 1:33.34). Christ is tempted - the Spirit raises Him up (Matthew 4:1). Christ accomplishes the powers - the Spirit accompanies. Christ ascends - the Spirit succeeds. What great and possible thing can the Spirit not accomplish for God alone? And of the names of God, by what is He not called, except unbegotten and begotten? But these properties had to remain with the Father and the Son, so that there would be no unity in the Divinity, which brings into order both everything else and disorder itself. I am in awe when I imagine in my mind the wealth of names and the fact that those who resist the Spirit are not ashamed of even such a number of names. He is called: “the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9), “the Mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Is. 61:1), “the Lord” himself (2 Cor. 3:17), “the Spirit of sonship” (Rom. 8:15), “the truth” (John 14:17), freedom (2 Cor. 3:17), “the Spirit wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, godliness, the fear of the Lord” (Is. 11:2-3), because all these things produce. He “fulfills” everything with essence, “contains” everything (Wis. 1:7) – he fulfills the world in relation to essence and is incontainable to the world in relation to power. He is the “good Spirit” (Ps. 143:10), “right” (Ps. 50:12), “sovereign” (Ps. 50:14) - by nature, and not by assimilation, sanctifying, but not sanctified, measuring, but not being measured, borrowing, but not borrowing, fulfilling, but not being fulfilled, containing, but not content, inherited (Eph.1:14), glorified (1 Cor.6:19.20), numbered together (Matt.28:19), threatening (Acts 5:1-10. Matt.12:31.32). He is the “finger of God” (Luke 11:20), fire (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:3), like God, and I think, in the meaning of consubstantiality. He is the “Spirit who created” (Job 33:4), who creates in baptism (Titus 3:5) and resurrection (Rom.8:11), the Spirit who knows all things (1 Cor. 2:11), teaches everything (John 14:26), “breathes where he wants” and as much as he wants (John 3:8), the instructing Spirit (John 16:3), who speaks ( Matthew 10:20), sender (Acts 13:4), separateer (Acts 13:2), angered (Isaiah 63:10), tempted (Acts 5:9), giver of revelations (1 Cor. 2:10), enlightenment (Heb. 6:4), life (Rom. 8:11), or better yet, light itself and life itself. He makes me a church (1 Cor. 6:19), creates me as a god, performs it, which is why He precedes baptism (Acts 10:44), and is sought after baptism (Acts 19:5.6); He produces everything that God produces. He divides in tongues of fire (Acts 2:3) and divides gifts (1 Cor. 12:11), creates apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers (Eph. 4:11); He is “the Spirit of reason, many-parted, clear, bright, undefiled, unforbidden” (which is equivalent, perhaps, to the words: wise, diverse in actions, making everything clear and bright, free and unchangeable), “omnipotent, all-seeing and penetrating all intelligent, pure, subtle spirits” (Wisdom 7:22–23), that is, as far as I understand, power angelic, as well as prophetic and apostolic, at the same time and not in one place, but located here and here, which means unlimited. And what would you think? Those who say this and teach this, and in addition call the Spirit “another Comforter” (John 14:16), as if another God, know that only blasphemy against the Spirit is inexcusable (Matthew 12:31); But Ananias and Sapphira, when they lied to the Holy Spirit, are declared to have lied to God and not to man (Acts 5:4) - do they confess about the Spirit that he is God, or something else? Oh, how rude and far from the Spirit you really are if you doubt this and demand another Teacher! So, these names are very numerous and meaningful (for is it necessary to give you the passages of Scripture literally?); and if in Scripture there are derogatory expressions: “given” (Acts 8:18), sent (John 14:26), divided (Acts 2:3), giving, gift (Acts 2:38), breath (John 20:21), promise (Acts 2:33), intercession (Rom. 8:26) and others like that, then (not to mention each of these expressions) they must be raised to the first The reason is to see from whom the Spirit is, and not to accept three principles, like the polytheists. For it is equally wicked to unite with Sabellius and to separate from Arius - to unite with respect to the person, to divide with respect to nature. What I did not consider with myself in my loving mind, what I did not enrich my mind with, where I did not look for a similarity for this, but did not find anything to which God’s nature could be applied. Even if some small similarity is found; then much more slips away, leaving me down along with what is chosen for comparison. Following the example of others, I imagined a spring, a spring and a stream, and reasoned: are not the Father similar to one, the Son to another, and the Holy Spirit to a third? For the spring, the spring and the stream are not separated by time, and their coexistence is continuous, although it seems that they are separated by three properties. But I was afraid, firstly, so as not to allow some kind of flow in the Divinity that never stops; secondly, so as not to introduce numerical unity through such similarity. For the spring, the spring and the stream are one in relation to number, but they are different only in the image of representation. I again took into consideration the sun, the ray and the light. But here, too, there is a fear that in an uncomplicated nature one may not imagine any complexity noticeable in the sun and in that which is from the sun; secondly, so that, by attributing essence to the Father, one does not deprive other persons of their independence and make them the powers of God, which exist in the Father, but are not independent. Because both the ray and the light are not the sun, but some solar outpourings and essential qualities of the sun. Thirdly, so as not to attribute to God both existence and non-existence (to which conclusion this example can lead), and this is even more absurd than what was said before. I also heard that someone found the desired similarity in the reflection of the sun, which appears on a table and is shaken by the movement of waters, when the beam, collected by the air and then scattered by the reflecting surface, comes into a strange vibration, for due to numerous and frequent movements it runs from place to place, making up not so much one, but many, and not so much many, but one; because due to the speed of rapprochement and divergence, it escapes before his gaze catches it. But in my opinion, this cannot be accepted either. Firstly, because what sets things in motion is too visible here: but there is nothing more primary than God that would set Him in motion, because He Himself is the cause of everything, and does not have a cause that would be more primary than Him. Secondly, because this similarity suggests the previous thought about movement, about complexity, about an unstable and unsteady nature, while nothing of the kind should be imagined about the Divine. And in general I find nothing that, when considering what is represented, would stop the thought on the selected similarities, unless someone with due prudence takes one thing from the image and discards everything else. Finally, I concluded that it is best to abandon all images and shadows, as deceptive and far from reaching the truth, to adhere to a more pious way of thinking, focusing on a few sayings, to have the Spirit as a guide, and what illumination is received from Him, then preserving to the end, with him, as with a sincere accomplice and interlocutor, to go through the present century, and, to the best of his ability, to convince others to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit - one Divinity and one Power. To God be all glory, honor, and power forever and ever. Amen. You might be interested in: