The Word about the Holy Spirit against the Macedonian Doukhobors

In the essay “The Word on the Holy Spirit against the Macedonian Doukhobors,” St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, refuting the opinions of the followers of the Archbishop of Constantinople Macedonius, deposed by the Council of Constantinople in 360, who considered the Holy Spirit to be a creature. *The title of the work in Greek is Περὶ τοῦ ῾Αϒίου Πνεύματος κατὰ Μακεδονιανῶν τῶν πνευματομάχων. *The title of the work in Latin is Adversus Macedonianos de Spiritu Sancto. 1. Perhaps one should not respond to empty speech, for it seems that the wise commandment of Solomon relates to this, commanding not to answer “a fool according to his madness” (Proverbs 26:4). But since there is a danger that, as a result of our silence, the lie will not strengthen over the truth and that the putrid gangrene of heresy, growing at the expense of the truth, will not infect the sound teaching of the faith, it seemed to me necessary to give an answer, not because of the madness of those who direct such speeches against piety, but to correct harmful opinions. And the commandment taught in parables seems to teach not silence, but the correction of the insane - that the answers should not be adjusted to the madness of the opinions expressed, but it is better to overthrow their reckless and erroneous thoughts about dogmas. 2. Why do they object to us? They accuse of wickedness those who think of the Holy Spirit in a manner worthy of His greatness; What we confess about the Spirit, following the teaching of the fathers, they, explaining arbitrarily, make for themselves a reason to accuse us of wickedness. We confess that the Holy Spirit is of equal honor with the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference between them in anything that is piously thought and named regarding the Divine nature, with the exception of the particularity of the Holy Spirit according to Hypostasis, namely, that He is from God and is of Christ, as it is written (John 15:26; Gal. 4:6); He does not merge with the Father, because the Father is not born, but with the Son - because the Son is the Only Begotten. And we confess that, having certain distinctive (personal) properties, He has equality in everything else, as has been said. Opponents say that He is by nature alien to communion with the Father and the Son and, by the difference of nature, stands lower and inferior in everything: in power, glory, dignity and in general in everything that is expressed in names and concepts assimilated to God; and therefore they say that He is not involved in glory and is not worthy of equality with the Father and the Son; He possesses power to the extent that is sufficient for certain private actions assigned to Him, and He is completely alien to creative power. When such thoughts prevail among them, they consistently draw the conclusion that the Spirit does not have in itself anything that is piously spoken and thought about the Divine nature. 3. What will our word be? To those who propose such judgments, we will not answer anything new or invented by ourselves, but we will use the testimony of the Holy Spirit of Divine Scripture, which taught us that the Holy Spirit exists and is called Divinity. Therefore, if they agree with him and do not resist the Divine voice, then let them say, ready to fight with us: why do they argue not against Scripture, but against us? For we say nothing other than what is said in Scripture. In the Divine nature that we profess, neither according to the teaching of Scripture nor on the basis of the concepts of reason do we recognize any such difference that the Divine and supreme nature is divided in itself into greater and lesser. since we believe that It is simple, uniform and uncomplicated, and we do not see in It any combination or composition of dissimilar things; then, as soon as we have formed in our souls the concept of the Divine nature, at the same time, on the basis of the name itself, we will have to admit that It has perfection in everything that we properly represent in It; for the Godhead has perfection in all that we understand to be good. And if it were not sufficient in something and lacked perfection in something, then as a result of such a deficiency the concept of Divinity would also be incomplete, so that in this particular respect the Divinity can no longer exist or be called Divinity. For how can anyone appropriate this name for something that is imperfect and insufficient and needs to be replenished from elsewhere? 4. And with the help of sensory examples one can be convinced of the validity of this reasoning. The nature of fire, when touched by it, imparts the same sensation of warmth to all creatures of the same species, and one creature does not experience increased warmth, and another weaker. As long as fire exists, it all constantly maintains continuous unity with itself by the identity of action. If in some part it cooled down, then what had cooled would no longer be called fire, but with a change in calorific activity to the opposite, the name also changes. So with regard to water, air and everything included in the elemental composition, about each (we have) the same concept, which does not allow for either increase or decrease. For it cannot be said about water that it is water to a greater or lesser extent, as long as it is equally wet, until then it will rightly be given the name water; if a change to the opposite property follows, then, of course, its name will also change. And in the air, softness, upward tendency and lightness are equally seen in all particles, but dense, heavy and falling to the ground cannot be called air. Likewise, the Divine nature, as long as it contains perfection in all concepts, piously assimilated to Him, until then, according to the perfection of good, His name is rightly attached to Him; if something from the concept of perfection that is part of the concept of perfection is taken away, then in relation to the lost part the name Divinity will be false and will not correspond to the object; for just as it is impossible to give the name water to a dry body, to call a cooled body fire, or to call a dense and tight body air, so, or better yet, it is even more impossible to call a being Divine in which the concept of perfection is not implied. 5. Therefore, if in Scripture and among our fathers it is true, and not only by name, that the Holy Spirit is called Divinity, then what else remains to be said by the opponents of the glory of the Spirit? For if (called) Divinity, then, of course, good, and omnipotent, and wise, and glorious, and eternal, and in general with all similar names that elevate thought to (Divine) greatness. His simplicity testifies that all this belongs to Him not by any participation, so that one can think that some things are in His own nature, and others come from the presence of the mentioned properties; This is characteristic only of (creatures) who have received a complex nature. And that the Holy Spirit is not complex is recognized by everyone equally, and there are no objections to this. If His nature, by its very concept, is uncomplicated, then His goodness is not acquired, but He Himself in His essence is goodness, wisdom, power, holiness, truth, eternity, incorruptibility, and in general He is characterized by all the highest and most excellent names. And when He is like this, then on the basis of what thought do they assert that He is wicked - they assert, without fear of grave condemnation for blasphemy against the Spirit? Obviously, they argue that one should not believe that He is glorious. I don’t understand why they thought it useful not to recognize what is glorious by nature for what He is. 6. The fact that since in the commandment handed down by the Lord to the disciples the Holy Spirit is placed third in order (Matthew 28:19) cannot serve as a sufficient defense of their (opinion), then the concept worthy of the Divine is not applicable to Him. For where the action in relation to the good does not have any diminution or change, is it reasonable to consider order in number as a sign of some diminution or change in nature? This would be similar to if someone, seeing a flame divided in three lamps (and let us assume that the cause of the third flame is the first flame, which kindled the last one successively through the middle one), then began to assert that the heat in the first flame is stronger, and in the next it yields and changes into a smaller one, while the third one is no longer called fire, even though it burns, shines, and produces everything that is characteristic of fire in the same way. And if nothing prevents the third lamp from being fire, even if it was kindled from the previous flame, then what wisdom do those who wickedly think to destroy the dignity of the Holy Spirit, because by the Divine voice He is numbered after the Father and the Son? If any of the properties befitting God are lacking in what is contemplated in the nature of the Spirit, then they “well” testify that He has no glory; if the greatness of the dignity of the Holy Spirit is seen in everything, then why dispute the confession of this glory? This is as if someone, recognizing someone as a person, would not yet consider it safe to recognize in him rationality, or mortality, or anything else that is said about a person, and therefore would again take away what he gave. For if anyone is unreasonable, he is not a man. If this is admitted, then how is the conceivable connected with the concept of man questioned? So, if he who asserts about the Spirit that He is Divinity speaks the truth, then he who believes that He is venerable, as well as glorious, good, as well as powerful, speaks truthfully, for all these ideas are united in the concept of Divinity, so that one of two things is necessary: ​​either not to call Him God, or not to take away from Divinity any of the properties appropriate to God. Therefore, one must certainly unite both in thought: both the Divine nature with its inherent concept of it, and pious concepts of the Divine and highest nature. 7. So, when it is said that the Spirit is of the Divine nature, and it is said correctly, and with this name (Deity), we said, the concept of all greatness is connected, then he who gave this name to Power, along with this, recognized the rest - that He is glorious, and powerful, and everything else that has the meaning of perfection. For it is unnatural not to recognize this about the Spirit due to the incongruity of the names opposite to this, for he who does not recognize Him as glorious must recognize Him as inglorious, and he who rejects the power in Him must agree to attribute to Him the contrary. The same applies to venerability and goodness, and whoever does not admit the best in Him will, of course, admit the opposite. If this is terrible and beyond all absurdity and blasphemy, then it is clear that the pious will agree with the most significant names and concepts about the Holy Spirit and will say that He is what we have often said - venerable, powerful, glorious, good and everything else that is said about Him according to piety. All these properties are not in the Spirit in an imperfect form and do not contain a limited amount of good, but correspond to the names completely infinitely; for only He is venerable not to a certain extent, so that then something else is thought of in Him, unhonorable, but always so. And whether you look at the past centuries, or turn your gaze to the future, you will not find anywhere a lack of honor or glory, so that they either increase through increase or decrease through taking away. So, if He is perfect in everything, He does not allow anything to be diminished. For to the extent that perfection is diminished under such an assumption, to that extent will space be given to unworthy ideas, for what is not completely honorable, we assume that it is in some way involved in the opposite. If even the thought of admitting this is a sign of extreme madness, then, of course, it would be fair to attribute to the Holy Spirit perfection in all good things, unlimited, not limited, not diminished in any respect. 8. If such is the Spirit, then we will now consider whether the same can be said about the Son, as well as about the Father. Is there really anyone who does not recognize perfect honor both in This and in It? I think that everyone with intelligence will agree with what has been said. So, if the honor of the Father is perfect, the honor of the Son is perfect, and it is recognized that the perfection of honor also belongs to the Holy Spirit, then why do the new teachers of dogmas legitimize for us that we should not confess Him as equal in honor to the Father and the Son? Based on previous research, we cannot say or think that something that does not need any increment for perfection is less worthy of anything else. For I do not understand what can be the derogation of that which does not admit the concept of increase due to completeness and perfection. And those who reject equality, of course, teach the derogation of honor. But having belittled the Holy Spirit in comparison (with the Father and the Son), they, in the same sequence, will pervert into the opposite all pious ideas about Him, not attributing to Him perfection either in goodness, or in power, or in anything else that is piously said about Him. If, evading obvious wickedness, they confess His perfection in everything that is attributed to Him as good, then let these wise men say how one perfection is more perfect or more eternal than another? For as long as the concept of perfection exists, this concept does not allow for either an increase or decrease in the representation of perfection. 9. So, if it is admitted that the Holy Spirit is perfect, and at the same time the perfection in all goodness of the Father and the Son is also piously recognized, then let them give an account on what reasonable basis do they consider themselves entitled to deny (the Divinity) of the Spirit? For the destruction of equality is proof that they do not consider Him to be involved in perfection. What, in their opinion, is the very honor given to the Divine nature, of which they want to deprive the Spirit? Is this not the honor that people give to people, showing signs of respect both in words and in appearance, expressing subordination by giving up the first place on the path and the like, which is considered honorable in the empty custom of our life? All this is based on the arbitrariness of those who do such things; if we assume that this is abandoned, then none of the people will have any natural reason to be more honorable than others, because the natural properties are equally equal for everyone. This matter is clear and undeniable, for the one who today seemed to be revered by many due to the superior authority with which he was invested, we will subsequently find himself one of the revered ones, as soon as the leadership passes to another. Isn’t it the same kind of honor they invent for the Divine nature, so that when we want it, it has honor, and when we stop honoring, then with our arbitrariness the Divine honor ceases? Isn’t it funny and not wicked to think like that? For it is not through us that the Divinity becomes more venerable than Itself, but It is always the same; It cannot move on to either the worse or the better, for it does not allow the former, and the latter does not exist for It. 10. So, how will you honor the Divine? How will you exalt the Highest? How can you glorify Him above all glory? How can you praise the Incomprehensible One? “Even if all the nations were like a drop of water” (Isaiah 40:15), as Isaiah says, even if all humanity, united together, unanimously gave glory, would this gratitude of a drop be an increase to the Glorious One by nature? “The heavens will tell the glory of God” (Ps. 18:2) and the little messengers are honored, because that “its splendor will reach not to the heavens, but above the heavens” (Ps. 8:2), encompassed by a small part of the Divinity, figuratively called “a span” (Is. 40:12). Someone, having lit a thin thread of tow, thought that through this spark he was giving some increase to the radiance of the sun. With what expressions, tell me, will you honor, if you want to fully honor, the Holy Spirit? Will you say that He is completely immortal, that He is immutable and unchangeable, is always good, has no need to give anything to others, that everything in everyone acts as He wants, is holy, sovereign, right, righteous, true, experiences the depths of God, comes from the Father, receives from the Son, and the like? But through this and the like, what do you give Him? Do you speak about what is inherent, or do you honor what is not inherent? If you attribute something that is not inherent, then your gift is empty and will not give Him anything more, for he who calls bitter things sweet has spoken a lie and praised what is blameworthy. If you talk about what really is in Him, then He, of course, is such by nature, whether you confess it as such or not; for the Apostle says that “even if we do not believe, He remains faithful” (2 Tim. 2:13). 11. So, what does the cowardice and generosity of those who please the honor of the Father want, think that they should give equal honor to the Son, but hesitate to bestow it on the Spirit? If the fullness of honor, which is inherent in the Divine nature, does not depend on our arbitrariness, but it belongs to Him naturally, then such an opinion (of heretics) exposes the stubbornness of the unreasonableness of the ungrateful; The spirit, by its nature, is venerable, glorious, strong, everything that we understand is lofty, even if they do not want it. So (they) say: but from Scripture we know that the Father is the Creator, we also know that everything happened through the Son, but the word of Scripture has not taught us anything like that about the Spirit. And is it possible to consider the Holy Spirit equal in honor with the One who, through the Creation, revealed such greatness of power? How do we respond to this? What is the vain verb in their hearts (Ps. 11:3) who think that the Spirit is not always with the Father and the Son, but at a certain time must be thought of as unique, and at another time we understand it in union (with the Father and the Son). For if heaven and earth and all creation came into being without the Spirit through one Son from the Father, then let those who say this say, what did the Holy Spirit do when the Father and the Son completed creation? Was he busy with some other things and therefore did not touch the creation of everything? But what can they show of the exclusive work of the Spirit when creation was accomplished? How stupid and unreasonable it is to invent another creation than that completed by the Father through the Son! 12. But they will say: He was not busy, but through some kind of laziness and idleness and avoidance of work, he withdrew from caring about creation? But may the very grace of the Spirit forgive us for these empty words! For, following in the footsteps of the absurdity of those who assert this, we unwittingly desecrated our word with their opinions, as if with some kind of dirt. Pious understanding is of this kind: neither the Father without the Son is ever conceived, nor the Son without the Holy Spirit is understood. For just as there is no way to ascend to the Father unless one is lifted up through the Son, so it is impossible to “speak to the Lord Jesus precisely by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). And so consistently and in agreement, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are always known to each other in the perfect Trinity; and before any creation, and before all ages, and before any conception of concepts, the Father is always the Father, and in the Father the Son, and with the Son the Holy Spirit. So, if They exist inseparably from each other, then what is the stupidity of those who decide at any time to cut apart the Inseparable and divide the Indivisible; so they dare to say: one Father created everything through one Son, while the Holy Spirit was either not present or did not act during creation! For if He was not present, then let them say, where was He when God determined existence for everything? Or will they come up with some special place for the Spirit, so that He was separate in himself at the time of creation? And if he was present, how was he inactive? Out of powerlessness to do anything or out of reluctance? Did he remain idle voluntarily or being forced by some strong necessity? And if by choice He chose inactivity, then, of course, He will not want to act in anything else and, in their opinion, he who says that He acts in everyone as He wants will turn out to be a liar (1 Cor. 12:6). 13. If He has a desire to act, and some higher authority interferes with His intention, then let them tell you the reason for such an obstacle. Is it envy of the glory of the deeds, so that the feeling of wonder at what has been created does not pass on to another, or distrust of assistance, lest His presence serve to harm the deed? For, of course, with such assumptions, these sages will explain to us the reasons for them. If neither envy touches the Divine nature, nor any error is conceivable in the infallible nature, then what does the pettiness of their concepts want, separating the power of the Spirit from the creative cause, whereas it should be that base and human concepts are left in the understanding of the Highest, and a way of thinking worthy of the height of what is sought is adopted. since God, who is over everything, created everything through the Son, not because he needed any assistance, and the only begotten Son acts all things by the Holy Spirit, not because he had less power to bring them to completion, but the source of power is the Father, the power of the Father is the Son, and the spirit of power is the Holy Spirit; all creation, both sensory and incorporeal, is the product of Divine power. And since there is no place for labor in that which constitutes the Divine nature, for along with the will follows execution, the intention immediately becomes implementation, then everything that has happened through creation in relation to the movement of the will, the aspiration of the intention and the communication of power can rightly be called beginning from the Father, continuing through the Son and being accomplished in the Holy Spirit. 14. We, thinking about this simply and in our usual way, do not allow this wisdom of our opponents, believing and confessing that in everything existing and conceivable, located in the world and above the world, in time and before the ages with the Father and the Son, we must understand the Holy Spirit, not lacking either will, or action, or anything else that is piously thought of as good. And therefore, excluding differences in order and in Hypostasis, we do not accept differences in anything (otherwise), but we say that He is numbered third (only) in succession after the Father and the Son, and third in the order of tradition (Matthew 28:19). In all other respects, we confess an indivisible unity in nature and in honor, in Divinity and glory, and (in) splendor, and in power over everything, and in pious confession. And regarding service and worship and everything about which these sages discuss petty reasoning, we say that the Holy Spirit is higher than everything that depends for us on human will; and our worship (of Him) is below due honor, and if human custom considers anything else honorable, then even that is below the dignity of the Spirit. For the immeasurable by nature is higher than all those who bring Him feasible gifts of worship from small, limited and meager strength. But we say this for those who agree with a more pious concept of the Holy Spirit, namely, that He is the Divinity and the nature of the Divine. 15. And if someone were to reject this expression and meaning, combined with the name of the Divine, and would begin to say what has been divulged by many to disparage the greatness of the Spirit, namely, that He does not belong to the Creators, but to the created, and that he should be revered not by the Divine, but by the created nature, then to these words we will answer that we are not taught to honor those who think so as Christians. For just as no one would call an immature embryo a person, they only recognize the possibility of developing into a person if it is brought to term, and while (the embryo) is in an imperfect form, it is something else, but not a person; Likewise, our teaching does not recognize anyone who has not received the education of piety through the entire sacrament as a Christian. For you can hear that the Jews also confess God - and our God. And the Lord agrees with them in the Gospel that they worship no other God than the Only Begotten Father: “Of him,” he says, “you say, as your God is” (John 8:54). So, should the Jews really be called Christians, because they also confess and honor the One we worship? I know that the Manichaeans also pronounce the name of Christ. So what? since they also honor the name we worship, should they also be counted among Christians? So the one who, although he confesses the Father and acknowledges the Son, but rejects the greatness of the Spirit, “has denied the faith, and is the worst of the infidels” (1 Tim. 5:8) and falsely bears the name of Christian. The Apostle commands that the man of God be “perfect” (2 Tim. 3:17). A person is usually perfect when he has all the fullness of his natural properties; he must be intelligent, capable of thinking and knowledge, involved in life, straight in appearance, able to laugh, and have flat nails. If someone would call a person a person who could not imagine the above-mentioned natural signs, then it would be in vain to honor such a person with this name. Likewise, a Christian has his distinctive feature of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it is the form of what has been formed through the sacrament of truth. If this image turns out to be constructed differently, then I do not recognize nature in the ugly. If in faith the Holy Spirit is not accepted together (with the Father and the Son), then this will be a merging of the mark and alienation from the natural image and a change in the distinctive features of humanity. For the word of Ecclesiastes is true, that such a person is not a living person, but “like the bones,” as he says, “in the womb of a woman in labor” (Eccl. 11:5). For how can one confess Christ who does not acknowledge the anointing together with the anointed one? This “anointing...,” says, “God with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:38). 16. Let them therefore tell us that they despise the glory of the Spirit and place Him along with the subordinate nature, what does the anointing signify? Isn't it a kingdom? So what? Do they really not believe that the Only Begotten is a king by nature? Of course, those whose hearts are not at all covered by the Jewish veil will not contradict this. So, if the Son is a king by nature, and the anointing is a symbol of the kingdom, then what consequence follows from this to you? That anointing is not something alien to the natural king, and that the Spirit is not posited in the Holy Trinity as something alien and extraneous to Her. For the Son is the King, and the living, essential, and hypostatic kingdom is the Holy Spirit, with whom the Only Begotten, being anointed, is Christ and the King of all things. So, if the king is the Father, the king and the Only Begotten, and the kingdom is the Holy Spirit, then, of course, there is one concept of the kingdom in the Trinity. The thought of anointing mysteriously indicates that there is no difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For just as between the surface of the body and the anointing of oil, neither reason nor feeling perceives anything in between, so the unity of the Son with the Holy Spirit is inseparable; so that for one who intends to touch the Son with faith, it is necessary to first touch the ointment, for there is no part in Him that is naked of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the confession of the Son as the Lord occurs among those who receive it in the Holy Spirit, since those who approach by faith are preceded on every side by the Spirit. So, if the Son is a king by nature, and the Holy Spirit is the dignity of the kingdom with which the Son is anointed, then what other alienation of the kingdom by nature from itself can be imagined? 17. Then let’s pay attention to this. A sign of royal dignity, of course, is power over a subordinate. But what is subject to the royal nature? By this we mean, of course, centuries and what is in them, for “Thy kingdom,” says the Prophet, “is the kingdom of all ages” (Ps. 145:13). When we say centuries, it embraces everything that is part of their creation, visible and invisible, for in them everything was created by the Creator of the ages. So, if the kingdom is always understood to be with the king, and the subordinate nature is recognized as something other (different) from the ruler, then how absurd do those who, contradicting themselves, although they attribute the anointing to the king by nature as a dignity, but relegate this very (anointing) to the subordinate rank as a lower dignity? For if (the Holy Spirit) belongs by nature to the number of subordinates, then how is He consistent with the dignity of the kingdom of the Only Begotten, being the anointing of the kingdom? If His ascension into the greatness of the kingdom shows His superiority, then what is the need to destroy everything, reducing Him to official and slavish humiliation, by counting Him among the slave creatures? For it is impossible for anyone who says both things about Him, that He is both superior and subordinate, to speak the truth in both cases. For if he is in charge, then he is not subject, but if he is a slave, then it is no longer possible to place Him along with the reigning nature. For just as people are numbered among people, angels - among angels, and everything is homogeneous, so it is necessary to recognize the Holy Spirit as belonging to one of two things: either to the dominant or to the subordinate nature. For reason does not recognize anything in between the one and the other, so as to think that there is some newly invented special nature in the middle between the created and the uncreated, so that it participates in both and is completely neither one nor the other. For one cannot allow the thought of some kind of confusion of the opposite and interweaving of the created with the uncreated, mixed with each other, and of two opposites united into one Hypostasis. The being composed through this monstrous mixture will not only be complex, but also composed of parts that are dissimilar and inconsistent in time, for that which exists through creation is, of course, newer than that which exists uncreated. So, if they say that the nature of the Spirit is mixed from both, then we must admit the concept of some mixing of the ancient with the newest; and there will be, in their opinion, something older than itself and (again) something newer than itself, so that to the extent that the Spirit was not created, it will be the most ancient, and to the extent it is created, it will be the latest. So, since this is unnatural, then, of course, it is necessary to say that one of these things is true about the Spirit, namely, that He was not created. 18. Let us consider how absurd the following is. If everything that is conceived as created by the very thing that received existence through creation has equality of honor, then what is the reason, separating the Spirit from other (creatures), to place Him along with the Father and the Son? Reasonable consistency shows that that which is intuited together with the uncreated nature was not created, and if it were created, it would not at all have the significance of a creature more homogeneous with it and could not be consistent with the highest nature. If they begin to say that the Spirit is both created and has more significance than creation, then again there appears in the created nature an internal contradiction and division into the dominant and the subordinate; so that one does good, and another receives good deeds, and one sanctifies, and another is sanctified. And everything that, as we believe, is given to creation from the Holy Spirit is inherent in Him, flows abundantly and is poured out on others; but as a creature He will need the good deeds and grace bestowed from there in order to exist and, through communion, have fellowship in the blessings poured out from the same kind with Him. And this is similar to election and partiality, that although there is no preference in nature, objects that have no difference in being are given unequal significance. But I think none of the right-thinking people will agree to this; The Spirit either does not provide others (goods) if it does not naturally have them, or if they believe that it bestows them, then, of course, they admit that they have them. And to be the source of the bestowal of benefits, while not having any need for anything extraneous, is exclusively characteristic of the Divine nature. 19. Then let’s consider this: what do we achieve through holy baptism? Is it not a communion of life that is no longer subject to death? I think that no one will contradict these words, who only and in any way considers themselves Christians. So what? Is the life-giving power in the water, which is used to impart the grace of baptism? It is clear to everyone that it is accepted for the sake of bodily service, but in itself does not bring anything for sanctification if it is not transformed through sanctification, and the one who quickens those who are baptized is the Spirit, as the Lord says about this with his own lips, that “there is a Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63). It is not He alone who gives life, having been received for the sake of this grace-filled accomplishment through faith, but must be preceded by faith in the Lord, through which the grace of life is assimilated by the believers, as the Lord said that the Son “whosoever willeth, he giveth life” (John 5:21). But since the grace bestowed through the Son depends on an unbegotten source, therefore Scripture teaches that faith in the name of the Father, who gives life to all things, must precede (1 Tim. 6:13), as the Apostle says, so that the life-giving grace emanating from Him, as if from some source exuding life, would bring to perfection those who are worthy of it through the Only Begotten Son, Who is true life, through the action of the Spirit. So, if life is through baptism, and baptism is performed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then what do they say who consider the One who gives life to be nothing? And if this grace is small, then let them say what is more honorable than life? If, however, everything that is honorable is lower than life, I speak (about) this high and honorable life, in which the unreasonable nature has no part in any way, then how dare they dare to degrade such a great gift, or, better yet, Himself who delivers this gift with their concepts and reduce it to a subordinate nature, tearing it away from the Divine and the highest. Then, if they consider this gift of life to be small, as if it does not reveal at all the height and greatness of the nature of the Giver, then how will they not think about the consequence, namely, that the same concept prompts both the Only Begotten and His Father not to think anything great, since the same life that we have through the Spirit is given through the Son from the Father. 20. Therefore, if these haters and enemies of their lives consider (this) a small gift, and therefore allow themselves to dishonor the giver of this grace, then let them know that they are not showing ingratitude to one Person, but through the Holy Spirit they are extending blasphemy against the Holy Trinity. For just as grace, poured out on the worthy, flows inseparably from the Father through the Son and the Spirit, so blasphemy, also spreading successively, passes from the Son to the God of all. For if through the rejection of the (sent) person the sender is rejected, no matter what the distance between the person and the sender, then who can say what kind of condemnation threatens those who dare against the Spirit! Because, perhaps, the Lawmaker announced condemnation without forgiveness against such blasphemy (Matthew 12:32), because in it the blasphemer deliberately insults the entire blessed and Divine nature. For just as he who has piously received the Spirit knows in the Spirit the glory of the Only Begotten, and he who sees the Son knows the image of the Infinite and through this image imprints the prototype in his knowledge, so in the same way the despiser of the Spirit, when he dares to rebel against His glory, according to the same sequence (of concepts) extends blasphemy against the Father through the Son. So, those who have intelligence should be afraid not to encroach on such insolence, the end of which is the complete destruction of the daring one, but as much as there is strength to elevate the Spirit with a word, elevate first the words in thought, for it is impossible for the word not to elevate along with the thought. And even when you reach the height of human strength, to the height and greatness of concepts that the human mind can achieve, then think that all this is below the highest dignity, according to what was said in the psalmody: only after you have lifted up the Lord our God, then “worship His footstool”; The reason for his immense dignity is no other, he says, than that He is holy (Ps. 98.5). 21. So, if every height of human power is lower than the greatness of the Worshiped (for this is understood by Scripture through the “stool of the feet”), then how stupid are those who think that they have such power in themselves that it depends on them to determine the dignity of honor to the highest nature of all honor and therefore consider the Holy Spirit unworthy of some invented signs of honor, as if their power can give more than what the dignity of the Spirit can contain! Oh, how pitiful and miserable is their madness! They do not understand what they themselves are who say this, and what the Holy Spirit is, to whom, being arrogant, they oppose themselves! Who will tell these people that man is an outgoing and non-returning spirit, that they are installed in the womb of their mothers through unclean conception and are all resolved into the unclean land, that they have received life, which is compared to grass (Ps. 102:14), that, having blossomed for a short time in worldly flattery, they dry up again, and their falling color disappears: that they were nothing before birth, they don’t know exactly what they will turn into, because the soul, while it remains in the flesh, does not know its own lot! That's how people are! 22. The Holy Spirit, first of all, is holy by nature, just as the Father is holy by nature, as well as the Only Begotten. The Holy Spirit is the same in life-giving, incorruptibility, and immutability. He is eternal, righteous, wise, right, sovereign, good, strong, the Giver of all blessings and, above all, of life itself. He is present everywhere and inherent in everyone, and fills the earth, and abides in heaven, pours out in premium powers, fills everything according to the dignity of each, and himself remains complete. He is with all the worthy and is not separated from the Holy Trinity. He always experiences the depths of God, always receives from the Son, and is sent, and is not separated, and is glorified, and has glory, for He who gives glory to another must obviously have more abundant glory. Otherwise, how can one who is not involved in glory glorify? If He were not some kind of light, how would He show the grace of light? In the same way, one who is not himself glory, and honor, and greatness, and splendor will not show glorifying power. So the Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son. But he who said: “I will glorify those who glorify Me” is not false (1 Samuel 2:30). “I have glorified You...” the Lord says to the Father, and again: You have glorified Me, Father, with Yourself with glory, since before You there was no peace” (John 17:4-5). The divine voice answers: “I have glorified and I will glorify again” (John 12:28). Do you see the circle of glory in its successive transmission by others like you? The Son is glorified by the Spirit, the Father is glorified by the Son, and, conversely, the Son has glory from the Father, and the Only Begotten is the glory of the Spirit, for by what will the Father be glorified, if not by the true glory of the Only Begotten? In what again will the Son be glorified, if not in the greatness of the Spirit? So again our word, making a reverse circle, glorifies the Son through the Spirit, and through the Son, the Father. 23. So, if such is the greatness of the Spirit, and if everything that is good or beneficial from the Father through the Only Begotten is accomplished in the Spirit acting all in all, then why do our opponents make themselves enemies of their own lives? Why are they alienated from the hope of those being saved? Why do they cut themselves off from connection with God? For how can anyone cleave to the Lord if the Holy Spirit does not complete our unity with Him? Why do they argue with us about service and worship? Why do they mock the name of service regarding the Divine and needless nature, as if they were not doing good to themselves in asking for salvation, but were showing God some honor if they wanted to be saved? Your benefit is the prayer of the one asking, and not the honor of the giver - (the request). So, why, as a giver of (something), do you approach a benefactor, or, better to say, do you not deign to be called a benefactor, the Giver of benefits, but, using life, you do not honor the Life-Giving One and, seeking sanctification, you despise the One who bestows the grace of sanctification, and, without denying that He has the power to give benefits, you consider him unworthy of prayer, without judging how many times the giver of a benefit is higher than the one who gives the good. from whom they ask it. For a request does not yet fully prove the greatness of the one from whom it is asked; It is possible to ask something from someone who does not have it, it depends on the arbitrariness of the one asking. And the bestower of any benefit gives undoubted proof of its inherent power. So, why do you, by attributing to Him more, that is, the power to give everything that is good, do you deprive prayer as something great; although it often happens, as has been said, that out of the self-deception of the one asking, they also pray to those who have no power over anything. And from idols the slaves of vanity ask for what is in their minds, but asking for this does not add any glory to the idols; and they, out of self-delusion, holding on to them in anticipation of receiving something of what they hope for, do not stop asking. And you, convinced of what and how great blessings the Holy Spirit gives, despise prayer and resort to the law, which commands the Lord God to worship and serve that One (Deut. 6:13)! But tell me, how will you serve His One, separating Him from unity with the Only Begotten and the Spirit? This will be Jewish worship. 24. But you will say: imagining the Father in thought, with this name I also embrace the Son. But accepting the Son in thought, tell me, do you not also accept the Holy Spirit? You can't contradict. For how will you confess Him, if not by the Holy Spirit? Is the Spirit ever separated from the Son so that the worship of the Father does not include both the worship of the Son and the Spirit? What, in their opinion, is worship itself, which, as if offering some kind of selective gift to God over everything and even extending this honor to the Only Begotten, does not merit this gift of the Spirit? For human custom calls worship the bowing of those under power to the ground, with which they express greetings to the strongest. It is well known that the patriarch Jacob, appeasing his brother’s anger, upon meeting him expressed humble humiliation for this type of worship, for “bow down,” says Scripture, “to the earth seven times” (Gen. 33:3). And Joseph’s brothers, while they themselves did not recognize him, and he pretended not to know them, because of his superior dignity, honored the authority with worship. The great Abraham also worships the Hittites, a stranger to the natives, showing, I think, by what he did, how much more powerful the natural inhabitants are than the strangers. And many similar things can be cited both from ancient stories and from examples of real life. Is this what they mean by worship? And isn’t it funny to think that one should not be honored with the Holy Spirit even that which the Patriarch and the Canaanites were honored with? Or do they think that besides this there is some other kind of worship, so that one befits people, and the other the highest nature? How then do they completely deny the worship of the Spirit, not giving it the same as is given to people? 25. And what form of worship do they consider especially fitting for God? Expressed in words or performed by body movement? Among people, both are common, for both words are spoken by people and worship is performed. So, which is preferable to God? It is clear to anyone with any understanding that human nature does not have any gift worthy of God, for our Creator does not require our good things (Ps. 15:2). We, people, transfer those expressions of respect and love that we show to each other, showing ourselves more humble than each other through recognition of the superiority of our neighbor, into the service of the most excellent Nature, bringing as a gift to the highest Nature of all honor that which is considered honorable among us. And therefore, people, coming to kings or rulers, if they want to achieve something for themselves from those in power, do not bring a simple request to the rulers, but in order to more incline towards mercy and goodwill towards themselves, they humble themselves in words, worship with their bodies, touch their knees, fall to the ground, and in every possible way arousing pity by what they do, arouse sympathy for their petition... Therefore, those who have recognized the true Dominion, which governs all things... about what they would like. Humble in soul because of what is happening in this world... And high in the understanding of eternal and ineffable hopes, since they do not know how to ask, and human nature cannot show any honor corresponding to the splendor of glory, they transfer the service established between people to the veneration of the Divine. And this worship is a petition raised with prayer and humility for something desired. Therefore, Daniel bows his knees before the Lord, asking for love for the captive people (Dan. 9:3-9). And about the One who bore our infirmities and prayed for us because of the humanity that He accepted, the Gospel tells that He fell on His face during prayer and in this form prayed (Matthew 26:39), legitimizing for those, I think, a person not to be impudent during the petition, but to direct everything towards propitiation, since the Lord “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6; Proverbs 3:34), and in another place: he who exalts himself will humble himself (Matt. 23:12). So, if worship is, as it were, some kind of prayer that helps achieve the goal of the petition, and the petition is addressed to the Lord of power, then what is the meaning of the new law, so as not to ask from the Giver, nor to bow before the Ruler, nor to serve the Sovereign?.. You might be interested in: