Часть третья. Богословие св. Григория Чудотворца. Общие замечания о характере и объеме раскрытия богословия св. Григория Чудотворца

Authentic creations of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, as can be seen from the second part of this study, has survived relatively little - and in general, apparently, there were few of them. In them, of course, the content of the entire Christian teaching - dogmatic and moral, which is usually understood by theology, did not find full expression; Therefore, talking about the “theology” of St. Gregory in this broad sense of the word is not possible. But for “theology in the strictly limited scope of this term in which it was used in the ancient Christian church, that is, in the sense of its own teaching about God, the surviving works of St. Gregory present very significant material: even if they do not give complete and comprehensive answers to all the questions that one would like to present to this outstanding theologian, who emerged from the school of Origen, in the interests of illuminating the history of theological thought in the period from Origen to the Council of Nicea, then nevertheless, on the basis of them it is possible to outline with sufficient certainty the path along which, starting from Origen’s theology, his student took. If St. Gregory wrote only one symbol, then even in this case one could talk about the “theology” of the enlightener Pontus: this short confession is so rich in content, in which each term expresses the greatest depth of theological speculation. But the researcher of the theological teachings of St. Gregory also has valuable data in his other works, the authenticity of which we have recognized as proven, namely in his “Gratitude Speech” to Origen, in the treatise “To Theopompus on the Possibility and Impossibility of Suffering for God” and in the Epistle to Evagrius. These creations contain significant additions and commentary to the symbol. Our task in this part of the study is to carefully extract from the indicated works of St. in an exegetical way. Gregory, everything that is in any respect suitable for the most accurate and strictly objective clarification of the content of his theological teaching, without deviating towards assumptions and constructions that do not have a real basis in the words of St. Gregory himself. Gregory. If as a result of this the result is not a bright, picturesque picture, but only - we use the expression of St. Gregory - charcoal sketches (Speech of Thanks, §8), for which each feature will be in possible, according to modern means of research, correspondence with the actual way of thinking of the saint. Since St. Gregory was a zealous student of Origen, and since it is natural to assume that he mastered the views and terminology of his teacher, it seems absolutely necessary when explaining the theological terminology of St. Gregory starts from the meaning it has among Origen and his closest students. At the same time, in all cases where possible, we will note how certain points of the theology of St. Gregory agrees with the teachings of Origen and can be explained by the latter, or deviates from it. We do not need to look for a plan for constructing our research in this area: it was given by St. himself. Gregory in his symbol, which we take as the basis, supplementing it in appropriate places with more detailed explanations from his other creations. Chapter I. The teaching of St. Gregory the Wonderworker about God the Father Symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker opens with a confession of the unity of God - εἰς Θεός. Further, the same ε ἶ ς is repeated in the application to the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity: εἰς Κύριος and ἓ ν πνεῦμα ἅ γιον. This ε ἶ ς is undoubtedly caused by the symbolic form of the confession, since in all almost preserved symbols of the Eastern Church it is read: πιστεύω εἰς ἕ να θεόν, and in most of them ἕ ν also stands before πνεῦμα ἅ γιον. In Western symbols, the corresponding “unum” or “unicum” is found quite rarely 849 (in Tertullian, Priscillian, in the symbol compiled by Orthodox bishops at the Council of Arimini and some others). This feature of eastern symbols was already noted by Rufinus 850. In view of this, there is no need to assume a precisely defined purpose for indicating unity, for example, against the Gnostics 851; one might rather think that St. Gregory in this case followed Eastern practice and in particular directed ε ἶ ς against pagan polytheism, which was strong in the Pontic country, in the sense of I Cor. VIII, 8: but to us there is one God the Father, from Him are all things, and we are with Him, and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by Him are all things, and we by Him. What question in this formulation occupied St. Gregory, this, in addition to the natural conclusion from the conditions of his pastoral activity, is also evident from the fact that St. Gregory wrote some work on the text closest to the above saying (v. 4): for an idol is nothing in the world, from which an excerpt has been preserved in the Sacra Parallela. Directed thus against the pagans, this ε ἶ ς, repeated with θεός, κύριος and πνεῦμα ἅ γιον, at the same time decisively notes the hypostatic peculiarity of God the Father, Lord and Holy Spirit: one God the Father, one Lord, the Only Begotten The Son, and one Holy Spirit, - Each Hypostasis is announced separately. Ε ἶ ς θεός, ε ἶ ς χόριος and ἐν πνεῦμα, placed at the beginning of the three parts of the symbol, denote the subject to which everything that follows constitutes a predicate. In the symbol of St. Gregory does not go into a more detailed disclosure of the doctrine of God - he does not add here the usual definition in ancient Eastern symbols: Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, everything visible and invisible (παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ γὴς, ὀρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων ). But in his other works he gives enough features on the basis of which one can conclude that in this respect he shares a common point of view with Origen. The essence of God, he says in his letter to Evagrius, is completely simple and indivisible, by its very nature having in itself simplicity and incorporeality ( οὐσία, τὸ ἀπλοῦν καὶ ἀσώματον ἐκ φύσεως εκτοχών ) 852 . “The divine and indivisible essence of the most perfect is indivisible and homogeneous (ἀδιαίρετος ἐστι καὶ μονοειδής) 853. And in the treatise to Theopompus (§4): “The nature of God is ineffable and inexplicable, has no similarity with anything” (ineffabilem et inexplicabilem Dei naturam... esse, cum qualibet re similitudinis expers) 854. Hence the natural conclusion that the essence of God is actually unnameable: intelligible objects, although they bear myriads of names (since they have many names in every nation), are nevertheless alien to any name, because for mental and incorporeal objects there is no proper name. For how can we call by our own name something that does not fall under our gaze and cannot at all be grasped by human feelings? 855. God is so exalted above everything that man not only cannot comprehend Him, but even sing Him in a worthy manner. Even if he had offered all of himself, in a state of possible highest purity, lightness and immaculateness and without any admixture of imperfection, then on his part he would not have brought a worthy gift in honor and reward to the Ruler and Creator of the universe: “neither each individual, nor even all together could ever praise Him according to his dignity, even if everything pure became one and the same, came out of itself and, gathered in one spirit and in a single consonant aspiration, turned to Him” 856. The proper measure of praise due to Him can only be fulfilled by He whom the Father of all Himself made one with Himself—God the Word who is in Him 857 . St. Gregory calls God, “the first Mind” (ὁ πρῶτος νοῦς) 858 in agreement with Origen, who calls Him “mind,” “whole mind” 859, and Dionysius of Alexandria, according to whom the Father is the greatest and all mind 860. God is free, exalted above everything (omnibus supereminere), everything is possible, not subject to any necessity 861; no force can prevent Him from doing what He wants, since His essence does not consist of various mutually contradictory essences. God is not like a man, who consists of different natures - soul and body, and since the will of one does not agree with the will of the other, it follows that people do not always accomplish what they would like to do, because the nature of one part, opposing the nature of the other, prevents the latter from doing what it wants. But He who alone is unlimited (infinitus), good and glorious, Who determines everything by His goodness, To whom everything that is and was is subordinated, Who surpasses everything, Who has an incorruptible mind, Who is alien and above all evil - He alone is simple and uncomplicated (solum esse simplicem et non compositum), unmixed with evil due to the unity of His essence, the one good will, indivisible, never reviled, untroubled, never weakened, unsearched, never conquered or suppressed; He is above all suffering; He determines Himself in everything that He intends to do, since His nature allows no obstacle, since He is alien to all rebellion, and nothing competes with Him or rebels against Him. He is free and by His will rules over everything, and by His power, which surpasses everything, He can do everything 862. In general, the essence of God is unchangeable, remains the same, in a single image, a single being, in a single unchangeable will; she learns from herself and in herself and through herself can do everything (essentia, quae semper est ut est, perseverans unum et idem, in una forma, in uno esse, in una immutabili voluntate; quae a se ipsa addiscit, sibi ipsi imperat, et ipsa, a seipsa, et in seipsa et per seipsam omnia potest facere) 863 . This sublime doctrine of the unity, simplicity, homogeneity, indivisibility, indefinability of the divine essence and its absolute inner harmony and freedom is undoubtedly revealed on the basis and in the spirit of the teachings of Origen and through his terminology, although without the breadth and depth of speculation that distinguishes the theology of his famous teacher 864. But, although God is the most blessed being, exalted above all, it cannot be said about Him that, contemplating the greatness of His Divinity in His beautiful bliss, He chose silence for Himself and alone remains in the happiness of His nature, despising everything else, and prefers inactivity - otherwise the most perfect being will turn out to be significantly lower than those mortals who did not spare their lives to help compatriots. And for God it would be the greatest suffering - not to care about people, not to want to do good and not to have care for the human race 865. A God who would not in any way reveal His incorruptible nature, which is above all, and who dwells in that supreme pleasure which, according to the Epicureans, is exclusively befitting of God, and to which He constantly returns and immerses itself, would be completely unknown to man and could not be called the most blessed and incorruptible being. “I am,” says St. Gregory, - I affirm that the most blessed and generous dispenser of goods is the one who is a helper to people and a giver of strength to those who have lost hope... We call the most blessed and incorruptible being most blessed only when he performs deeds characteristic of his goodness - (we call him most blessed) for the sake of clearly revealed good deeds that flow from him. Contemplation of the visible reveals the hidden. For the prudence of a wise and prudent man in its distinctive qualities is not recognized before it is made evident by deeds of virtue completed with joy. But how can we inform people about the greatness of the mind of the most blessed being, while he has not presented a single case so that, having comprehended it, we were able to talk about it? For if someone does not evoke spiritual movement in us with his good deeds, or if someone does not attract us to himself with his glory, how. we can attribute goodness to him while his goodness and his generosity are completely hidden from us” 866? St. Gregory energetically rebels against the idea of ​​God that He loves Himself, dwells in His riches, enjoys His glory and does not want to help anyone, neglects and rejects people, deprives the help of the most blessed Being 867. On this basis, St. Gregory, in his treatise to Theopompus, builds detailed evidence of the position that an impassive God could take upon himself suffering to save people. Thus, St. Gregory from the image of the sublime being of God makes a decisive transition to the activity of God in the world, which in the treatise “To Theopompus”, in view of the special issue revealed in it, received a limited character; but it is important for us that St. Gregory sees the basis for this transition in the perfection and goodness of God. At this point, it is again necessary to note the agreement in the main thought with Origen, who recognizes the force behind the objection posed to him: “it is wicked and at the same time absurd to imagine the nature of God as idle and motionless, or to think that goodness once did not do good, and omnipotence once had no power over anything” 868 - only St. Gregory does not draw from this position the same conclusions regarding the eternity of creation that were made by Origen. However, he clearly calls God the Author (αἴτιος) and Ruler (ἡγέμων) of the universe 869; He is the first Wine of life (τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον τῆς ζωῆς), the Source of everlasting life (ἡ τῆς ἀειζωίας πηγή) and the God of all blessings 870 Who constantly provides for everything and takes care of people, both in the greatest and in the most insignificant 871. In a symbol, πατήρ is directly attached to θεός which, on the one hand, begins a series of predicates, but on the other hand, is so inextricably linked with it, like a definition, that both together constitute, as it were, one concept, which is why ε ἶ ς actually refers to both of them. This clearly establishes that for St. Gregory, as for Origen 872, the general concept of God merges with the concept of the first Person of the Holy Trinity, and his teaching about God is essentially a teaching about the Father. We see the same in all symbols, Eastern and Western. But unlike them, the symbol of St. Gregory, as said, does not introduce further definitions of Him: “Almighty, Creator,” etc., but to the concept πατὴρ, as containing the thought of relationship, directly adds definitions establishing His relationship to the Son 873. In these His relations to the second Person of the Holy Trinity, together with the revelation of the concept of the Son, the divine definitions of the first Person receive further development. God is “the Father of the living Word, the hypostatic Wisdom and the Power and the Eternal Mark, the perfect Parent of the Perfect, the Father of the only begotten Son.” The first definitions of the second Person of St. The Trinity in His relation to the Father - λόγος, σοφία and δύναμίς - are all of biblical origin and have been used as such in modern theological language. St. Dionysius of Rome, in his letter regarding the complaint of the Alexandrian brethren against St. Dionysius of Alexandria uses the following expression: “if Christ is the Word and Wisdom and Power, and that Christ is all this, this, as you know, is affirmed by the divine Scriptures” 874. And St. Dionysius of Alexandria in “Reproof and Justification” writes: “there is always Christ as Word, Wisdom and Power” 875. Consequently, not only the use of these names in the application to the second person, but also their very order was usual 876. But in the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, they constitute only the beginning of a significant series of definitions and therefore should be considered not only as usual designations, but each in its place and with special content and purpose. The name λόγος should undoubtedly lead to the prologue of the Gospel of John, which expresses the whole essence of the Christian teaching about God the Word: His eternal pre-existence, hypostatic identity and divine dignity, relationship to the world and humanity before the incarnation and revelation to the world in the incarnation. Hence, the name of the Son of God as the Word in ancient Christian literature received very wide use, although, depending on the influence of modern philosophical views, in which the concept of λόγος 'e also occupied a prominent place, it did not find comprehensive and deep expression even among the most prominent representatives of Christian thought (apologists, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus of Rome), who put forward almost exclusively the cosmological meaning of the Word. In the Alexandrian school and in particular in Origen, the designation of the Son by the Word received a more complete and profound meaning, retaining, however, its basic meaning, defined by the very term λόγος: just as the mind and word of man reveal the innermost essence and thoughts of man, so the Word of God reveals the innermost being and thought of the Divine; this provides the basis for the doctrine of the Word both in His immanent relation to the Father and in His relation to the world: the Word is the internal self-revelation of the Divine and at the same time the beginning of the revelation of God the Father to the world - while in general usage the latter moment itself predominates. But in this case, the definition of λόγος must be understood in the sense of indicating the internal relationship of the Son to the Father, because His relationship to the world begins only in the second part of the symbol, where He is called λόγος ἐνεργός; here it seems parallel to the expression in the speech of gratitude (§39): “the most perfect and living and animate Word of the very first Mind” ( πρώτου νοῦ λόγος ἔμψοχος ὤ ν ) 877 . The last words undoubtedly refer to the immanent relationship of the Word to the Father, as can be seen from the words used by St. Gregory's terms, and from the entire structure of the speech in the entire department to which they relate: he reveals in it the idea that only God the Word, who is in Him, can worthily and sufficiently bring thanksgiving and praise to the Father. Commentary on the name of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of St. Gregory can be served by the following passage from “Conviction and Justification” of St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “Our mind spews out words from itself, according to what was said by the prophet: “My heart will spew out a good word” (Psalm. 44:1), and each of them is different from one another and occupies a special and separate place from each other, one abiding and moving in the heart, and the other on the tongue and lips; however, they are not separated and not for a single moment deprived of each other; neither the mind exists without the word, nor the word without the mind, but the mind creates the word, manifesting itself in it, and the word reveals the mind, having received existence in it. And the mind is, as it were, a hidden word within, and the word is a revealed mind. The mind passes into the word, and the word transfers the thought to the listeners. Thus, through the medium of the word, the mind is communicated to the souls of the listeners, entering them along with the word. The mind, being in itself, is, as it were, the father of the word, and the word is, as it were, the son of the mind. It is impossible before the mind, but it did not come from somewhere outside, but exists together with the mind and arose from it. So the Father, the greatest and universal Mind, has first the Son, the Word, His interpreter and messenger” 878. In the light of these considerations, St. Dionysius of Alexandria becomes quite clear and the thought of St. Gregory in his letter to Evagrius, where he says: “just as this spoken word, which has become common to all of us, is inseparable from the soul that pronounced it, nevertheless at the same time it is also in the souls of those listening, is not separated from the first and is found in the latter, and produces unity rather than separation of their souls and ours - so you imagine with me the Son never separated from the Father and again from this last - the Holy Spirit, just as the thought in mind" 879. The word is called “living” (λόγου ζῶντος) in the symbol, and “living” (ζῶν) and “animate” (ἔμψυχος) in the thank-you speech. This definition is very significant. It is obvious that the rich content of ζῶν, marking the fullness of true life, which has its source in divine life, here is intended to distinguish the Divine Word from the mind and word of man: human λόγος has no real existence in itself, separately from the person who possesses it. St. Gregory defines the Word in accordance with Origen and undoubtedly in the sense of the latter’s teaching. Origen says that “His (God’s) Word is not like the word of all, for no one’s word is living, no one’s word is God” ( λόγος θεός); in comparison with any other word, His property is to be God, to be the living, self-existent Word οὑτινησοῦν λόγος καὶ ἔχει ξένον τὸ ε ἶ ναι θεὸς καὶ τὸ ε ἶ ναι λόγος ὢ ν [ ὁ ] ζῶν, τὸ ἐφεστηκέναι καθ ’ ἑαυτὸ [ ὑφεστηκέναι καθ ’ ἑαυτόν ]) 880 . In his work “On Principles,” Origen writes: “it seems to me that the saying written in the Acts of Paul is correct: This is the Word, a living being” (hic est verbum animal vivens) 881. In his commentary on the first letter to the Thessalonians, he appends to Christ the words of the letter to the Hebrews (IV, 12: the word of God is living and active): “they live in Him who is life, and Christ lives in them, of whom it is written: The word of God is living and active, who is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God” 882. This designation of the Word as living and animate contains the same thought that was later expressed by St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the following words: “But I do not call by word that which is embedded and innate in each of the created things, and which others are accustomed to call seminal (σπερματικός), - such a word is inanimate (ἄψυχον ὄντα)... also I do not mean the word that has a verbal human gender, not a word combined from syllables and imprinted in the air; but I mean the living and active God, the imprecise Word of the Good and the God of all” 883. Thus, the first definition of God is that He is the Father of the Word, in Whom He has His “revelation,” but a revelation that has a concrete existence, as living, that is, truly and truly existing, full of that life that belongs to God the Father. Σοφία - The Wisdom of God is the sum of divine ideas, divine intentions, divine plans and the knowledge of all ways to implement them. In Holy Scripture it is considered in its manifestation in the creation of the world and the industry about it, in the expedient structure, in the legal and moral order, and especially in the economy of human salvation. Moreover, already in the Old Testament Wisdom was thought of not as a property of God alone, but as an objectively living being: Proverbs. 8, 21 ff., Job. 18, 24 ff., and in the New Testament this name in its meaning is transferred to Christ, as the embodied implementation of divine plans for the salvation of man: 1 Cor. 1, 24. In the symbol of St. Gregory speaks about Wisdom in its relation to the world in the second part of it; here, as in the name λόγος, the depths of divine wisdom in the divine being itself are understood. Thus, the second Person of the Holy Trinity is the divine Wisdom itself, embracing in itself everything that is conceivable in this concept. Just as λόγος has with it an essential definition in ζώντος, so in parallel to it and with σοφίας St. Gregory puts ὑφεστώσης. Ὑ φίστημι, with its derivative ὑπόστασις, actually means that which stands under something, which gives it reality and makes it what it is; hence it must mean “something that exists in itself and for itself, as opposed to not only what is real, as a fact, does not exist, i.e., only what is imagined, conceivable, but also what really exists, but only in another, as its quality, i.e., a phenomenon” 884. Consequently, ὑφιστημι establishes not only the reality of existence, but also its independence, its individuality. True, this meaning of the terms ὑφίστημι and ὑπόστασις was finally established in church theological language only in the second half of the 4th century 885, and before that time ὑπόστασις was used as identical with οὐσία, or was mixed with it; however, the individualistic connotation, which was always contained in the verb ὑφίστσσθαι 886, appeared much earlier, and if in Origen it does not yet contain that definiteness of individual content that it received from the fathers of the 5th century, then there is no doubt that in his ὑπἀστασις the moment of “independent existence” prevails, in the sense καθ ’ ἐαυτὸ ὑπάρχον, - hypostasis, as such, which by its very nature must be a concrete being, not identical with others 887. Thus, it is undoubtedly that in the symbol ὑφεστώσης with σοφίας its purpose is to point to Wisdom as having an independent, hypostatic existence. In this regard, St. Gregory accurately reproduces the thought of his teacher, who resolutely rejected the suspicion that he considers Wisdom to be an abstract concept: “let no one think,” he says, “that by calling the Son the Wisdom of God, we recognize Him as something not substantial, that is, that by Him we, for example, mean not a living, wise being, but something that makes those wise who become capable of assimilating it.” meanings." The Only Begotten Son of God is His Wisdom, existing substantially, and is a hypostasis 888. Wisdom has its hypostasis not in simple ideas of God and the Father, by analogy with human thoughts - it is the incorporeal essence of the various thoughts of God, embracing the foundations of everything, living and, as it were, animate 889 The third definition is καὶ δυνάμεως, which has its source in 1 Cor. 1:24, depicts God as the Father of that power of God, which can fulfill all the plans of divine Wisdom in all areas of divine activity. But since here St. Gregory continues to talk about internal divine relations, then δύναμις points to the fullness of divine power, regardless of its manifestation in the world. The richness and depth of this definition can be understood in the light of the following majestic speculation of Origen: “one must imagine the power of God (virtus ϋβῖ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμις), which forms the basis of the life and activity of God (qua viget), - that omnipresent and all-sufficient power with which He holds and controls everything... From all this immeasurably great power (occurs) evaporation and, so to speak, power (vigor), which has its own hypostasis. Although this power comes from this power, like will from thought, yet the very will of God also becomes the power of God. Thus, another force appears, existing in its own particularity, or, as Scripture expresses it, a certain evaporation of the first, unborn force, from it receiving its being and essence - and there is no time when it does not exist” 890. Prof. V.V. Bolotov comments on these words of Origen regarding the power of God: “the features in which it is described are such that it is difficult to draw a clear boundary between this power and the very essence of God: virtus, qua Deus viget, - the power in which - so to speak - all spiritual energy, all the vitality of the Divine is concentrated, can only formally differ from the very essence of the Father; if this is not His essence, then it is His most holistic, essential manifestation. From this power the Son is born as an evaporation, and this act is presented in such detail as to reveal its deep significance in the inner life of the Divinity; in this act the energy of divine power is absolutely complete - the Son is the evaporation of all, the whole of this force, so great, so immeasurable - and completely intense: the Son is the color, is the power, the vigor of all this force, qua Deus viget" 891. St. Gregory undoubtedly learned from Origen this sublime and extremely meaningful understanding of the “Power” of God - this is indicated by the place that δυνάμις occupies in the series of definitions of the Son in the symbol. K. Caspari draws attention to the order of the definitions under consideration and offers the following explanation: “the author of the confession,” he says, “deviating from 1 Cor. 1, 24, put σοφίας ὑφεστώσης before καὶ δυνάμεως ἀϊδίου, and did not say σοφία: ὑφεστώσης, λόγου ζῶντος, which would be more logical and truly Origenian; he apparently did the first because σοφίας ὑφεστώσης is more natural to adjoin λόγου ζῶντος (λόγος and σοφία about the Son are related); and the second, probably, he did because for the sake of Cor. 1, 24 did not want to separate σοφία from δύναμις "892. This explanation seems artificial to us, since the arrangement of concepts in a symbol depends on a completely random combination of terms in the author’s memory. It seems to us that the order of terms has more natural grounds and a deeper meaning, and precisely on the basis of Origen’s views. According to the teachings of Origen, of the many names that Holy Scripture assigns to the Son, only Wisdom can be called the original and non-derivative definition of the Son, which is the beginning of ideas about Him 893; The Word only proclaims truth and Wisdom 894. Thus the Son is called the Word because He is the revelation of the Father's mind; but since thought is richer than language, calling Him Wisdom designates the Son as the perfect expression of the mind of the Father. That this relationship between the definitions λόγος and σοφία is correct from the point of view of Alexandrian theology of the second half of the 3rd century is confirmed by a fragment from the Hypotypos of Theognostus of Alexandria 895. The Scriptures, he says, call the Son the Word and Wisdom (λόγονκαὶσοφίαν)), - the Word because He proceeds (ἐξιόντα) from the mind of the Father of all, for [it is clear that] the Word is the most perfect birth of the mind (το γὰρ κάλλιστον γέννημα τοῦ νοῦ τὸν λόγον ε ἶ ναι ). But the Word is also an Image (εἰχών), for He alone is entrusted with the externalization of the thoughts that are in the mind. However, our words only partially proclaim what is possible, and leave something unspoken, remaining only in the mind. But the self-existent Word of God [gives perfect expression to the entire content of the divine mind] 896. Therefore the Word is also called Wisdom, since this can better indicate the multitude of thoughts contained in It.” Consequently, the Word and Wisdom both designate the Son, but the Word, so to speak, is more turned outward, and Wisdom - inward to the Divinity. Such an understanding must undoubtedly be traced back to Origen himself, who says that calling Wisdom the Word of God should be understood in the sense that “Wisdom reveals to all other (creatures), that is, to all creation, the knowledge of the mysteries and everything hidden contained within God’s Wisdom: It is called the Word because it serves, as it were, as an interpretation of the mysteries of the Spirit” 897. It is natural, therefore, that St. Gregory moves from the Word Which Expresses to the Wisdom Which It Expresses. Now, if we take into account the extremely sublime and deep content that in Origen’s theology is connected with the concept of δύναμις, then it will be obvious that in the arrangement of terms in the symbol there is a gradualness, ascending, so to speak, from an external, formal definition to an increasingly complete one, penetrating into the very depths of the divine being: Word - Wisdom - Power. Hence it is natural that δυνάμεως can only be followed by καὶ χαραχτὴρος ἀϊδίου, which raises the definition of the essence of the Son to an even higher level. Χαρακτήρ actually means a tool for cutting, notching, imprinting, and then - cutting, printing, for example, on coins, on stone, on wood, and, finally, an imprint, an imprint that accurately reproduces the distinctive, prominent features of the image: here the whole peculiarity lies precisely in the clarity of reproduction, in which a given mark and characteristic protruding and features that agree with him 898. And the Son is called χαραχτὴρ, because He accurately reproduces in Himself, reflects the features of the Father: God the Father imprinted Him, completely depicting Himself in Him. In this case, χαραχτὴρ has absolute meaning in depicting the inner life of the Divine, since it stands alone, without the usually connected with it (for example, in St. Athanasius of Alexandria) εἰκών. At St. Gregory, the last term is added only in the second part of the symbol, where the Lord is called χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰχών τῆς θεότητος. An explanation of the sense in which the Word is called χαραχτὴρ is found in Origen, who writes: “according to the word of the Apostle, He is not only the radiance of glory, but also the imprinted image (figura expressa) of His essence and even hypostasis. Therefore, it seems to me, it is not superfluous to pay attention to the sense in which any other essence and hypostasis, besides the very essence of God, can be called His image? In this case, one must keep in mind, of course, the fact that the Son of God, Who is called the Word of God and His Wisdom, alone knows the Father and reveals Him to those to whom He wishes, that is, to those who can become capable of perceiving the Word and Wisdom itself. So, look, is it not because He can be called the imprinted image (i.e. χαραχτὴρ) of His essence and even hypostasis, that He makes it possible through Himself to comprehend and know God? In other words: is it not in this sense that He can be called the imprinted image of the essence of God, that, being Wisdom, He first of all reflects in Himself everything that He wants to reveal to others and on the basis of which these latter know and comprehend God 899? With this meaning of the term χαραχτὴρ, its definition through ἀϊδιος is quite understandable: just as the prototype is eternal, so its outline is eternal. Origen reveals this idea this way: “if there is an image of the invisible God, then the image is invisible. And I would dare to add about the likeness of the Father, that it is impossible for him to ever not be. For when did God, who in John is called light: for God is light (1 John 1:5), did not have the radiance of His own glory, so that anyone would dare to attribute the beginning to the existence of a Son who was not before? When was there no image and outline (ὁ χαρσκτὴρ) of the ineffable, unnamed, unspeakable hypostasis of the Father? When was there not a Word that knows the Father? Let him come to his senses who dares to say: “there was a time when the Son was not”; through this he says also that there was once no Wisdom, there was no Word, there was no Life” 900. The same idea is very clearly expressed by St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “The Son is the image and radiance of the Father, both the mark and the truth. If, as soon as there is light, there is already its image - radiance, and as soon as there is a hypostasis, there is its entire outline, and as soon as the Father is there, there is also truth, then let those who measure the Image and Mark of the Divine by time understand into what ditch of wickedness they will fall... since there was a Hypostasis, then, without a doubt, immediately Her Image and Mark had to be, because the Image of God is not written outside” 901 . K. Kaspari 902 believes that ἀίδιος also applies to δύναμις in view of καὶ before δυνάμεως and after σοφίας ὑφεστώσης without καὶ, and in addition Moreover, this designation of the Son would appear without a predicate, whereas His other three names have predicates. But ἀἱδιος acquires meaning only with χαρακτὴρ and does not in any way strengthen δύναμις, which in itself already implies the concept of eternity. Origen says: “it is clear that this vapor of the power of God, which has no beginning other than God Himself, has always existed, and (for Him) there could be no other beginning except God Himself, from Whom He exists and is born. According to the Apostle, who says that Christ is God’s power (1 Cor. 1:24), this steam should be recognized not only as the steam of God’s power, but also as the power of power” 903. Then χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου shows that the mark was not subsequently made similar to the prototype, but it exists and remains together with the prototype that produced it; it is not imprinted through imitation, but exists because the prototype exists, and is eternal, like the last. If the Son, according to Origen’s view, is called an imprinted image because He, first of all, reflects in Himself everything that He wants to reveal to others, then it is quite clear to establish the relationship of χαραχτὴρ to the previous δύναμις: from all the immeasurably great power of God, evaporation occurs, which becomes another force, existing in its own particularity, having its own hypostasis; but this objectified other Power is not something indefinite, but an exact imprint of the first Power: It is the Mark of the Father, eternal, just as the Father Himself is eternal. Already in the name of God πατήρ the essential relationship in which the first Person stands to the second, who is His living Word, hypostatic Wisdom, Power and Eternal Mark, is indicated, and therefore further τέλειος τελείου γεννὴτωρ actually returns the thought to the previously expressed concept πατὴρ, justifies and reveals its meaning. that God the Father is τέλειος, perfect in all respects, this has always been a general church teaching, and here its meaning is not limited to γεννὴτωρ 904, but remains in all its wide scope and expresses the idea that a perfect God is the Parent of an equally perfect Son. In his speech of gratitude, as we have seen, St. Gregory designates the Word as τελειότατος (§39). Γεννήτωρ not only corresponds to the previous πατὴρ as the reason for this name 905, but also more precisely defines its content, casting light on that internal process in the life of God, by virtue of which He is the Father of the living Word, Hypostatic Wisdom and Power and Eternal Mark in the deep meaning contained in these concepts: this whole process is designated through γεννάω, due to which God the Father is γεννὴτωρ. This eliminates all other relationships between God and the Word, except for the relationship between the Father and the Son, which is why St. Gregory again repeats what he used at the beginning πατὴρ, but with one definition, which combines all the previous ones and after γεννὴτωρ is the only possible one: πατὴρ υἱοῦ. Yἱός is the proper designation of the being of the second Person along with θεός πατήρ, His proper name in the most precise sense; all the rest - λόγος, σοφία, δύναμις, χαρακτὴρ - are only names that describe from different sides the relationship of the Son to the Father and then His manifestations and activities in the world. God is the Father of the Son, therefore, not from outside the transcendent. A perfect birth can only be unique, - therefore - υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς. He is the only by nature Son of the one Father, begotten in a unique way, in contrast to those who are sons by adoption. The words of Origen: “He is the only Son by nature and is therefore called the Only Begotten” 906 serve as an excellent commentary on the last expression of the symbol. “Therefore, there is one true God,” writes Origen in another place, “the one and true God, so that we do not believe that the name of the true God befits many. Therefore, therefore, those who receive the Spirit of bringing forth sons, and for Him we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15), of course, are sons of God, but not like the only begotten Son. For the Only Begotten Son by nature is always and inseparably Son, and others received the power to become sons of God (John 1:12.13) due to the fact that they received the Son of God into themselves... As a result of this, what difference does God have in relation to those to whom it is said: “I said: these are gods,” such a difference does the Son have in relation to those who hear: “All are the Sons of the Most High” (Psalm 83:6); 907) or in short: “The Only Begotten Son, our Savior, Who alone was born of the Father, is the only Son by nature, and not by adoption” 908. This is the content of the first part of the symbol of St. Gregory, in which he revealed in such profound terms the inner content of the life of God the Father. The second part of the symbol reveals the doctrine of the second Person of the Holy Trinity and, in parallel to ε ἶ ς θεός of the first part, begins with the confession of the doctrine of the one Lord - ε ἶ ς Κύριος. The name Κύριος, both in the New Testament and in ancient church writing, is the most common name for Christ. And in the ancient symbols of the Eastern and Western churches, the second member begins ε ἶ ς ἕ να κύριον, however, for the most part with the addition: Ἰ ησοῦν Χριστόν, - the symbol of St. Gregory is limited to one ε ἶ ς κύριος. The following definitions: μόνος ἐκ μόνου, θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκών τῆς The θεότητος continue to reveal the teaching about the Son given in the first part of the symbol. Μόνος ἐκ μόνου, i.e. The only one from the One. Ἐκ indicates the origin, why μόνος ἐκ μόνου in its content is essentially equal to the previous μονογενής. This expression is quite common in ancient symbols and in ancient church writing and is one of the ways to designate the exceptional and incomprehensible to man image of the birth of the Son from the Father. Etc κόριος receives such a definition because He alone has His being and being directly from God through birth from Him. Closely related to this is θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, which more specifically defines μόνος ἐκ μόνοο: the only one who gives birth is God and the only one born of Him is also God. Here the question arises whether the expression θεός ἐκ θεοῦ can be considered consistent with the views and terminology of Origen. Origen's teaching is known that only God the Father in the proper sense can be called ὁ θεός, αὐτοθεός; The son is only θεός, δεύτερος θεός 909. Meanwhile, St. Gregory in the symbol simply uses θεὸς ε ’ κ θεοῦ. K. Caspari 910, in order to make the last expression completely Origenistic, accepts that ἐκ θεοῦ here should be considered equal to ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, for which he gives as a basis not only the fact that θεό; often equal to ὁ θεός, but also a parallel saying about the Holy Spirit ἐκ θεοῦ ὑπορξιν Ιχον. But even if we accept θεοῦ as θεός, which is supported by the fact that θεός and θεοῦ are both delivered without a member, then, in the opinion of K. Caspari, and in this case there will be no contradiction with the teachings of Origen, which is clear from the fact that the same expression is found, in addition to the symbol of Lucian, in the formula of faith of Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as in several semi-Arian and Arian symbols (in the 4th Antiochene formula, in the 1st and 3rd Sirmium formulas, Nica, Seleucia and Constantinople 360 year). In this case, the first θεός denotes the entire divine being or the entire divine nature of the “one God” (εἰς θεός), with the exclusion (excluded by ἐκ) of ungeneracy. These arguments of K. Caspari stand in connection with his desire to prove the greatest possible agreement of the symbol with the teachings of Origen. But there is no reason to so strenuously assert the Origenism of the symbol in this point, which is admittedly very significant. It is not possible to understand the same term θεός in the same expression differently, both in view of the complete absence of any data for this, and because the corresponding term θεότης is used to designate the divine essence in the next utterance of the symbol. Is it not more correct to assume that St. Gregory did not accept Origen's distinction between ὁ θεός and θεός and uses θεός ἐκ θεοῦ in the same meaning in which this expression was subsequently used in the Nicene Symbol. The deviation from Origen is very significant, but it cannot be raised as an objection to the origin of the symbol from Origen’s disciple, because in general this vivid detail of Origen’s teaching did not find a specific reception in church theology. Therefore, θεός ἐκ θεοῦ expresses the same thought that St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “and the Father is God and the Son is God, for he who is born of God is God” 911. From the fact that the Lord was born of the Father, as the only one from the Only One and God from God, the consequence follows that He is χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκών τῆς θεότητος: He is the exact outline of the Divinity, the Divine essence (τὴς θεότητος), a holistic reflection of Him, reproducing His Prototype with all accuracy and vitality. St. Gregory speaks here in agreement with his teacher, who also saw in the Divinity of the Son the image of the true Divinity 912 and in understanding why the Son is called the image of the Invisible, he saw the basis for clarifying in what sense God is correctly called the Father of His Son: the name image is applied to the Son of God in view of the fact that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, just as the Son is the image of Adam 913. With χαρακτὴρ St. Gregory begins to repeat those definitions of the Son that were given to them in the first part of the symbol, and it is clear that λόγος, σοφία and δύναμις, in view of the predicates accompanying them, are used in a different meaning or, more precisely, depict the other side in the concepts denoted by these terms. In this regard, the addition of a new concept to χαρακτὴρ - εἰκών, which is not in the first part, takes on special significance here. The meaning of the term εἰκών is clarified from the following words of Origen: “Our Savior is the image of the invisible God the Father: in relation to the Father Himself He is the truth; in relation to us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image through which we know the Father, Whom no one else knows except the Son, and is also known by the one to whom the Son wants to reveal Him. He reveals the Father when He Himself serves as an object of knowledge, because whoever knows Him also knows the Father, as He Himself says about this: he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) 914. “Not holding back the ideas of truth, the Father spews out and makes an imprint of them in the Word, which for this reason is called the image (εἰκόνι) of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) 915. And Theognostus, in the above passage from Hypotypos (see above p. 587), says that “The Word is also an Image (είκών), because to Him alone is entrusted the carrying outward of the thoughts that are in the mind.” It is clear that in εἰκών the idea of ​​displaying the prototype for its revelation to others comes to the fore, while χαρακτὴρ contains only the idea of ​​​​accurate reproduction without any indication of subsequent communication or revelation. In this case, εἰκών presupposes χαραχτὴρ, and the latter depicts the Son in His immanent relation to the Father, as His Mark, while the former determines His relationship to the world. Thus, the Son, Who in the inner life of the Divinity is the Mark of the Father, is the Image of the Father in His relation to the world - in Him the world sees the Image of the Divinity and through Him can know Him. In the world, the Son is revealed first of all as λόγος ἐνεογός - the active Word. This is the concept of the Logos manifesting itself in the world, established in Christian views, which found wide application in ancient church literature. How this manifestation of the activity of the Son is expressed is indicated by the following words of the symbol: This is a purely Origenian expression and its meaning is fully revealed by parallel passages from Origen’s works and, above all, by his following view: “in this very hypostasis of Wisdom was all the power and destiny of the future creation, both that which exists from the very beginning of the world, and that which happens subsequently: all this was destined and located in Wisdom by the power of foreknowledge. In view of these creations, which were, as it were, predetermined and destined in Wisdom itself, Wisdom says through Solomon about Itself that it was created by the beginning of the ways of God, or what is the same - it contains in Itself the beginnings, or forms, or types of all creation. So, when it is said that Wisdom is the beginning of the ways of God and that it was created, this, according to our understanding, means that Wisdom prescribes and contains in Itself the beginnings of all creation” 916. “The world was created according to those ideas which God revealed in Wisdom, just as a house or a ship is built according to a plan or diagram originally existing in the mind of the architect. Having created, so to speak, animated Wisdom, God commanded Her, I think, according to the images contained in It, to grant existence, form and species to all existing things and matter. As can be seen from this, the expression in the symbol of St. Gregory coincides with the views of Origen both in terminology and in thought: the Son is the hypostatic Wisdom, which contains in itself both all the plans and plans of the Divine Mind, as well as His plans regarding the universe. But to carry out these plans, power is necessary, and the symbol further indicates that this power is the Son Himself, because He is the Power that creates all creation. If in Him the immeasurably great Power of the Father found hypostatic expression, then in relation to the world It acts in Him and through Him, and manifests itself as the Power that creates everything created. After this brief but comprehensive picture of the relation of the Word to the world, St. Gregory returns to further reveal the true essence and dignity of the “one Lord.” The only one from the One, God from God, the Mark and Image of the Divine, and entering the world as the revelation of God, as the effective Word, creative Wisdom and creative Power, fulfills divine plans, as υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ πατρός, the true Son of the true Father, the Son by His very nature, the real Son in the true and deep meaning of this term, having also a real nature corresponding to the name υἱὸς - such a Son stands in a truly filial relationship to the Father, Who is the Father by nature in the true sense of the word. The following are then four definitions: ἀθανάτου καὶ αἰδιος ἀϊδίου represent further designations of the actual divine dignity of the Son, since all the definitions that are usually assigned to God and in the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, and in ancient church literature, also belong to Him: He is invisible, incorruptible, immortal and eternal. K. Kaspari believes that in these expressions it is necessary to supplement from the previous υἱὸς and πατήρ: ἀόρατος υἱὸς τοῦ ἀόράτου πατρός κ. τ. λ. 918. However, it is unlikely that such a thought can be carried out in relation to all definitions already in view of the fact that ἀόρατος in Origen is combined with εἰκών: “if He is the image of the invisible God (είκών τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου), says Origen, “then the image is invisible” (ἀόρατος εἰκών 919). “Let us see,” writes Origen in another place, “how we must also understand that the Son is called the image of the Invisible. This is in order to find out in what sense God is rightly called the Father of His Son... The second meaning of the image is applicable to the Son of God... in view of the fact that He is the invisible image of the invisible God... The Father gave birth to the Son - this image of Himself; therefore, just as He Himself is invisible by nature, so He gave birth to an invisible image” 920. From these words of Origen it is clear that with ἀόρατος one cannot mean υἱὸς, but it is necessary to think εἰκών; on the other hand, it is clear what a deep meaning is connected with this definition. All four definitions are closely related to each other so that the subsequent one naturally follows from the previous one. The assertion of invisibility presupposes at its core the doctrine of the incorporeality of God 921; as incorporeal, He is incorruptible; imperishable is immortal, immortal is eternal. These predicates of God the Father belong without any restrictions to the Son. All this is in agreement with Origen's teaching about the Son. Only ἀθάνατος requires some explanation. Origen asserts in one place that the words of the Apostle: “He alone has immortality” refer only to God the Father, and that Christ Himself did not have the immortality of the Father, for He tasted death for all 922. However, it is possible that Origen said this in the sense that Christ, the Son, did not have absolute immortality, as being born of Him from eternity and having immortality by communion 923; or “Origen assumed some subtle nuance of difference between the Father and the Window, which made it possible to consider the death of life incarnate as a less striking contradiction than the contradictio in adjecto that would have been the death of the Existing Father Himself if He had become man” 924. In any case, this did not prevent Origen from talking about ὁ ἀθάνοτος θεός λόγος 925. Consequently, in this particular point of St. Gregory does not contradict the views of Origen. The teaching about the Son set forth in the symbol finds some additions and clarifications in the speech of gratitude of St. Gregory 926. Here we first of all encounter the same terms that indicate the relationship of the Son to the Father in the symbol: He is the most perfect, living and animate Word of the first Mind (§39: (§36: ἡ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρός τῶν ὅ λων καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ). In the speech of thanks (§36) He is also called Truth (ἡ ἀλὴθεια ὤ ν). This term, when applied to Jesus Christ, has its source in the Gospel of John (XIV, 6) and passed into ancient church literature with the meaning in which it is used in the named place: it means that in the Son lies the entire sum of knowledge that God really exists and that the Son, as the Word, reveals 927. St. Gregory calls the Son in his speech the Only Begotten (μονογενής) and the First-Born Word of the Father (§35: πρωτογβνής αὐτοῦ λόγος). There is no last term in the symbol. One might think that it is identical in meaning to the πρωτότοχος used in the New Testament (Col. I, 15; Heb. I, 6) and the extra-biblical πρωτόγονος. And Origen calls the Son πρωτότοχος, referring specifically to Col. I, 15. 928 Πρωτογενὴς λόγος. although it is stated without indicating the objects in relation to which He is the first-born Word of the Father, however, and in this case, unlike μονογβνής, it retains an indication of the relationship to the world - therefore, it is undoubtedly that the Son is thought of as having His existence from the Father through birth and, first of all, what happened. In a whole series of expressions, St. Gregory strives to show the closest unity of the Son with the Father: He is in Him and is directly united with Him (§36: ἡνώμενος); The Father of all made Himself one with Himself (§37: ποιησάμενος), so that one can almost say that through Him the Father comes out of Himself in order to embrace Himself (37: ὄἰ αὐτοῦ μονονουχὶ αὐτός αὐτὸν ἐκπεριτών) 929; He is God the Word who is in the Father (§38: ὁ ἐν αἀτῷ θεὸς λόγος). It is clear that St. Gregory strives to establish the closest possible unity of the Son with the Father and is looking for suitable terms to express his thoughts. The same is observed in relation to the equality of the Son with the Father, which he persistently emphasizes: He alone can send constant and continuous thanks to the Father, both for Himself and for everyone; since He is the Truth and Wisdom and Power of the Father of all Himself and, moreover, He is in Him and directly united with Him, it is impossible for Him, either through forgetfulness, or lack of wisdom, or due to some kind of weakness, to leave His Father without praise; He alone can most perfectly fulfill all the due measure of praise due to Him. He Whom the Father of all Himself made one with Himself and, one might say, through Him comes out of Himself in order to embrace Himself, must honor Him in absolutely equal measure, just as He Himself is honored by Him. This is precisely the first and only of all things that was received by His Only Begotten, God the Word, who is in Him. However, in these expressions, revealing the absolutely obvious effort of St. Gregory to present the dignity of the Son as exalted as possible, nevertheless, the underlying subordinationist tendency that dominated the surrounding St. Gregory's environment and involuntarily and he was subordinated to herself, although he, as can be seen from the above expressions, did not feel inclination towards her. It should be noted that in this regard the symbol of St. Gregory reveals more dogmatic certainty, especially if we take into account the subsequent parts of the symbol. One can, of course, assume that in the short symbol there was no room for a broader disclosure of those provisions expressed in the thank-you speech; but it is more natural to assume that the symbol represents the fruit of more mature theological thought, which partly experienced other influences. A speech of thanksgiving says more about the relationship of the Word to the world than a symbol. He is the creator (δημιουργός), King, Ruler (βασιλεύς καὶ χοβερνήτης) and Trustee (κηδεμών) of the universe, the inexhaustible source of all benefits, the Representative ( προστάτης) of our souls and the Savior (σωτήρ); He alone can heal our infirmities and make up for our shortcomings; He alone can send thanksgiving to the Father both for Himself, and for everyone together and for each individual. Thus, in the symbol and in the speech of gratitude to Origen, St. Gregory expressed a completely definite, as far as contemporary scientific and theological terminology allowed him, doctrine about the Person of God the Word, the Son of God, His hypostatic identity, divine dignity and equality with the Father. If his terminology is not distinguished by theological precision, not only in the speech of thanks, but even in the symbol, where there is a noticeable desire to give full expression to his theological thoughts through the largest possible number of terms and phrases, then in any case there is no doubt that his theological views in their content, in their final form in the symbol, do not contain those deviations from the norm of church teaching on the question of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, which are observed in the theology of his teacher. In view of this, the more perplexing is the information about some expressions of St. Gregory, used by him in his treatise, which has not survived, Διάλεξις πρὸς Αἰλιανόν. As has already been said (pp. 257, 263–264) St. Basil, in a letter to the neo-Caesarean scholars, says that the neo-Caesarean Sabellians, in their desire to substantiate their error with authoritative evidence, wrote in a letter to Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, that Gregory, in his statement of faith, said that the Father and the Son, although in the mind they are two, are nevertheless one in hypostasis (ὡ ς ἄρα πίστεωυ ᾳ μὲν ε ἶ ναι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕ ν ) 930 . Thus, in a conversation with Aelian, St. Gregory used a characteristic Sabellian expression, which in direct form, one might think, had the following form: ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕ ν. That this expression, in its terminology, has a completely Sabellian appearance is clearly shown by the following message from Origen: “there are those,” he says, “who ... teach that the Father and the Son are one by hypostasis, and distinguish the one subject only by intellect and names” 931. We have already indicated (pp. 263–264) a possible explanation for the use of St. Gregory of seductive expressions by the lack of a precise distinction between the terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις in the 3rd and even in the first half of the 4th century, which, with the desire of St. Gregory to convince the pagan that in the teachings of St. There is no tritheism in the Trinity, which led to the fact that he, arguing ἀγωνιστικῶς and not δυγματικῶς, used unsuccessful expressions, especially since, according to the testimony of St. Basil, St. Gregory, in his conversation with the pagans, did not consider it necessary to maintain precision in expressions, trying to reach an agreement on the main thing. If St. Vasily was not imbued with such reverent veneration of the memory of the “great” Gregory, then he, without resorting to various assumptions, could have written about him - mutatis mutandis - approximately the same thing that he wrote about St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “I usually liken him (St. Dionysius of Alexandria), writes St. Vasily to Maxim the Philosopher, a gardener who begins to straighten the curvature of a young plant, and then, not knowing moderation in the bend, does not stop in the middle and bends the stem in the opposite direction. Something similar, I find, happened with Dionysius. In a strong struggle with the wickedness of the Libyan (Sabellius), his excessive jealousy, without noticing it, he is involved in the opposite evil. It would be enough for him to prove only that the Father and the Son are one and the same in the subject matter, and be content with such a victory over the blasphemer. But in order to clearly and abundantly gain the upper hand, he affirms not only the otherness of the hypostasis, but also the difference of essence, the gradualness of power, the difference of glory. And from this it happened that he exchanged one evil for another, and he himself deviates from the right teaching. Thus, he even disagrees with himself in his writings: he either rejects consubstantials because the enemy made bad use of this concept when he denied hypostases, then he accepts it when he defends himself against his co-existent” 932. St. found himself in the same situation. Gregory, when he fought against the polytheism of the pagan: he seemed to completely destroy the real difference between the hypostases of the Father and the Son, proving that the Father and the Son are only two in the mind, but in hypostasis they are one. The parallel with Dionysius of Alexandria is further strengthened by the fact that St. Gregory allowed “disagreement with himself” even in the same work, applying the terms κτίσμα and ποίημα to the Son. But like St. Dionysius of Alexandria, the shortcomings of his theological terminology are explained not only by polemical enthusiasm, but above all by the very essence of his theological views, and the same, apparently, should be said about St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Here, first of all, it is necessary to recall his expressions in the speech of gratitude to Origen, where he says that the Word is in the Father and is completely united with Him, that the Father Himself made Him one with Himself, when through Him the Father comes out of Himself to embrace Himself, and calls Him the Only Begotten, who is God the Word in the Father (§§35-39). Although other expressions in the same chapter of the speech of gratitude give grounds to assert that St. Gregory here also teaches about the hypostatic peculiarity of the Word, even with a subordinational connotation at the starting point, but one cannot help but recognize the above expressions as quite energetic in the sense of affirming the unity of the Son with the Father. But the epistle to Evagrius is especially interesting in this regard. In the latter, the author’s desire to prove is clearly visible that the confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit does not introduce division into the Divinity, that the divine and indivisible essence of the Most Perfect is indivisible and homogeneous, but that for our salvation it is divided, apparently, by names (πρὸς δὲ τὸ χρήσιμον τῆς ἡμετέρας τῶν ψυχῶν σωτηρίας καὶ μερίζεσθαι ταῖς ὁνομασίαις δοκεῖ, καὶ διαιρέσεως ἀνάγκ ῃ ὑφίστασθαι ) 933 . And the examples he gave to illustrate the position being proven (mind-thought-soul, sun-rays, source-two rivers) can evoke the idea of ​​numerical unity, or, by attributing the essence to the Father, deprive other Persons of independence and make them the powers of the Divine, which exist in the Father, but are not independent 934. In view of this, the appearance in Διάλεξις πρὸς Αἰλιανόν of the expression to which the Sabellians referred seems quite possible in St. Gregory, both due to his polemical passion and the lack of precise terminology to express the thoughts of the theologian, who sought to establish that the unity of the Divine is not destroyed by the confession of three Persons, and who focused his attention primarily on unity. This gave rise to the abuse of the name and expressions of St. Gregory on the part of the neo-Caesarean Sabellians; however, there is no reason to assume that St. Gregory's Sabellian tendencies, and St. Basil the Great could rightfully write to the neo-Caesarean clergy: “silence innovations in the faith; Do not sweep aside hypostases (τὰς ὑποστάσεις μὴ ἀθετεῖτε); Do not deny the name of Christ; do not misinterpret the words of the Grigorievs" On the other hand, in the same conversation with Aelian, St. Gregory attached to the Son the names κτίσμα and ποίημα. Undoubtedly, these terms are not used by St. Gregory of the later Arian meaning, but their actual meaning cannot be clarified due to the extreme brevity of the message of St. Basil the Great. In the second half of the 3rd century. Two more church writers, both from the Alexandrian school, Dionysius of Alexandria and Theognostus, were accused of using these terms. The “righteous” brethren of the Alexandrian church accused their bishop Dionysius before the Roman bishop Dionysius of using the expression in polemics with the Sabellians: “The Son of God is a creature, a work and created 936 (κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα καὶ γενητον ε ἶ ναι τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ). About Theognostus, Photius (cod. 106) reports that, speaking about the Son, he calls Him creation (υἱὸν δὲ λέγων κτίσμα αὐτόν ἀποφαίνει). Finally, Justinian, in his letter to Patriarch Minna in 553, attributes the same use of κτίσμα to Origen 937. If there can be doubt regarding Origen and Theognostus whether they really used this term, or whether it denotes the conclusion drawn from their teaching by Justinian and Photius, then the use of it by St. Dionysius of Alexandria, apparently, should be considered indisputable: Dionysius of Rome writes about those who claim that the Word of God is a creature and a work; Dionysius of Alexandria himself does not deny this in his “Reproof and Justification.” But, objecting to this accusation, he points out that he called the Son a creature only in passing, and not in the literal sense, but in the same sense in which Holy Scripture calls people creators of heart movements, calling them creators of law, justice and truth 938. From the message of Dionysius of Rome on this subject, we can conclude that Dionysius of Alexandria based the use of the term κτίσμα on the well-known saying (Prov. VIII, 22): The Lord created (ἔκτισε) Me the beginning of His ways. In this regard, St. Dionysius stood on the basis of the teachings of Origen, who, explaining this text, writes: “in this very hypostasis of Wisdom was all the power and destiny of the future creation - both that which exists from the very beginning of the world, and that which happens subsequently: all this was destined and located in Wisdom by the power of foreknowledge. In view of these creations, which were, as it were, predetermined and destined in Wisdom Itself, Wisdom says through Solomon that She was created by the beginning of the ways of God, or that the same thing contains in Herself the beginnings, or forms or types of all creation” 939. Maybe St. Gregory the Wonderworker, in a treatise addressed to the educated pagan Elian, revealed the same thoughts. In any case, it is necessary to take into account the fact that three writers from the school of Origen use the same or similar expressions. On the other hand, attention should be paid to one detail in the justification of St. Dionysius of Alexandria. He writes: “I used the name of the Creator because of the flesh that the Word took on and which was actually created” 940. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, defending the memory of St. Dionysius, says: “Dionysius is not an Arian for his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the Sabellians; for if he used low words and examples, then he borrowed this from the Gospels, and the pretext for using them is the appearance of the Savior in the flesh” 941. It is remarkable that St. Basil the Great, regarding the conversation with Elian, writes: “you will find many words there that now serve as very great reinforcement for heretics, for example: creature, work and similar words; and those who listen ignorantly to what is written refer to the concept of Divinity and much that is said about union with humanity” 942. Obviously, there was some connection between the terms κτίσμα and ποίημο with the idea of ​​the incarnation of the Word. But there is no doubt that, as in the first position of St. Gregory did not have Sabellianism, so in the use of the latter one cannot see any signs of Arianism. The third part of the symbol begins with ἓ ν πνεῦμα, which corresponds to ε ἶ ς θεός and εῖς κόριος. And here there is hardly any reason to assume that ἕ ν has an anti-gnostic meaning and claims that the same Spirit acted in the Old and New Testaments 943: for St. Gregory, in a certain context of his activity, it was necessary to establish, as he did in relation to God the Father and the Lord, that the Holy Spirit is one, to whom this name can be attributed, and that not one of those numerous spirits in which his flock believed in their pagan state can be so called, the one Holy Spirit, because He is a Spirit of a different order than all other spirits. One might think that this ἐν πνεῦμα has a parallel in the following words of Origen: “for as many are the sons of God... yet there is one by nature, the Son and the Only Begotten of the Father, through whom we are all called sons; so, of course, there are many spirits, but there is one, who truly comes from the Father and bestows on all others the grace of His name and sanctification.” 944 Ἕ ν with πνεῦμα stands in most Eastern symbols. As for ἅ γιον, this predicate is even more common and constant for πνεῦμα in ancient symbols and in the tree-church literature than κύριος for the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and πνεῦμα ἅ γιον is the proper name of the third Person of the Holy Trinity. Trinity. Moving on to the presentation of the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit, His being and activity, St. Gregory speaks of Him: τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ]. Here, first of all, the question arises about the words δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. They are read in all Greek texts (in Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus) 945; but they are not found either in the Latin translation of Rufinus 946 or in the Syriac. Thus, from the point of view of the textual witnesses, the question of their authenticity cannot be definitively established; but at the same time it must be emphasized that, on the one hand, the present Greek text reveals complete agreement in favor of the words δηλαδή τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (or simply τοῖς ἀνθρώποις), and that, on the other hand, the Greek text underlying the two translations - Latin and Syriac, had no controversial words. Therefore, it is necessary to move on to assessing them by their design and context. By its construction: “i.e. [or rather, “it goes without saying”] to people” - the expression gives the impression of a gloss inserted by a later hand for clarification; however, it should be noted that the introduction of explanatory words in the symbol cannot be considered unnatural 947 simply because there is a similar insertion in the Nicene symbol: τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς πατρὸς οὐσίας. The context undoubtedly speaks against the authenticity of the words δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρωποις, since the previous expression: ἐκ θεοῦ τὴν ὕ παρξιν ἔχον speaks of inner-divine relations, and only with εἰκ ὼ ν τοῦ οἱοῦ τελείου τελεία begins the clarification of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the world and His revelation in the world in general. δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνός indicated only the temporary and economic manifestation of the Holy Spirit, it would be incomprehensible why St. Gregory only after such a decisive expression introduced the term - εἰκών, which serves as the basis for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the world. Thus, the insertion of δηλαδὴ. τοῖς ἀνθρώποις disrupts the sequence of thoughts by prematurely introducing an idea that is inconsistent with the flow of speech. In addition, it is quite natural that following the definition of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, its relationship to the Son is also established, which, according to the construction of the second part of the symbol, should be given in the initial words of the third part. Finally, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that St. Gregory of Nyssa, who assimilated not only the thought of St. Gregory the Wonderworker about the life of St. the Spirit from the Father and the “appearance” through the Son, but also its very expression (εν τοῦ δι ’ οἱοῦ πεφηνεναι), reproduces it without any addition, believing in this the distinctive sign of the Hypostasis of St. Spirit 948. It is natural to conclude from this that St. Gregory of Nyssa knew the symbol without the words in question. In view of this, it seems more likely that δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in such an extremely short symbol is a later gloss. It is impossible to determine the time of its origin, and therefore the assumption that by this insertion they wanted “in the interests of the Greek church view to put forward that the words of Gregory relating to the Holy Spirit should be understood not about the internally divine, internally trinitarian act of ἔκλαμψις τοῦ πνεύματος ( ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ) διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ , but about His appearance in the human world through the Son, or His embassy to people through Him” (John 15:26) 949. The insertion is so brief and so alien to any polemical overtones that it is hardly permissible to put such meaning into it and explain its origin in such a way. It seems more likely that the author wanted to give the too brief and vague expression of the symbol a complete meaning in the direction that seemed most consistent with the usual church view, according to John. 15, 26. In ἐκ θεοῦ of course ε ἶ ς θεὸς πατὴρ of the first part and ἐκ θεοῦ of the second part of the symbol, i.e. God the Father; and τὴν ὕ παρξιν ἔχον indicates that the Holy Spirit from the Father has its being, existence, - therefore, the source of the being of the Holy Spirit is the same as the being of the Son, namely God the Father. Closely connected with this position through καὶ is another, καὶ δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνός, which without δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις means that the Holy Spirit reveals His being through the Son, by means of the Son. In the first position, the preposition ἐκ indicates the reason for the existence of the Holy Spirit, and in the second case, the preposition διὰ notes only the mediation of the Son. This meaning of διὰ in such a case is revealed by Origen, who explains that this preposition indicates a second, mediating cause, which presupposes the existence of a higher, first cause, denoted by the preposition ὑπό 950. Consequently, the only reason for the existence of the Holy Spirit is the Father, and He does not have ὕ παρξιν from the Son, - the Son is only a condition for discovering or revealing the existence already ready, received by the Holy Spirit from the Father. Thus, δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνός reveals the eternal relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and in particular speaks of the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son 951. As has already been said (pp. 267–268), Origen, in his commentary on John. 1, 3, reveals and substantiates the doctrine that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father through the Son (δι ’ υἱοῦ). Thus, St. Gregory could in this case be based on this teaching of his teacher and borrow from him, at least, the term δι ’ υἱοῦ. But Origen teaches that the Holy Spirit needs the mediation of the Son not only for His existence, but also in order to be wise, reasonable, just, and that He possesses all His qualities in part according to the definitions of the Son 952; as having come through the Word (διά τοῦ λόγου), the Holy Spirit is thought of as one of all who are lower than Him through whom they came 953. St. Gregory uses the following term - πεφηνός, which does not contain an indication of such relationships. What is the doctrine of the existence of St. The Spirit from the Father through the Son was characteristic of Origen's disciples in precisely this direction and understanding, as indicated by the words of St. Dionysius of Alexandria in “Reproof and Justification” (see above p. 273): “I added: the Holy Spirit, but added together, from where and through whom He comes” (πόθεν καὶ διὰ τινος ἦ κεν), which clearly suggests that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. The following expression serves to further develop this idea about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son: εἰκ ὼ ν τοῦ υἱοῦ τελείου τελεία, which corresponds to εἰκών τῆς θεότητος about the Son in the second part of the symbol: The Holy Spirit is the perfect image of the perfect Son. Τελείου in relation to the Son reproduces τελείου from the first part of the symbol, and τελεία in relation to εἰκών means that this image gives such a complete and holistic representation of the prototype, which cannot be higher and more perfect. Thus, the Holy Spirit stands in the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father. Origen has no parallel to this idea of ​​symbol; but it found expression in St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who bases his proof of the divine dignity of the Holy Spirit on this: “The Spirit is and is called the image of the Son (εἰκῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ). For He foreknew them, and He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. VIII, 29). Therefore, just as heretics preach that the Son is not a creature, the image of the Son cannot be a creature. For whatever the image is, such must be the one whose image He is” 954. In the second part of the symbol of St. Gregory, after revealing the doctrine of the relationship of the Son to the Father, briefly depicts His relationship to the world; he does the same in the third part of the symbol: having outlined the doctrine of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, he speaks about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the world, calling the Holy Spirit ζωὴ ζώντων αἰτία. This transition to speech about the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the world is already outlined and warned by the name His εἰκών, which, as explained above (p. 396), contains an indication specifically of revelation for knowledge by people. The Holy Spirit is ζωὴ in the comprehensive and deeply meaningful biblical meaning of this term: He is the absolute fullness of life, which belongs only to God, and as a result is the cause of the living. Instead of ζωῆς ζώντων there is simply a specific ζώντων. In view of the fact that ζωὴ and ζώντων are set without any restrictions, both concepts must be accepted in the widest possible scope: he is the original, constant and unchanging reason for the life of all living things, both rational and irrational creatures, life, taken in the full scope of this word, for each of the living beings, since it does not deviate from the original norm and purpose. There is no basis for any particular definitions in the text, and therefore it is impossible to draw conclusions about what, according to St. Gregory, the life-giving activity of the Holy Spirit was expressed more specifically. The names of the Holy Spirit ζωὴ and ζώντων αἰτία seem exceptional, since in Holy Scripture and in ancient church literature the name ζωὴ is applied primarily to the Son. This designation of the Holy Spirit has no parallels in Origen. The definition of the Holy Spirit - πηγὴ ἁ γία also raises doubts about its authenticity, since these words are absent in the translation of Rufinus and in the Syriac translation; but they are read by St. Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus. They argue against their authenticity that they are superfluous, and that ζωὴ ζωντων αἰτία and the words following πηγὴ ἁ γία ἁ γιότης ἁ γιασμοῦ χορηγός, if there were no controversial words, they would correspond directly and therefore more sharply to each other; with them something destructive invades 955. The last basis could be weakened by the consideration, quite appropriate, that in πηγὴ ἁ γία one can see the same basis for the next ἀγιότη; ἀγιασμοῦ χορηγός, as in ζωὴ for ζώντων αἰτία: being a holy source, the Holy Spirit is a shrine that bestows sanctification on all those beings for whom He serves as the cause of life and who are generally able to perceive this sanctification. However, it cannot be denied that the words πηγὴ ἁ γία violate the external harmony of speech, and with ἁ γιότη: they do not introduce anything new; therefore, both the fluctuation of the textual tradition and the absence of at least an unconditional need for these words for consistency in revealing the thoughts of the symbol force us to recognize the authenticity of πηγὴ ἁ γία as doubtful. As the Holy One - πνεῦμα ἅ γιον - the Spirit has holiness by His nature; He does not belong to the number of those who are sanctified, but He Himself is the bearer of holiness and a shrine - ἀγιότης, and as the cause of life for all living things, He naturally, along with life, sanctifies everything that is involved in the life He bestows, and therefore He is a shrine that gives sanctification. From everything stated so far, it is clear that St. Gregory, in the immanent life of the Divine, establishes such an order by virtue of which, just as the Father is revealed in the Son, so the Son is revealed in the Spirit, although the cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit is the one Father. Accordingly, divine activity outside is revealed. As we have seen, St. Gregory in his symbol does not add the usual definitions in ancient symbols: the Almighty, the Creator of the visible and invisible, and speaks only about the relationship of God the Father to the Only Begotten Son, in Whom He comes out of Himself and embraces Himself, as in the hypostatic Word, Wisdom, Power and Eternal Mark. In the speech of thanks to St. Gregory calls Him the Author, Ruler and Ruler of the universe (§§31–32), and in the letter to Evagrius - the first wine of life, the Source of ever-essential life; but only the Son is called the Creator - δημιουογός: He is - according to the symbol - the active Word, the Wisdom that contains the composition of everything, and the Power that creates all creation. But the discovery of divine activity in the world does not stop there: the Son, as Wisdom, contains in Himself the ideas and forms of everything that has happened, and as Power, creates all creation; but the immediate cause of the life of living creatures is the Holy Spirit: He Himself is the life and cause of the living. It is clear here how in this construction of his views St. Gregory modified the diagram outlined by Origen in the following words: “God and the Father, containing everything, acts on every being, imparting to each being from His own being, for He is the Existing One. Less than the Father is the Son, whose activity extends only to rational beings, for He is second from the Father. Even less is the Holy Spirit, who acts only on the saints” 956. Completely agrees with Origen St. Gregory dwells on the specially sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit; but it constitutes the second moment of His relationship to the “living” - the first is that He is life and the reason for the life of the living. Therefore, the expression of the thought of St. Gregory, although in a more distinct and perfect form, are represented by the following words of St. Basil the Great: “Imagine the Three - the commanding Lord (i.e., God the Father), the Creating Word and the affirming Spirit; since the affirmation shows inexorability, immutability, unshakable installation in goodness, what else will the affirmation mean if not accomplishment in a shrine? But holiness is impossible without the Spirit" 957. With this relationship, it turns out to be completely natural to continue the symbol in the words: “He is God the Father, who is over everything and in everything, and God the Son, who is through everything” ( πάντων καὶ θεὸς 958 ὁ υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντων), where by the very course of speech it means the revelation of God the Father and God the Son in the world. The influence of Eph. is clear in the expression. IV, 6, although διὰ πάντων is transferred to the Son, whereas in the ap. Paul is referred to God and the Father. As a parallel from Origen, explaining the meaning of the considered words of the symbol, the following passage can be cited: “all knowledge of the Father is obtained by the revelation of the Son in the Holy Spirit, so that both of these (Beings), called by the prophet (Hab. III, 2) animals or lives, serve as the cause of knowledge of God the Father. And just as it is said about the Son that “no one knows the Father except the Son, and (even) to whomever the Son chooses to reveal it” (Luke X, 22), so the apostle says about the Holy Spirit: God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. For the Spirit tests all things and the depths of God (1 Cor. II: 10). And the Savior in the Gospel, mentioning the divine and deepest teachings, which His disciples could not yet accept, says to the apostles this: I still have many words for you, but you cannot bear whining. When the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, comes, He will teach you everything and remember everything that has been told to you (John XVI, 12; XIV, 26). Thus, one must think that, like the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals (Him) to whomever he wants; so the Holy Spirit, penetrating the depths of God, reveals God to whomever He wants, for the Spirit breathes wherever He wants 959. This expression of the symbol is much closer to what St. says. Irenaeus of Lyons: “It is appropriate (for this case),” he writes, “also says Paul, His apostle: there is one God the Father, who is above all and with all and in us all (Eph. IV, 6). For above all is the Father, and with all is the Word, since through Him everything came from the Father, but in us all is the Spirit, Who cries: Abba, Father (Gal. IV, 6) and prepares man for likeness to God. The Spirit reveals the Word, and therefore the prophets proclaimed the Son of God; but the Word gives an image to the Spirit, and therefore It Itself is the inspirer of the prophets and leads man to the Father.” And further: “those who carry the Spirit of God within themselves are brought to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son brings them to the Father, and the Father allows them to partake of incorruption. Consequently, without the Spirit it is impossible to see the Son and without the Son it is impossible to approach the Father; For the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son is through the Holy Spirit; The Son communicates the Spirit in accordance with His ministry, according to the good pleasure of the Father, to those whom the Father wants and how the Father wants” 960. Chapter IV. Doctrine of the Holy Trinity St. Gregory, with the accuracy and certainty possible for him, revealed the teaching about each Person of the Holy Trinity individually and Their mutual relationships, both in the immanent life of the Divine and in manifestation in the world. Now, as a conclusion from the above and for its further disclosure, he inimitably simply, but at the same time extremely solemnly proclaims that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are “the perfect Trinity, by glory and eternity and kingdom, not divided and not alienated” (τριὰς τελεία, δόξ ῃ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλεί ᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη μηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουμένη ). The term τριάς, used for the first time, as far as is known, by Theophilus of Antioch, around the time of St. Gregory was common among church writers, as may be indicated by its use in Origen, Dionysius of Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria. The Trinity is perfect, since all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are perfect: τελεία. If all three Persons are perfect, and thus the Holy One is also perfect. Trinity, then in relation to divine greatness and glory (δοξ ῃ), eternity (ἀϊδιότητι) and royal power, dominion and dignity (βασιλεί ᾳ) between the Persons of the Holy Trinity there can be no division in the sense that each of them is given its own part, there can be no alienation in that in the sense that they each possess them separately - therefore, all the Persons of the Holy Trinity together possess all glory, all eternity and the whole kingdom, and are thus equal to each other. The Father is true God; The only begotten, true Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit has being from the Father; therefore in the Trinity there is nothing created (ο ὔ τε ο ὖ ν κτιστόντι); what is created cannot be eternal, and the Trinity is not separate and alienated by eternity. Inseparable and inalienable in glory and kingdom, the Trinity has in Itself nothing slavish (οὔ τε ... δοῦλονἐντ ῇ τριάδι). Therefore, there is nothing in the Trinity that would be introduced later as alien to Her, and that did not exist before, precisely because there never was a time when the Father was without the Son, or the Son without the Spirit (ο ὔ τε ἐπείσακτον, ὡ ς πρότερον μὲν οὐκ ὑπάρχον, ὕ στερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν ο ὔ τε γὰρ. - they are inseparable in eternity. This teaching of the symbol is completely consistent, at least in general terms, with the views of Origen, expressed by him in the following words: “I would dare to add about the likeness of the Father that it is impossible ever not to be him. For when God... did not have the radiance of His own glory, so that anyone would dare to attribute the beginning of the existence of a Son who was not before? When was there no image and outline of the ineffable, unnamed, unspeakable Hypostasis of the Father? When was there not a Word that knows the Father? Let him come to his senses who dares to say: there was once a time when the Son did not exist; through this he also says: there was once no Wisdom, there was no Life.” And further: “It is neither permissible nor safe for God, through our weakness, as much as depends on us, to deprive Him of the only-begotten Word that is always inherent in Him, that Wisdom in which we rejoice” (Prov. VIII, 30) 961. “God the Father could never, at any moment, exist without giving birth to this Wisdom - this is how everyone who knows how to think piously and thinks about God should think and believe. “The Father gives birth to the unborn Son and brings forth the Holy Spirit, not, of course, in the sense that (the Son or the Spirit) did not exist before, but (in the sense) that the Father is the beginning and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit and that nothing preceding or subsequent can be thought of in them” 963. The same teaching was revealed by Origen's students. Yes, St. Dionysius of Alexandria writes: “The Father, as Father, is not alienated from the Son, because this name expresses the beginning of unity, and the Son is not separated from the Father, because the name Father indicates communion. In Their hands is the Spirit, Which cannot be deprived of either the Sender or the Bearer. How can I, using such names, think that they are separated and completely separated from each other” 964? In agreement with this, Theognostus also says: “the essence of the Son is not something acquired from outside and is not introduced from something that does not exist, but is born from the Father’s essence” 965. All the given negative definitions of St. Gregory, in the last words of the symbol, contrasts (ἀλλὰ) with a positive expression of the same truth: ἀεί. Since in the Trinity there is nothing created or servile, then It is immutable, for changeability is characteristic of beings brought into being and created, existing outside of God's essence and made up of nothing 966; and since there is nothing added to the Trinity that was not in It before, then It is unchangeable and always identical to Itself. This extremely brief but deeply meaningful presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity finds important additions and clarifications in the letter to Evagrius. Here we are considering precisely the question that is not touched upon in the symbol: how to reconcile the confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the simplicity and homogeneity of the divine being, and is the indivisible unity of the Most Perfect not violated by the “assignment of names,” i.e., by the recognition of the trinity of the Hypostases? St. Gregory, in his letter to Evagrius, resolves this question in this way: a) Confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not violate the indivisible unity of the Most Perfect, because intelligible and incorporeal objects do not have proper names at all; they cannot be comprehended by human senses. All the more so should this be said about the first intelligible objects and even those standing above all intelligible objects. Therefore, if anyone believes that along with the names the essence itself is roughly divided, then he thinks in all respects unworthy of the Divine. b) However, the use of names is useful, since it necessarily leads to the thought of the intelligible. Therefore, the divine, indivisible and only-begotten essence of the Most Perfect, for the benefit of our spiritual salvation, is divided, apparently, by names, and is subject to the need for division ψυχῶν σωτηρίας καὶ μερίζεοθαι ταῖς ὁνομασίαις δοχεῖ, καὶ διαιρέσεως ἀνάγκ ῃ ὑφίστασθαι ). c) That the confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not introduce any division into the being of the Most Perfect, this is St. Gregory illustrates with three comparisons. 1) The soul, which itself is an intelligible object, gives rise to many infinite thoughts; however, it is not divided by the fact that it undergoes the process of thinking, and it never becomes impoverished in the abundance of thoughts due to the fact that thoughts previously arose in it. A word spoken and made common to everyone is inseparable from the soul that pronounced it and, being in the souls of the listeners, is not separated from the first. Thus the Son must be represented as never being separated from the Father and again from this last Holy Spirit χωρισθέντα πώποιε, καὶ τούτου δὲ πάλιν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅ γιον ). These words clearly reproduce the idea from the symbol that “neither the Father was ever without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit,” and the same mutual relationship of the divine Persons is established. Just as it is impossible to imagine any division or section between the mind, thought and soul, so it is impossible to imagine any section or division between the Holy Spirit and the Savior and the Father. Thus, the nature of the intelligible and the divine are inseparable. 2) It is impossible to find divisions between the solar circle and the ray; but the ray is connected to the circle, and the circle pours out streams onto all its rays. Like the rays of the Father, the luminous Jesus 967 and the Holy Spirit were sent to us. For just as the rays of light, which by nature have an inseparable relationship with each other, are neither separated from the light nor cut off from each other and send down to us the gift of light, in the same way our Savior and the Holy Spirit, two Rays - twins of the Father (ἡ διδυμος τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκτίς ) 968, and we are given the light of truth and united with the Father. 3) It happens that a stream flowing from a water source splits into two rivers in its course; but having a double flow from the formed rivers, it in its essence does not suffer any damage from such division; although the flow is divided by the location of the rivers, the water is the same, and due to the continuity of the flow, the rivers are connected to the original source. Likewise, the God of all good things, the Ruler of truth and the Father of the Savior, the First Wine of Life, the Tree of Immortality, the Source of ever-essential life, who sent down to us as it were a double stream - the intelligible gift of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and He Himself did not suffer any damage in His essence - for He did not undergo any diminishment as a result of Their coming to us - and They came to us and nevertheless remained inseparable from the Father, because the nature of the Most Perfect is inseparable. – So, according to the author of the letter to Evagrius, it should represent the closest unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. A condensed expression of all this teaching of St. Gregory on the Holy Trinity served, established by him in the Pontic Church and preserved in it until the days of St. Basil the Great image of doxology, which had the following form: “To you God and the Father honor and glory with the Son and with the Holy Spirit” Arians and pneumatomachus reproached St. for their preferential use of this formula. Basil, insisting on the exclusive use of another, more favorable for them: “To you the Father is honor and glory through the only begotten Son in the Holy Spirit” (σοὶ τῷ πστρί ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ ἁ γί ῳ πνεύματι ) 969 . Although the second formula, with a correct and impartial understanding of it, did not contain any heretical thought and seemed to be more consistent with what was established by St. Gregory in a symbol of the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, however, he introduced and established in his church the image of doxology, which testified that the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity with their closest unity was the unshakable belief of the enlightener Pontus. If we turn to the definition of the general nature of the triadological teaching of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, then first of all we should note his obvious dependence on the theology of Origen, both in terminology and in individual concepts and their combination. This is clearly confirmed by those parallels from the works of Origen, which we cited when analyzing the dogmatic content of the works of St. Gregory and who indisputably convince of the origin of these creations and, above all, the symbol from this student of Origen; At the same time, we must make a reservation that we have taken only the most characteristic places, if possible. However, it is no less obvious that in the teaching of St. Gregory on the Holy Trinity, there is no most essential thing that characterizes the theological views of Origen - there is no that special imprint that imprinted the triadological system of the famous Alexandrian teacher; the terms are the same, the meaning of each individually and in some combinations is the same, but as a result the entire triadological system has a different direction and different content. It goes without saying that there is no need to compare the majestic scientific edifice erected by Origen with the modest works of the Pontic saint, who set his life task in a different area, where he achieved significant results - we can only talk about the theological direction of the student in comparison with his mentor. In this regard, it is necessary to recognize the significant deviations of St. Gregory the Wonderworker from Origen: he took from his teaching only individual points, particular features and terminology, but tore them away from the connection in which they were in Origen, gave them a different color and bound them with a different cement, adding material that Origen did not have - the result was a new system based on Origenism; it did not contain the scientific spirit that distinguished Origen’s system, but for that it was brought into agreement with church teaching. Here, first of all, it is necessary to note the difference in the general formulation of the triadological question in St. Gregory and Origen, and in the main task pursued by both. In Origen's system, the idea of ​​the difference between the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity prevails over the idea of ​​their unity 970. At St. Gregory, on the contrary, has a very clear desire to emphasize and prove the unity and inseparability of the divine being. This desire is already revealed in his speech of gratitude to Origen, which should have reflected the still undivided influence of Origen: despite the undeniable traces of the influence of subordinationist tendencies, St. Gregory makes a deliberate effort to find suitable and most energetic expressions to denote the unity of the Son with the Father. This same desire clearly passes through all parts of the symbol, where first the closest unity in origin of the second and third Persons with the first is established, and then it is decisively affirmed that the Trinity is perfect, indivisible and inalienable by glory, eternity and kingdom, that in It there is nothing created or servile, but that it is immutable, unchangeable and always the same. Finally, in his letter to Evagrius, St. Gregory, both in individual expressions and in the comparisons given to prove his position, so decisively puts forward the moment of unity that he seems to be approaching the Sabellian image of ideas. The second significant difference between the triadological views of St. Gregory from Origen is the inclusion in the system of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as a necessary moment in the disclosure of both the inner life of the Divine and His relationship to the world. In Origen, “the doctrine of the Holy Spirit relates to other parts of theology rather as a small appendix than as a branch organically developed from the whole and always maintaining a connection with it” 971. St. Gregory, as we have seen, placed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit precisely in an organic connection with the doctrine of God the Father and the Son, when he introduced the Holy Spirit into the system of gradual revelation of the Divine, as an essential member, inextricably linked with other parts. The basis of this system is undoubtedly Origenian; the influence of Origen also explains a certain shade of subordinationism not only in the speech of gratitude, but even in the symbol and in the letter to Evagrius - however, only hypostatic, and not essential. But, thanks to this introduction of the doctrine of St. In spirit, the entire triadological teaching received a completely finished form, and its content acquired a character that significantly distinguishes it from the teaching of Origen. The Son is God from God, and from God the Holy Spirit also has being, and Their relationship to God the Father is such that only the term ὁμοούσιος is missing for this whole teaching to rise to the height of the Nicene Confession - in a word, the triadological teaching of St. Gregory, with his clear statement of the distinction of the Hypostases, eternity, equality and perfection of the Holy Trinity, represents a significant step forward in the direction from pure Origenism to the church teaching of the 4th century. Neither in the facts of St. Gregory, nor in his works do we find any indication that such significant deviations from Origen towards purely church teaching were the result of any struggle or turning point in the theological direction of St. Gregory: his teaching about the Holy Trinity is the result of a consistent disclosure of those principles that were learned by St. Gregory in Caesarea Palestine, since already in his speech of gratitude to Origen, as was indicated, a decisive desire was revealed, with the clearly subordinationist basis of his views, to establish the closest possible unity of the Son with the Father. Obviously, due to the natural characteristics of his mind, St. Gregory was inclined to assimilate exactly that side of Origen’s triadological teaching, in which the unity of the essence of the divine Hypostases and Their equality of honor was decisively expressed, and to remain impervious to those points of his system in which the subordinationist point of view was carried out and justified. With such a direction in theology and with such content, although still far from fully established and defined, St. Gregory went to his homeland, where the system of triadological views that he revealed in the symbol and in the letter to Evagrius finally took shape. There is no doubt that, having received strong scientific and theological excitement in the school of Origen and seriously occupied with the question of in what form to preach the Christian confession, St. Gregory himself continued to develop his dogmatic views in the once accepted direction. But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the inclusion of St. Gregory requires such elements that did not follow from the teachings of Origen for his explanation, in addition to the independent work of the theological thought of St. Gregory, and new influences on him, which must be sought not in Caesarea Palestine, but in Pontus. Here, as can be seen from the biography of St. Gregory, he was in undoubted communication with the Bishop of Amasia, Phaedim, and probably continued to maintain connections with Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whom he met in Caesarea in Palestine and who was one of the planters of theological science in Cappadocia. We have no information about Phaedim, but about St. Firmilian. Basil the Great certifies that his teaching about the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the words he left behind (not preserved to us), could be cited in confirmation of the teaching that Basil the Great himself professed and revealed 972. With such data, of course, it is difficult to say what kind of influence and in what direction they could have had on St. Gregory these faces. But in the works of St. Gregory there are signs by which we can conclude that this was the influence of Asia Minor theology 973 - the latter at this time, under the influence of strong scientific trends coming mainly from Origen, itself could not remain in its former form and became more favorable towards philosophy and theological science (St. Methodius of Olympia). The influence of Asia Minor theology is indicated, first of all, by the treatise “To Theopompus”, which, as indicated (p. 330 ff.), is in close contact with the works of St. Methodius of Olympia, and also partly St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Melito of Sardis, on the question of the suffering of the impassive God. Although this question was not alien to the interests of Origen’s school, the entire construction of proofs in St. Gregory is conducted in the spirit of Asia Minor theology. Since this treatise contains a statement of the premises of the Christological and soteriological teaching of St. Gregory, then one can think that he consistently revealed these aspects of Christian teaching in the spirit of the Asia Minor school. This assumption is confirmed by another characteristic parallel between the thoughts of St. Gregory and St. Irenea. In his letter to Evagrius, St. Gregory writes: “the divine and indivisible essence of the Most Perfect is indivisible and homogeneous, but for the benefit of our spiritual salvation it is divided, apparently, by names and is subject to the need for division” 974. These words, expressing the central thought of the epistle, seem to be an echo of the following judgment of St. Irenaeus: “The Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, for he who is born of God is God. And at the same time, according to His being and according to the power of being, one must recognize one God, but according to the economy of our salvation, both the Son and the Father are completely just. For since the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable to those created, those who are predestined to approach God are drawn and captured to the Father by the Son.” And further, explaining the words of Psalm 40, 7–8, St. Irenaeus writes: “for the Son, since He is God, receives from the Father, that is, from God the throne of the eternal kingdom and the anointing, like none of His participants. Anointing is the Spirit with which He is anointed” 975, etc. The influence of Asia Minor theology, one might think, also explains the inclination to combine the Origenian-ontological point of view with the ecclesiastical-economic one in explaining the question of the relationship of the Hypostases of the Holy. Trinity to the unity of the Divine being, which is noticed in the third part of the symbol and is especially found in the letter to Evagrius. It is also necessary to explain the formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit by the influence of Asia Minor and, perhaps, in particular the influence of Firmilian. All these influences should not obscure the originality and individual characteristics of the theological thinking of St. Gregory. His independence was revealed primarily in his attitude to the teachings of Origen, who, it would seem, was able to suppress with his authority a student so passionate about his personality. His independence was also revealed in the sensitivity with which he listened to the voice of church teaching. Finally, the most important thing that should be attributed to its independence is the coordination of these elements and their combination into a harmonious triadological system of independent meaning. As a result, it turned out that the system of teaching of St. Gregory the Wonderworker on the Holy Trinity represents an organic combination of the sublime theological speculations of Origen with the theology of the Asia Minor school; and since the latter was in essence a traditional, genuine church teaching, then as a result of this combination in the theology of St. Gregory achieved agreement between the results of scientific theology and church faith, and in the Pontic church Origen’s “churching” took place without fighting his views, but on the contrary, maintaining reverent respect for him, which was passed on to subsequent generations. Conclusion. The influence of St. Gregory the Wonderworker on the theology of later times “Where shall we give place to Gregory the Great and his words? Is it not with the apostles and prophets? I am talking about a man who walked in the same Spirit with them, walked in the footsteps of the saints all his life, and carefully succeeded in the life of the gospel all his days. This is how I speak about him, otherwise we will violate the truth by not counting this soul, this man, who, like some great luminous luminary, illuminated the Church of God among the people of God.”976 This is what he writes about St. Gregory the Wonderworker St. Basil the Great, leader of the great Cappadocian fathers of the 4th century. More precisely and definitely my attitude towards St. Gregory St. Basil the Great establishes in the following words: “What proof of my faith could be clearer than the fact that I was raised by my grandmother, a blessed wife, who is yours by birth (letter to the neo-Caesarians)? I’m talking about the famous Macrina, from whom I learned the sayings of the Most Blessed Gregory, which were preserved before her by succession of memory, and which she herself observed, and imprinted on me from an early age, forming me with the dogmas of piety” 977. If we take into account that St. Basil the Great expressively emphasizes that he did not subsequently change the thoughts about God that he had previously had, but that the concept of God, which he acquired from childhood from his blessed mother and grandmother Macrina, grew in him, because with the opening of his mind he did not change one thing for another, but improved the principles taught to him by them 978 - then this by itself already establishes, as undoubted, the influence of the theological views of St. Gregory on Basil the Great. But just like St. Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great, was under the same influences and, in addition, experienced the influence of St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory the Theologian, who was in close friendship with St. Basil, also knew the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, then the validity of the opinion 979 will be completely obvious to us that the confidence with which the great Cappadocian theologians speak, and their conviction that their views developed among them through a natural process, can be explained only if the fact is appreciated that they were under the influence of a powerful local tradition, that their theology had roots in the soil of their native country and that a living tradition connected them with highly respected authority of the pre-Nicene period, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, whose significance in the field of theology cannot be considered extinct even in the 4th century. It goes without saying that it is very difficult to accurately establish Sts. in theology. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, those elements that entered it precisely from the theological views of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, since the latter did not stand in isolation from the general church teaching and were fed from it; therefore, many similarities in thoughts and expressions can be traced to a general church confession. But, on the other hand, it is quite rightly noted that the most striking expressions of the symbol of St. Gregory, precisely from the last section of it ( ἐπείσακτον ... ο ὔ τε γὰρ ἐνέλειπε ποτε υἱὸς πατρὶ ο ὔ τε υἱῷ πνεῦμα ) constantly emerge in their dogmatic views that they use them even where they do not clearly refer to the symbol - this is obvious proof that the symbol, so to speak, has entered into their flesh and blood, - that the confession influenced not only their individual expressions, but also their entire dogmatic way of thinking - in the fight against the Arians and Pneumatomachians, they constantly operate with the dilemma κτιστόν - δοῦλον or ἄκτιστον – δεσποτικόν, which is clear depending on the symbol of St. Gregory. Relying precisely on the symbol, the Cappadocians had in it the source of their strength. To prove the correctness of this statement, the following passages can be cited. Epistle to the Antioch Church of St. Vasily ends with the words: “in the divine and blessed Trinity there is nothing created” ( κτιστόν ) 980 . In the 3rd book against Eunomius, St. Vasily writes: “everything can be brought under one of two names: Divinity and creation, dominion and slavery” ( δουλίας ) 981 . And further: “our baptism, according to the tradition of the Lord, is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and no creature or slave (οὐδενὸς κτίσματος οὐδε δούλου) is compared with the Father and the Son, because the Divinity fulfilled in the Trinity" 982. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Vasily writes: “neither created (κτιστόν) do we dare to call the Spirit, Who is placed in a row with the Father and the Son, nor do we dare to call the Spirit Master” 983. St. Gregory the Theologian in lyrics. 40, in which he cites the words of the symbol in the following form: “in the Trinity, venerable ones, there is nothing slavish, nothing created, nothing extraneous, as I heard from one of the wise,” writes that the one Power, which is found in the Three individually and embraces the Three separately, “does not increase or decrease through additions and decreases, is everywhere equal, everywhere the same” 984 - and in these In words, the influence of the symbol of St. Gregory. In the 33rd word: “The Father will not suffer to be deprived of the Son, nor the Son to be deprived of the Holy Spirit; but they are deprived if the Son or the Spirit is in time and a creature, for what was created is not God” 985. In the 41st word: “it was indecent for either the Father to ever be without the Son or for the Son to be without the Spirit ( πατρὶ ἡ πνεῦμα οἱῷ ) 986 . And in the lth word of the mysterious chants, the teaching about the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity is built according to the scheme of the symbol, and similarities are observed in individual expressions (Parent, Great Father of the Only Begotten Son, One and Only) 987 . St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th letter writes: “we believe that nothing auxiliary, nothing created is attributed to the Holy Trinity (οὐδὲν δοῦλον οὐδὲ κτιστὸν ... τ ῇ ἁ γί ᾳ τριάδι σοναριθμεῖσθαι πιστεύομεν ) 988 . In the 3rd book of “Refutations of Eunomius” he says: “it is clear to everyone that God, who is above all, has nothing created or introductory in Himself ( ἐν αὐτῷ κτιστὸν ἡ ἐπείσακτον ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ἔχο θεός ) 989 . And in the word about the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians: “neither the Father without a son is ever conceived, nor the Son without the Holy Spirit is understood” ὔ τε υἱὸς δίχα τοῦ ἁ γίου πνεύματος χαταλαμβάνεται ) 990 . In addition to these individual expressions, it is necessary to pay attention to numerous passages, especially in St. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, which speak of the mutual relationship of divine Persons in the inner life of the Divine and in Their activity in the world in the sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds or shines from the Father through the Son, that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son, and the Son is the image of the Father, that life is given to people from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, that the path of knowledge of God is from the Holy Spirit through the Son to the Father, etc. In them the same thought is revealed that is briefly but clearly expressed in the symbol of St. Gregory. True, it is against recognizing the influence of St. at this point. Gregory the Wonderworker can be exposed to the fact that St. Athanasius of Alexandria clearly preaches the same truths when, in his first letter to Serapion, he writes: “The Spirit is inseparable from the Son, but He is also in Christ, as the Son is in the Father” 991. “Who will separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son”? “As the Son abides in His own image, in the Spirit, so does the Father in the Son” 992. “The Spirit is and is called the image of the Son” 993. “There is a Holy and perfect Trinity, cognizable in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having nothing alien or imparted from outside, not composed of the Creator and the creature, but entirely creative and creative” 994. However, about St. Gregory of Nyssa, it can be decisively argued that he uses such an expression to denote the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son, which represents a literal borrowing from the symbol of the Holy Spirit. Gregory the Wonderworker - we understand his teaching that the hypostatic feature of the Holy Spirit is that He is not only begotten from the Father and appears through His Son" (ἐν τῷ μήτε μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι καὶ ἐν τ ῳ δι ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱόῦ πεφηνέναι ), which reproduces the words of the symbol: ἐκ θεοῦ τὴν ὕ παρξιν ἔχον καὶ δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνός 995 . This indisputable dependence in such an essential point makes the source of those theological views and terms that the Cappadocian fathers have in common with Gregory the Wonderworker and with church confession undeniable - it is natural to admit in them the direct influence of St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Therefore, based on the data presented, it can be argued that the most significant parts of the theological views of St. Gregory the Wonderworker became part of the theological systems of Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, they received further revelation and justification and in this form, together with them, became the property of church theology. But this did not end the independent history of the theological views of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, as they are expressed in his symbol. In that florilegium patristicum (late 7th or early 8th century), which is known as Doctrina patrum de incarnatione Verbi, the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker found a place next to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol 996. When the results of the development of dogmatic issues in the ancient patristic period were summed up, the symbol of St. Gregory had a noticeable impact here too. Yes, St. John of Damascus writes: “neither the Father was ever without the Word, nor the Word without the Spirit,” 997 repeating the words of the symbol. But what is especially important is that the treatise περὶ τῆς ἁ γίας τριάδος (de Trinitate) reproduces the entire symbol of St. Gregory, without mentioning his name, as an accurate expression of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This treatise is probably one of the earliest works of St. John of Damascus and, in any case, came from the circles of his closest disciples and reflects both the teaching that was revealed to them and the attitude towards the ancient authorities on which he was based. If the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker was introduced into it in its entirety, it is clear that at that time he was revered very highly and was recognized as a reliable guide in the church faith. Despite the fact that after the death of its author a brilliant era began in the development of theological science and the dogmatic activity of ecumenical councils, it did not lose its significance even among the outstanding luminaries of the Church. Such was the power and depth of the teaching about the Holy Trinity of the great Pontic saint. Aug. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbolen und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, Breslau 1897, S. 128, Anm. 346 In his Commentarius in Symbolum apostolorum, 4, he writes (Migne, PL, t. 21, col. 341): “Orientis ecclesiae omnes pene ita tradunt: Credo in uno Deo Patre omnipotente. Et rursum in sequenti sermone, ubi nos dicimus: et in Christo Iesu, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro, ita illi tradunt: “Et in uno Domino nostro Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus; unum scilicet Deum et unum Dominum, secundum Pauli apostoli profitentes.” S.P. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen, S. 39 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 1104: Russian transl., creation of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, p. 102. Cf. Origen, On the Beginnings, I, 1.6: Migne, PGr, t. II, col. 125 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 1105; Russian translation page 103 Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 395; Russian translation page 83 To Evagrius: Migne, PGr., t. 46, col. 1104; Russian transl., p. 102 Thanks speech, §§32–33; R. Koetschau, S. 7–8; Russian transl., p. 23. With this cf. Origen, On the Principles, I, 1. 5: “His nature cannot be comprehended or contemplated by the power of the human mind, even if it were the purest and brightest mind.” (Migne, PGr., t. 11, col. 124; Russian translation, p. 16). Thanks speech, §§35–39: R. Koetschau, S. 8–9; Russian transl., p. 24 Thanks speech, § 39: P. Koetschau, S. 9; Russian transl., p. 25 On the beginnings, I, and, 6: Migne, PGr, t. 11. col. 125; Russian transl., p. 17. Wed. Against Celsus, VII, 28: (Die griechisch, christl. Schriftsteller, B. II, S. 188). Apologists and anti-Gnostics called the Word “Mind” (Athenagor, Petition for Christians, Chapter 10: υεοῦ; Theophilus of Antioch, to Autolycus, II, 32; St. Hippolytus, S. No tum, 11). Ch. L. Feltoe, b. 186; Russian transl., p. 37 To Theopomnus § 2: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 364; Russian transl., p. 81 To Theopompus, § 4: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 364–366; Russian transl., p. 83 To Theopompus, §4: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 365; Russian transl., pp. 82–83 Wed. prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, pp. 191 ff. To Theopompus, § 13: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 373; Russian transl., p. 46 To Theopompus, § 14: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. 374–375; Russian transl., pp. 97–98 To Theopompus, §16: Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV p. 375; Russian transl., p. 99 About the beginnings, III. 5, 3: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col. 326; Russian transl., p. 282 Thanks speech, §31–32: P. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, S. 7; Russian translation page 25 Epistle to Evagrius: Migne, PGr, t. 46, col. 1108; Russian transl., p. 104 Thanks speech, §39: P. Koetschau, S. 9: Russian. transl., pp. 26–27 Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 191 However, it should be noted that in the speech of thanks, §36 and 37 (R. Koetschau, S. 8; Russian translation, p. 24) he calls God ὁ τῶν ὄλων πατὴρ and thus assimilates to Him the name Father without a direct relationship to the Son. At Ch. L. Feltoe, The Letters and other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, p. 180; in Russian translation y St. Athanasia Alex, “On the definitions of the Council of Nicea”, §26, part and, page 435. Ch. L. Feltoe, b. 186; Russian transl., p. 31 See, however, the reverse order in St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Word on the Gentiles, § 46: Migne, PGr, t. 25, col. 93; Russian translation, part t, p. 189): “The Father’s Power, Wisdom and Word.” P. Koetshau, S. 9; Russian transl., p. 25 Ch. L. Feltoe, p, 196–197; Russian transl., p. 37 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 1105; Russian translation works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, page 103 In Jeremiah, hom. 19, ï Migne, PGr, t. 13, col. 500. Cp. in loannem, i, 23; Migne, P. G., t. 14, col. 65 I, 2, 3: Migne, PGr, t. and, col. 132; Russian transl., p. 25 Migne, P.G., t. 14, col. 1299 Word on the Gentiles, § 40: Migne, PGr., t. 25, col. 81; Russian transl., part 1, p. 180 Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 254 See especially St. Basil the Great, writing. 38: Migne, PGr., t 32, col. 326–340, Russian. transl., part 6. pp. 85–97 Prof. H.N. Glubokovsky, Intercessor of the New Testament. Exegetical analysis of Heb. I, 1–5. Sergiev Posad 1915, p. 20. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 267 On the Beginnings, I, 2, 2: Migne, PGr., t. and, col. 130; Russian transl., p. 2324 In Ioannem, t. I, 39; Migne, P.G., t. 14, col. 89 On the Beginnings, I, 2,9: Migne, PGr,t. 11, col. 138; Russian transl., p. 33 Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 233. Cf. prof. A. A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. I. Sergiev Posad 1906, pp. 97–99. Alte u. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 40, Anm. 13 In Ioannem, t. 1, 22: Migne, PGr., t. 14, col. 56–57. Cp. prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teachings about St. Trinity, p. 244. Ch. Bigg The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, ed. by F.E. Brightman. Oxford 1913. p. 209. In Ioannem, t. 2, 4: Migne, PGr., t. 14, col. 116 Printed by Fr. Diekamp in Theologische Quartalschrift, 84 (1902), S. 483, and reprinted Ad. Harnack in Texte und Untersuchungen, XXIV 3 (N. 5, IX, 5. S. 77. On Theognostus, see L. B. Radford, Three Teachers of Alexandriä Theognostus, Pierius and Peter. Cambridge 1908, pp. 1–43. On the Beginnings, I, 2, 3: Migne, PGr., t. and,col. 132; Russian transl., p. 25 Prof. H.N. Glubokovsky, Intercessor of the New Testament, p. 19 On the Beginnings, I, 2, 8: Migne, PGr. t. 11, col. 136; Russian translation page 31 At St. Athanasius Alexander., “On the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea,” §27: Migne, PGr. t. 25, col, 465; Russian transl., pp. 436–437 On Arians. sl. t, §20: Migne, PGr. t. 26, col. 53; Russian lane Part 2, page 203 Alte u. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 40, Anm. 12 On the Beginnings, I, 2, 9: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col 138; Russian transl., p. 34 S. Caspari, Alte u. Quellen, z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 41, Anm. 15 C. Caspari, Alte u, neue Quellen zur Geschichte d. Taufsymbols, S. 41 On the Beginnings, I, 2, 5: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col. 136; Russian transl., p. 28. Cp. in Ioannem, II, 6 (Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 129): τυγχάνοντος. Fragment from the commentary on the Evangelist John, t. V, in Apologia Pamphili martyris pro Origene, n. 71: Migne, PGr, t. 17, col. 580. Ibid., no. 79: Migne, PGr, t. 17, col. 580 In Ioannem, t. 2, 1–3: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 104–116 Alte u. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 43 Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, ch. 47: Russian transl., p. 42 In Ioannem, t. 13, 36: Migne, PGr., t. 14, col. 461 On the Beginnings, I, 2. 6: Migne, PGr., t. 11, col. 134; Russian transl., p. 28 On the Beginnings, I, 2. 6: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col. 135; Russian transl., p. 30 In Ioannem, I, 42. Migne, P. G., t. 14, col. 100 On Beginnings, I, 2. 2–3: Migne. PGr, t. 11. col. 131–132; Russian transl., p. 25 In Ioannem, t, I, 22. Μ igne, PGr, t. 14, col. 56–57 Alte u. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 45 At St. Afanasia Alexander., About defined. Council of Nicaea, § 27: Migne, PGr, t. 25, col. 465; Russian transl., part and, pp. 436–437 On the Beginnings, I, 2. 6: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col. 134–135; Russian transl., pp. 28–29 Wed. proof of the incorporeality of God in Origen, On the Elements, I, 1. 1–4: Migne, PGr, t. 11, col. 121–124; Russian transl., pp. 12–16. In Ioannem, t. 2, 11: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 145 C. Capsari, Alte 11. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 46, Anm. 25 Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 292 Contra Celsum, IV, 15: Die griech. Christl. Schriftsteller. Origenes, I, S. 285 §§35–39: P. Koetschau, S. 8–9; Russian translation 24–25 Cp. Origen, In Ioannem, t. I. 22: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 57; In Ioannem, t 2, 4: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 116 On the Beginnings, I, 2, 1: Migne, PGr, t, 11, col. 130; Russian transl., p. 23 We follow the understanding of this dark place by I. A. Dorner (Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi. s Aufl. 1 Th. Stuttgart 1845, S. 735) Letter 202 (al. 210): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 786; Russian translation part 7, page 84 In Matthaeum, t. XVII, no. 14: Migne PGr, t. 13, col. 1520. πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν, τ ῇ δὲ ἐπινοί ᾳ μόν ῃ καὶ τοῖς ὁνόμασι διαιροῦντες τὸ ἔν ὐποκείμενον. Wed. Origen’s own statement: “we honor the Father of truth and the Son-truth, two according to hypostasis and one according to like-mindedness, by agreement and identity of will (ὄντα δύο τ ῇ ὑποστάσεὑ πράγματα, ἕ ν δὲ τ ῇ ὁμονεί ᾳ , καὶ συμφωνί ᾳ καὶ τ ῇ ταυτότητι τῆς βουλῆματος ). S. Celsum, 8, 12: Die Griech. Christi. Schriftstel. Origenes, II, pp. 229–230. Pis. 9 (al . 41) – to Maximus the Philosopher: Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 269; Russian transl., part 6, pp. 42–43 Migne, P.G., t. 46, col. 1105; Russian transl., p. 103 Wed. St. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 31st, on theology 5th: Migne, PGr., t. 36, col. 168; Russian transl., τ. z, page 132 Pis. 199 (al. 207): Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 763, Russian translation, part 7, page 77 See St. Athanasia Alex., On the opinions of Dionysius, §13: Migne, PGr., I. 25, col. 507; Russian transl., vol. and, p. 438 Migne, P.G., t. 86, col. 982 Ch. L. Feltoe, p. 194–195; Russian transl., p. 36 On the Beginnings, I, 2. 2–3: Migne, PGr., t. il, col. 131–132; Russian translation , page 25 Ch. L. Feltoe, p. 194; Russian transl., p. 36 About my opinion. Dionyssia, §9: Migne, PGr, t. 25, col. 492; Russian transl., part 1, pp. 452–458 Pis. 202 (al . 210): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 776; Russian translation, part 7, page 84 S. R. Caspari, Alte u. neue Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, S. 46–47 Migne, P. G., t. 14, col. 1103 In Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi (ed. v. Fr. Diekamp., M ü nster in Westf. 1907, 284): καὶ δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. In the Slavic translation: and manifest the Son as man. Another Latin translation does not contain the corresponding expression at all. Wed. prof. V.V. Bolotov, On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg 1914, p. 117 Migne, P. G., t. 45, col. 336; Russian transl., part 5, p. 113 S. Caspari, Die alte und neue Quellen, S. 12; Lequien expressed this assumption in a very sharp form: "In Codd. Graecis,” he writes (Opera Ioannis Damasceni, t. I, Dissertatio t. n. III, p. 11), “in quos hactenus incidi, additur δηλαδή τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.” Quas voculos Gregorianae confessionis istius simplicitas pati non videtur, atque temeritatem sapiunt Graeculi schismatici, qui hac interpretatione voluerint significare, ea duntaxat ratione Spiritum Sanctum per Filium splendescere, qua per Filium hominibus i conceditur. At vero patribus Graecis tritissimum est. quamlibet divinae personae processionem ἐκφάνσεως et ἐκλάμψεως effusionis vocabulo enuntiare. “Porro falsatam Thaumaturgi expositionem coarguit vetus interpretatio Latina historiae ecclesiasticae Eusebii quam Rufinus Aquilegiensis adornavit, et in quam, cum alia non pauca tum hancce Gregorii formulât inseruit, absque his vocibus, scilicet ho minibus.” In loannem, t. 2, 6: Migne, PGr. t. 14, col. 125. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 326. To clarify the meaning of δι ’ υἱοῦ πεφηνός and similar expressions in St. fathers see prof. V. V. Bolotova, On the issue of Filioque, pp. 51–70. In Ioannem, t. 2, 6: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 128 In Ioannem, t. 2, 6: Migne, PGr, t. 14, col. 132 1st Epistle to Serapion: Migne, PGr, t. 26, col. 585; Russian transl., part 3, p. 37. Wed. §26: The Spirit is the image of the Word and belongs to the Father (Migne, PGr., t. 26, col. 592. Russian translation, part 3, p. 39); 4th Epistle to Serapion, §3: The Spirit is the image of the Son (Migne, PGr., t. 26, col. 641: Russian translation, part 3, p. 70). S.P. Caspari, Die alte und neue Quellen, S. 53, Anm. 46 On the Beginnings, I, 3. 5: Migne, PGr., 11 g, col. 150; Russian transl., p. 46 About the Holy Spirit, ch. 16; Migne, P.G., t. 32, col. 138; Russian transl., part 3. p. 235 The authenticity of the second θε ὸς is questioned on the grounds that it is not in both the Latin and the Syriac translation - it could rather have been added than released (C.F. Caspar and, Alte 11. neue Quellen z. Gesch d. Taufsymbols, S. 54–55, Anm. 49). On the Beginnings, I, 3. 4: Migne, PGr., t. 11, col. 149; Russian translation, pp. 44–45 Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, ch. 5 and 7; Russian transl., pp. 21 and 22 At St. Afanasia Alex., About definition. Nikeisk. Council, §27; Migne, P. G., t. 25, col. 465; Russian transl., part and, page 437. For this section cf. what was said on page 269 ff. On the Beginnings, I, 2. 2: Migne PGr. , t , and. col. 131: Russian transl., p. 24; Wed in Eusebius of Caesarea, Adv. Marcellum, II, 4: Migne, PGr, t. 24. col. '82 On the beginnings, II, 2. Migne, PGr, t. 11, col, 186; Russian transl., p. 94 Ch. L. Feltoe, b. 191–192; Russian transl., pp. 34–35. At St. Afanasia Alex., About the definition. Nikeisk. Cathedral, §25: Migne, PGr, t. 25, col. 460; Russian transl., part 1, p. 432 Wed. St. Athanasia Alex., 1st Epistle to Serapion, §26: Migne, PGr, t. 26, col. 592; Russian translation, part 3, page 39 Wed. "To Theopompus", ch. 17 (Pitra, Analecta Sacra, t. IV, p. Russian translation, p. 100): “Jesus came.” It is remarkable that Gregory the Theologian, who so persistently assimilates the Epistle to Evagrius, energetically rebels against the application of the term “twins” to the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the words 31st, on theology 5th, analyzing the Arian teaching about the Holy Spirit, he writes: “if (the Holy Spirit) is from the Father, then there will be two sons and brothers, but you can invent for me, if you want, twins”... , υἰοὶ δύο καὶ ἅ δελφοί . ): Migne, PGr, t. 36, col. 1 40; Russian transl., vol. 3, p. 10 8. In connection with the above considerations (pp. 351–358 and 379–380), these words acquire the meaning of extremely strong and, one might say, decisive evidence against the epistle belonging to St. Evagrius. Gregory the Theologian. Wed. prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity, pp. 359 ff. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 364 About the Holy Spirit, ch. 29: Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 206; Russian transl., vol. 3, p. 282 The influence of Asia Minor theology on St. Gregory note: Fr. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte. 4 Aufl. Halle 1906, pp. 223–224. Anm. 5; prof. A.P. Orlov, Trinitarian views of Hilary of Pictavius. Historical and dogmatic research. Sergiev Posad, 1908, pp. 212 ff. Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 1105; Russian lane, p. 103 Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, ch. 47; Russian transl., p. 42 About the Holy Spirit, ch. 29. §74: Migne, PGr., t. 32, col. 205: Russian transl., part 3. p. 281 Pis. 196 (al. 204): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 752–723; Russian lane part 7, page 67 Pis. 215 (al. 223): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 825; Russian translation, part 7, page 120 K. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhältniss zu den grossen Kappadoziern, S. 117 Pis. 135 (al. 140): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 589: Russian translation part 6, page 281 Migne, P.G., t. 29. col. 660; Russian transl., part h, p. 109 Migne, P.G., t. 29, col. 665; Russian transl., part 3, pp. 113–114 Pis. 243 (al. 251): Migne, PGr, t. 32, col. 936; Russian translation, part 7, page 201 Migne, P.G., t. 36, col. 417; Russian transl., vol. 3, pp. 315–316 Migne, P.G., t. 36, col. 236; Russian transl., vol. 3, p. 181 Migne PGr., t 36, col. 441; Russian transl., vol. 4, p. 14 Migne, P.G., t. 37, col. 399–401; Russian transl., vol. 4, p. 216 Migne, P.G., t. 45, col. 1032; Russian transl., part 8, p. 472 Migne, P.G., t. 45, col. 581; Russian transl., part 5, p. 398 Migne, P.G., t. 45, col. 1316; Russian translation, part 7, page 37 §14: Migne, PGr., t. 26, col. 565; Russian transl., part 3, p. 23 §20: Migne, PGr., t. 26, col. 577–580; Russian transl., part 3. pp. 30–31 §24: Migne, PGr., t. 26, col 588; Russian translation, part 3, page 37 §28: Migne, PGr., t. 26, col. 596; Russian translation, part 3, page 41 Prot. Eunomia, book. I: Migne, PGr., t. 45, col. 336; Russian transl., part 5, p. 113 Ed. Fr. Diemkamр'а, р. 284 Exact presentation Orthodox faith, I, 13: Migne, PGr, t. 94, col. 856; Russian transl., vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1913), p. 165. Cf. about icons, lyrics 3, § 18: Migne, PGr, t, 94, col. 1340; Russian transl., vol. I, p. 400. Iak. Bilz (Die Trinitätslehre des hl. Ioannes von Damaskus, Paderborn 1909) insistently notes the influence of the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker on the system of views of St. John of Damascus (S. 69, 167, 172, 180, 183).