Период четвертый
Machine translation from the original · Show original
After the death of the last two representatives of the great generation of pre-Nicene theologians - Origen and Cyprian, which characterizes the first half of the 3rd century as the highest point of Christian spiritual culture in the pre-Nicene period, in the further decades of the 3rd century until the Constantinian time, a striking calm sets in. The first generation of theologians was not followed by a second; rather, there was even a noticeable movement back.
In Rome, theological traditions continue to live only in the person of Dionysius. Africa has the only Arnobium. The rest of the West can present only three writers - Retitius, Victorinus and Lactantius - born African - as a writer active first in Nicomedia, then in Gaul - this is the best Latin stylist of pre-Nicene times.
In the East, Greece is completely unrepresented; We notice actual literary life only in Egypt, Syria and Palestine. This poverty of writers is primarily and most closely related to the sharp turn that the struggle of Roman state power against Christianity took, specifically directed under Decius and Valerian (249–260) against the church organization. These persecutions, the effect of which was sufficiently revealed in a large number of the fallen, caused significant harm to the literary activity of the Church and largely destroyed hopes for the future; Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why, despite the coming years of peace (260–303), so few writers appeared. This literary state, no doubt, had another, more immediate cause. The effect of this reason appears most clearly in Egypt and Palestine, where the strong influence of Origen dominated all literary life in the second half of the 3rd century and precisely in a twofold direction.
That such an outstanding theologian gave impetus to the formation of the Theological School is self-evident; it was no less certain to expect that such a unique theological speculation as Origen's would provoke opposition. Both happened.
In both places of Origen's activity - in Alexandria and Caesarea (Palestine) Origen schools were formed. The Alexandrian school of followers of Origen consists of: Tryphon, Dionysius, Pierius and Theognostus. Much of their work has been lost.
With Bishop Peter of Alexandria (300–311), a turn came in relation to the theological system of Origen - he undertook the first critical assessment of it. Around this time, Origen came under attack in Asia Minor.
Even during Origen's lifetime, Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, became one of his most animated followers. But the literary activity of this venerable man took a more practical direction, and by him the theological direction of Origen was not implanted in Asia Minor. Here even the fundamental opposition to it found its decisive representative in the person of Bishop Methodius of Olympus, who contrasted Origen’s Theology of Thoughts with the Theology of Facts and Tradition and, in his challenging of Origen’s most important theories, went further than Peter of Alexandria. Against Methodius and his supporters, Pamphilus and Eusebius, who held high the banner of Origenism in Caesarea Palestine, sent an apology for Origen in five books, of which only the first has survived, translated by Rufinus, however, doubtful in its accuracy. The defense is carried out for the most part by means of sayings from Origen's own works; but both friends admitted that they were forced on many occasions to weaken the teachings of Origen.
We do not know the end of this first Origen dispute. It probably stopped due to the martyrdom of Pamphilus and his opponents Peter and Methodius during the persecution of Diocletian. Only Eusebius remained alive and he completed the apology of Origen compiled by Pamphilus, adding a sixth to the five books, which he directed especially against Methodius. It is remarkable that Eusebius completely excluded Methodius from his “Ecclesiastical History.” The Church did not take any part in this dispute. But Origen’s influence did not cease with the pre-Nicene period, which we pass through with Eusebius. He was highly revered by the great theologians of the Church of the 4th century, especially the Cappadocians.
At the turn from the 3rd to the 4th centuries, a current opposite to Origenism was discovered in Syria, which is a new element in the theological and literary development of the last pre-Nicene period and which for subsequent times is of greater importance than the first Origenistic controversy in Egypt and Palestine. I mean here the foundation of the Antiochian school, which means not only a new direction in the old Theology, but also a new understanding of scientific Theology itself.
Its first known representative, if not its very founder, was Lucian of Antioch. No matter how little we know about the activities of this man and about the beginning of the Antiochian school, however, it is indisputable that its starting point was a new understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Its hallmark is considered to be the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the Antiochians, as opposed to the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. But if this opposition is taken to its final foundations, it will be discovered that these foundations are the same as those that, during the heyday of Greek philosophy, gave rise to the opposition between the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato: rational historical realism and animated mystical idealism.
To explain the emergence of this opposition in Christian Theology, there is no need to assume that the Antiochian school consciously sided with the philosophy of Aristotle, about which we know nothing from the time of the emergence of the Antiochian school; Even if we conclude such a connection on the basis of the subsequent history of the school, it will still be necessary to explain why the Antiochians joined the philosophy of Aristotle. But the explanation for this lies in the fact that the opposition between idealism and realism is dominant in all periods of theological and philosophical thought, which has the deepest basis in the universal laws of the spiritual life of mankind; they explain both the fact that this opposition appeared during the period of the emergence of Christian Theology, and the fact that first the idealistic-mystical way of thinking comes into its own and only later, as a reaction against it, the realistic-historical one.
The latter reaches development only in the thirteenth era, and the struggle between both forms the main basis for the great dogmatic disputes of the 4th - 6th centuries. But its occurrence essentially belongs to the characteristics of the literary period we are talking about.
At the same time, Neoplatonism also developed, but then it did not have a positive impact on Theology and Church literature - it develops only in the 4th and 5th centuries, but already when the essential points of Greek Theology received their final approval. Therefore, Neoplatonism now does not constitute any element in theological development and should not be involved in the characterization of the fourth period of the first era.
If we take a closer look at modern Western Latin literature, it will be clear that no significant points can be extracted from it to characterize the period under consideration.
The minor literary activity of Dionysius of Rome has as its subject the refutation of modalistic monarchianism and, therefore, revolves around the same dogmatic issues that dominated the previous period.
Other Latin ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Lactantius, even take a step back, especially Arnobius, whose seven books of "Adversus nationes" are not outstanding either in literary or theological respects. Reticius was a good exegete, Victorinus - a Greek who wrote Latin - was dependent on Origen.
Lactantius - the Christian Cicero - was undoubtedly a good writer and in his main work "Divinae Institutiones" he made an attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian teaching, in which the Western characteristic is strongly revealed in the dominance of the practical-religious point of view. But the lack of the Theological School prevented him from exerting a proper influence on the writers of subsequent times.
The further development of Western literature and theology in the second era - insofar as it is not influenced by modern Greek Theology, like that of Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome - adheres to the two great, truly Western theologians of pre-Nicene times, Tertullian and Cyprian, while completely almost ignoring the Latin theologians of the fourth period.
To assess further progress in the development of individual branches of Theological literature, only Greek literature can be taken into account. Unfortunately, the losses here are so great that it is impossible to get a clear picture of them. Apologetic literature increased only by one work of Methodius of Olympus - κατάΠορφυρίου, which, according to Jerome, was extensive, but everything was lost except for minor fragments.
Biblical textual criticism is represented by reviews of the LXX and perhaps the New Testament by Hesychius in Egypt and Lucian of Antioch. The following were engaged in exegesis: Tryphon, Dionysius of Alexandria, Pierius, Hierakles, Ammonius, Gregory the Wonderworker and Methodius of Olympus. Most of them also wrote dogmatic and anti-heretical works, especially Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympus. Particularly loved were the treatises on the soul (περì ψυχη ς): Peter of Alexandria, Alexander of Alexandria, Gregory the Wonderworker) and on the Resurrection (Περì ἀναστάσεως): Peter of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia).
The anonymous dialogue “Derectain Deum fide” is also directed against Gnosticism. Dionysius of Alexandria, most of whose works fall during the life of Origen, participated in the struggle with Savelius in disputes about the attitude towards the fallen, in the issue of the Novatian schism, in the dispute about the baptism of heretics and against Paul of Samosata.
In general, he is a versatile writer of this period. In him we find the oldest refutation of atomism from a Christian point of view. He works to resolve practical-religious issues and lays the foundation for the Easter Epistles of the Alexandrian bishops. Methodius of Olympus also deals with practical issues.
From what has been said, it is clear that Church literature of this period, despite the fact that it is inferior to the literature of the previous period, in its original volume occupied a rather respectable place, and in some areas, especially in the field of biblical and dogmatic Theology, reveals consistent further development. Heretical literature is now retreating even more than before. The last Gnostic works may have appeared in the second half of the 3rd century. Paul of Samosata, whose teaching represents the further development of dynamic monarchianism, was the only formal heretic of this period. His works have not survived. Apart from him, only the Egyptian Bishop Nepos can be named as an extreme opponent of the allegorical direction of the Alexandrian school, which was influenced by ancient chiliasm. Dionysius refuted the book Ἑ λεγχος ἀλληγοριστω ν left by Nepos, which has not survived. But only a few excerpts have survived from the works of Dionysius.
Based on the foregoing, the fourth period can be designated as the period of the Origenists and the first Antiochians: it covers the time from 260 to 325.
I. Saint Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria
Of the Alexandrian bishops before St. Athanasius, none was held in such high esteem by the ancients as St. Dionysius, the leader of the Alexandrian school after Origen, and Bishop Alexander. Already his contemporaries, in view of his services to the Church, called him “great” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7, Preface: ὀμέγας); Saint Athanasius (Er. desent.Dion., b) glorifies him as “teacher of the Catholic Church” (τη ς καθολικη ς ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλος), and Saint Basil the Great (Er. 188, ad Amphil., Περì κανόνων) assigns him canonical authority (κανονικός). He took an outstanding and important part in all the Church movements and controversies of his time and was the first great saint whose personal influence extended far beyond the boundaries of the Alexandrian Church, due to his high mental gifts, pastoral care and wise prudence in all actions.
Eusebius already refers to his works and cites extracts from them more often than from other writers (Hist. eccl., ch. 6–7; Praep.Evang., ch. 7 and 14); they are considered authoritative by Saint Athanasius, Basil the Great, John of Damascus and others. And, indeed, although very little reliable is known about the personal life of Saint Dionysius, except for what he himself reports in his letters, and although for the most part only fragments have been preserved from his literary works, however, even this meager data is enough to recognize the correct judgment of contemporaries and ancients about the significance of Saint Dionysius. If we take into account that Dionysius, in all likelihood, was already a presbyter and was at least 30 years old when he became head of the catechetical school in 231, and that in 264 he did not participate in the Council of Antioch due to his old age and infirmity, then we can confidently conclude that he was born in the 2nd century and was thus almost the same age as Cyprian of Carthage and only 10 or 15 years younger than his teacher Origen (cf. Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:27:2).
He was born into a pagan family and received a good literary, philosophical and natural science education. He converted to Christianity already in adulthood, when he already occupied a significant place in the secular service, which promised a brilliant movement in the future; it is quite possible that he studied and taught rhetoric. There is news (“Chronicon Orientale”) that Dionysius converted to Christianity as a result of reading the Epistles of St. Paul; Whether this was really so or not, Dionysius himself in his Epistle to Philemon says that both before and after Baptism he carefully studied what was written for and against Christianity. “One brother of the presbyters,” he writes, “fearing that this abomination (reading heretical works) would not be communicated to me, tried to restrain me and, according to my own consciousness, rightly notes that I was harming my soul; but a vision sent by God appeared and strengthened me; I heard a voice that clearly commanded me, saying: read everything that comes into your hands, because you can discuss and examine every thought - this is what turned you to faith in the beginning.”
Conversion to Christianity followed, one might think, after the year 220. At this time, Origen was at the head of the Alexandrian school, and Dionysius was his most zealous student. When Origen was imprisoned in Tire, Dionysius wrote him an Epistle “On Martyrdom” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:46), and after his death he sent a special letter of praise to Theoteknos, Bishop of Caesarea (Steph. Gob. in Phot. Bibl., cod. 232) (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:29, 4).
In 231, Origen had to leave Alexandria and his former employee Herakles took his place; in the same year, probably, Bishop Demetrius died, and Herakles was elected bishop. Dionysius was now placed at the head of the Alexandrian school.
It can be assumed that the treatise Περì φύσεως, in which for the first time a systematic refutation of the atomistic theory of Epicurus and his followers was undertaken on the Christian side, was compiled precisely while teaching at school. The commentary on the beginning of Ecclesiastes also applies to this period. 16 years later, in 248, after the death of Herakles, Dionysius succeeded him in the episcopal ministry, but, apparently, retained the leadership of the school.
The episcopal service of Saint Dionysius, which lasted seventeen years, passed under the most unfavorable external conditions. Already in the last year of the reign of Philip the Arabian - as we know, who was favorably disposed towards Christians - clear signs of impending disasters appeared: the pagans, excited by some soothsayer, attacked Christians, and several people were cruelly tortured; The position of the Alexandrian Christians was very dangerous: they were not allowed to appear on the streets of the city either day or night - however, there were no apostasies at that time. This reign of terror, which Dionysius himself reports in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch, lasted for a considerable time (ἐπί πολύ) and was interrupted in the fall of 249 by the civil war in Alexandria, which was a consequence of the deposition and death of Philip. The imperial throne was taken by Decius, who marked his short reign (249–251) with one of the most brutal persecutions of Christians.
In Alexandria it broke out with full force. Dionysius himself reports about the torture to which Christians were subjected in Alexandria, about martyrs, about numerous apostasies from the faith and about his own fate at this time, under the living impression of persecution, in his Epistles to Fabius of Antioch, to Dometius and Didymus and in the Epistle against Germanus. Sabinus was then prefect of Egypt, and he lost no time in applying the edict of inspectors to Dionysius and his flock. Dionysius, convinced that by his life he would do more good than by death (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:40), saved himself this time by flight, taking advantage of the disposition of the pagans themselves: the official (frumentarius) sent to arrest him looked for him everywhere except his own house for four days, and Dionysius decided to leave Alexandria, but as soon as he left the city, he was captured by soldiers who (maybe perhaps, by the verdict of Sabinus) they took him, along with four companions, to Taposiris.
On the way, Dionysius, in a completely unexpected way, was freed from the hands of soldiers by a crowd of villagers, apparently pagans, who were celebrating a wedding in the neighborhood; They dispersed the guards and forcibly took him to a safe place in the Libyan desert, where he remained until the end of the Decian persecution. But even while hiding in the desert, Dionysius ruled his Church through trusted presbyters and deacons and through written communications.
Meanwhile, persecution was raging in Alexandria. Many bravely withstood all the tortures and died for loyalty to Christ: “men and women,” says Saint Dionysius in a letter to Dometius and Didymus, “young men and old men, maidens and old women, warriors and villagers, people of both sexes and of all ages, having won the victory in the struggle, received crowns - some through whips and fire, others through iron” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:11). There were so many martyrs that Dionysius did not find it possible to list them by name.
But the persecution was also accompanied by the fall of quite a few Christians. According to Saint Dionysius in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch, many of the noblest people, out of fear, hurried to fulfill the command of the Emperor - others who held public positions were forced to do this by their very occupations, others were brought by persons close to them. Those who appeared were called by name, and they began to make unclean, nasty sacrifices. Some approached the altars, pale with horror, as if they were not destined to make a sacrifice, but to become victims themselves, slaughtered in honor of idols. The crowds of pagans present laughed at them, since it was clear that they were afraid to taste death and make a sacrifice.
Others approached the altars more boldly, trying by their very boldness to show that they had not previously been Christians. The example of noble and wealthy Christians captivated other believers, and thus, in Alexandria, as in Carthage, the question arose about accepting into the Church numerous fallen people who were now bringing repentance. Dionysius was more sorry than he condemned the fallen; he “extended a helping hand to them and gave them room for repentance.”
Recognizing the need for leniency towards repentant apostates, Saint Dionysius wrote in this sense several Epistles, mostly inscribed “On repentance” (περì μετανοίας). From the passage of the Epistle to Conon it is clear that Dionysius confirmed in it his previous order about the remission of sins for the sick on their deathbed, and added explanations regarding those cases when the fallen, having received permission from sins during illness, recovered again. Dionysius believed that it would be foolhardy to subject them again to the yoke of sin, after they had been freed, reconciled with God, become participants in Divine grace and had not committed any new crime. “Is it really possible,” writes Saint Dionysius, “with our verdict we will set boundaries for God that He must observe (in the event of the death of the patient), but we ourselves will not observe them (in the event of recovery). Are we really going to refuse ours when we promise the Lord’s mercy?”
Condescending towards those who fell during the persecution, Dionysius spoke with all his might against Novatian, who caused a schism in Rome. Probably in the year 251, in response to Novatian's notification of his appointment as a bishop. Dionysius turned to Novatian with a decisive admonition not to violate the peace of the Church and to prove the validity of the assurances that he had only been forced to accept ordination as a bishop, by voluntarily renouncing this rank in order to end the schism.
For the peace of the Church one must be ready for martyrdom, which is no less glorious in this case than in the case of refusal to sacrifice to idols (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:45). On this occasion, he wrote three Epistles to the Roman confessors, who at first supported Novatian, and then left him: to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch - probably with the aim of rejecting him from supporting Novatian (in the year 252), to the Roman Bishop Cornelius (in the year 253) and two to the Romans.
When a dispute arose between the Roman Bishop Stephen and the Carthaginian Bishop Cyprian about the validity of heretical baptism, and when Stephen gave this dispute a very harsh statement that threatened divisions in the Church, Dionysius acted as a champion of peace and with letters to Rome sought to keep the local bishops from making unnecessary claims. Eusebius gives excerpts from his Epistles on this issue to bishops Stephen and Sixtus and presbyters Dionysius and Philemon (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:5:9).
In his Church, Dionysius had to fight against chiliasm and Sabelianism. Chiliasm was so widespread in the Arsinoean region of Egypt that the movement caused schisms and the dissolution of entire Churches. Dionysius refuted the error in word and in writing.
He personally went to Arsinoe and successfully interviewed the chiliasts there; After a three-day dispute, the head of the Chiliasts, Presbyter Korakion, admitted himself defeated, and all his supporters reunited with the Church. And against the work of Bishop Nepos, “The Refutation of the Allegorists,” which was highly respected by Egyptian Christians and supported their passion for chiliastic views, Dionysius wrote two books “On Promises.”
The dissemination of the teachings of Sabellius in Pentapolis of Libya and the appeal to the Bishop of Alexandria, both the followers of the Sabellian false teachings and their opponents with a request to express their judgment, prompted Saint Dionysius to extensive written activity: he informed about the false teachings of Sabellius and warned against being carried away by them, exposed his inconsistency and revealed and substantiated the Orthodox teaching against him; on this occasion he wrote the Epistles to Ammon, Telesphorus, Ammon and Euporus.
But the letters of Dionysius, directed against Sabellianism, gave rise to accusations of Dionysius himself of wrong-mindedness. The “righteous” brothers of the Alexandrian Church, seduced by certain expressions in which the difference between the Son of God and the Father was emphasized with excessive harshness, accused the Bishop of Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome Dionysius of an unorthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, and Saint Dionysius was forced to write in his defense a special essay, “Reproof and Justification.” This was between 259 and 261.
The Alexandrian Church, under the bishopric of Dionysius, had to endure yet another persecution, which came after four years of comparative peace. In the summer of 257, the Imperial Edict unexpectedly began the persecution of Christians, which lasted more than three years (42 months, as St. Dionysius writes in a letter to Germanus). Dionysius with some of his clerics was brought before the prefect Aemilian and after testing mainly his loyalty to the Emperor - which was made doubtful by his refusal to give him Divine honors - he was banished first to Kephron in Libya, and then to the even wilder Collufion in the Mareot district, where he gathered around him local and exiled Christians, encouraging them, converted pagans to Christianity, led the permanent Epistles and the Alexandrian flock (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:11).
In 260, Valerian was captured by the Persians and his son and co-ruler Gallienus became Emperor, who issued an edict that granted peace to the Church. The decree given to the bishops Dionysius, Pinna and Demetrius is given by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7:13). However, unrest in Alexandria allowed Dionysius to return to Alexandria, probably only in March 262.
But the last years of Dionysius’ life were also a time of labor and trials for him. The ongoing unrest in the city and the civil war made it necessary for the bishop to gather the Christians of Alexandria together and communicate with the flock in writing. Then the city suffered famine and pestilence, during which Christians, under the leadership of their bishop, alone bore all the worries about treating the sick and burying the dead, since the pagans, fearing infection, abandoned both to their fate. These disasters that befell the Alexandrian Christians are described by Dionysius himself in his Epistles, fragments of which were preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7:21, 22).
The correspondence of Dionysius regarding his accusation of wrong-mindedness also dates back to this time. But, despite this, even in these last years of his life, Saint Dionysius continued to enjoy high authority in the eyes of the Christian world; This is evidenced by the fact that when a council was proposed (264–265) in Antioch to discuss the confusion in the Church caused by the heresy of Paul of Samosata, Dionysius was specially invited to it; but due to old age and physical weakness, he could no longer personally attend it, but limited himself to a written statement of his opinion (Eus.Hist. eccl., 7:27). Before the council finished its meetings, Saint Dionysius died in the year 265 (ibid., 7:28).
1. 1. Literary activity of Saint Dionysius
Saint Dionysius was a man of practical activity and his literary works stand in close connection with this activity and serve as a true reflection of it.
We learn about the very life of Saint Dionysius, his personal character and contemporary church circumstances, in which he took a wide part, mainly from his works. Unfortunately, only fragments have survived to this day, and we owe the most important of them to Eusebius, who, with commendable completeness, included them in the VI and VII books of his “Ecclesiastical History.” The works of Dionysius are divided into treatises and letters. The first ones include:
1) “About nature” (περì φύσεως). Seven rather significant fragments of this work are preserved in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, along with extracts from Plato, Aristotle and others. The treatise was, apparently, of considerable length and was dedicated to “child Timothy” (Τιμοθε ῲ τω @ παιδή) - probably one of the close disciples of Saint Dionysius, and maybe even his son.
The subject of this work, or at least that part of it given by Eusebius, was an analysis of the theory of Epicurus from a Christian point of view. For this purpose, Dionysius, as Eusebius put it, was especially suitable due to his position as Bishop of Alexandria, his philosophical make-up and the purity of his Christian convictions.
There is no doubt that in Alexandria - the center of modern thought and culture, especially Neoplatonism, the place of contact between Greek and Latin civilization - Dionysius often encountered thinkers who had adopted the views of Epicurus, whose influence on the followers of the Christian Faith was always especially dangerous, firstly, from the scientific side, because this school gave a convenient and understandable explanation of the origin of the world and natural phenomena, and secondly, from the moral side, due to the basic Idonistic character of its a teaching whose purification and clarification by Epicurus only made it more attractive and corrupting - this teaching in the time of Dionysius had many followers among the educated Greco-Roman society. Without a doubt, Dionysius called his treatise περìφύσεως because the work of Epicurus in 37 books had the same title - only a few fragments have survived from it. Excerpts from Dionysius's treatise extracted by Eusebius consider:
a) the atomistic part of Epicurean philosophy and,
b) in the proper sense, the “theological” part; indications of the Idonistic doctrine are slight and given only in passing. Dionysius begins by noting that of the various hypotheses about the origin of the Universe, the least satisfactory is the theory of Epicurus, according to which it is a random combination of countless atoms moving in desert space and forming boundless worlds.
With a whole series of illustrations taken from everyday experience, Dionysius shows that “not a single necessary and useful work comes into being without effort and by chance: a piece of matter does not appear without a weaver, the warps are not composed by themselves and the transverse thread is not woven by itself; and when it wears out, the tattered rags spread out in all directions; the house and the city are not built in such a way that some stones themselves fall into the foundation, while others rise to the upper parts of the building, but the builder places them in order - each stone in its place; after the destruction of the house, each of them falls down and falls at random, and so on. Who can agree that this great building, consisting of Heaven and Earth and called the cosmos, due to the greatness and abundance of wisdom invested in it, was brought into order by atoms rushing about without any order, and disorder became order?
Further, as with the same essence, all things - with only one difference in size and shape - some of them turn out to be Divine and eternal, while others are short-lived and short-lived. If the basis for the difference between things lies in the different arrangement and different hardness or strength of the connection of atoms, then the question again arises, who chose, arranged and connected the atoms so that some formed the sun, others - the moon, and others - other bodies. No matter how one imagines atoms—whether as soulless bodies uniting by chance, or as animate but irrational animals, or even as intelligent beings uniting freely—in all these cases, either an intelligent builder is needed, or a wise shepherd who collected and united them, or a manager who showed everyone their place and their task.
Dionysius comes to the same conclusion through the study of man, whose body alone represents such an amazing structure that some, struck by amazement, recognized the Divinity in nature. Who created this creature with such properties, tall, straight, proportionate, endowed with feelings, mobile, adapted to various actions and all kinds of activities? Where did the soul, mind and word come from among the philosophers? Did all this really come from soulless, unreasonable and dumb atoms? And all poetry, and all music, geometry, astronomy and all the arts of the Hellenes were created by atoms experienced in everything and wise - muses?
Further, Dionysius reveals the inconsistency of Epicurus's teaching about the gods. According to the teachings of Epicurus, the gods have no participation either in the origin of the world and man, or in the management of the Universe, but are in undisturbed calm and bliss, without labor or care.
But such an existence is so contrary to the true ideas and aspirations of people that it must be recognized as absolutely false in relation to Divine beings: all who know how to produce works useful for life rejoice in helping their fellow tribesmen, and seek praise and reward for their labors for the common good, some for delivering food, others for steering ships, others for treating, others for serving the state - philosophers are prouder than others by doing educating people - meanwhile the gods are praised for the fact that they cannot bestow any benefits on anyone, and they themselves are not involved in them; therefore, when all men and even philosophers find pleasure in doing good to others, the gods, according to the theory of Epicurus, are not allowed to share in such pleasures.
The very speech about the gods in Epicurus is not in harmony with the basic tenets of their worldview, and if Epicurus in his books uses thousands of oaths and spells, even in discussions about objects that have no meaning, and constantly swears with the words: “yes, I swear by Zeus,” or “no, I swear by Zeus,” and conjures his readers and interlocutors with the gods, then this means that he was somehow afraid of them or he was afraid of committing perjury - after the death of Socrates, he was afraid of the Athenians, lest they consider him an atheist. The extract from the treatise ends with a new indication of the wondrous dispensation of Heaven and Earth, as a decisive refutation of the views of Epicurus.
In addition to the fragments preserved by Eusebius, four more excerpts from the books of περì φύσεως are known: two in the work of Presbyter Leontius and John “Rerum Sacrarum liber Secundus”, one in “Sacra Parallela” by St. John of Damascus and one published according to the manuscript codex (by Pitra). These passages are not important.
The first compares the world with a workshop and a theater, a school and a gymnasium, in which we are drawn to the knowledge of truth. The second, the most extensive of all, draws attention to the truth that it is easier to achieve a consciousness of any obligation by asserting that it is the duty of others than by a more direct route. The third is expressed darkly, but contains the undoubted truth that human knowledge of both small and great objects is insufficient and imperfect. The fourth notes the fact that the builder naturally exists before the building.
2) “On the Promises” (περì ἐπαγγελιόδν) - a carefully written treatise in two books, directed against the chiliastic views of the Egyptian bishop (in Arsinoe) Nepos, revealed by him in the work “Refutation of the Allegorists” (Ἑ λεγχος ἀλληγοριστω ν ). And this work has not been preserved in its entirety and is known only in the work of Leontius and John “Rerum Sacrarum liber Secundus” - three small fragments.
Like most of the works of Dionysius, the treatise “On the Promises” was addressed to an individual, whose name is not mentioned (ὡ ςο ἶ δας). About the work of Nepos, only what is known is what Eusebius reports, who prefaces extracts from the treatise of Dionysius with the following remark: Nepos “taught too much in a Jewish way to explain the promises announced to the saints in the Divine Scriptures, and argued that here on Earth there would once come a thousand-year period of sensual pleasures; Thinking to base his thought on the Revelation of John, he wrote a book about it entitled “Refutation of the Allegorists.”
About Nepos himself, Saint Dionysius speaks in his usual soft tone: he approves of his faith, hard work, diligent study of the Scriptures and the many hymns that many brothers enjoy. Dionysius says that Nepos had already died before he undertook the correction of his errors; but the book he wrote found many defenders and followers: Dionysius speaks of certain teachers who destroy the law and the prophets, the Gospel and the Apostolic Epistles, and the teachings of the book of Nepos are presented as some great and hidden secret and instill in the simplest of the brothers crude ideas about the future coming of the Lord.
He mentions one of them named Korakion, who was apparently a chief. Being in the Arsinoean district, where the chiliastic teaching was particularly strengthened and where even entire Churches were affected by it, Dionysius invited the elders, teachers and laity of this area for a nationwide study of error. For three days, from morning to evening, they discussed what was written in the book, and after such a long debate, conducted completely freely and in a peaceful tone, results that were quite favorable for Orthodoxy were achieved: Korakion publicly renounced his views, and the conversation led everyone to general agreement and reconciliation. Dionysius's treatise, as one can assume, was a reproduction of the arguments that were expressed by Dionysius at the Arsinoean interview, for the edification of those present and those not present at it.
Of the two books in which Dionysius objected to the argumentation of the book of Nepos, the first contained a statement of Dionysius's own views on the fulfillment of Divine promises, and the second dealt with the Revelation of John. Extensive fragments preserved by Eusebius are taken from the Second Book. Speaking about the Revelation of John, Dionysius first examines the view of those who completely rejected the origin of this sacred book from John. This refers to the so-called alogs (Epiph. Adv. haer. 1:3). They said that the inscription of the book was false, for it did not belong to John; it is not even a revelation, since it is covered by an impenetrable and deep veil of ignorance. The writer of this work is not an Apostle, not a saint, or even a member of the Church, but the heretic Cyrinthus, who claimed that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly and would consist in what he himself desired, being a man devoted to the body and all carnal lusts.
Dionysius himself finds it impossible to reject this book: it exceeds understanding, but every part of it contains some hidden and very wondrous meaning, and those parts that elude reason, he accepts by faith. Further, according to Eusebius, Dionysius carefully reviewed the entire book and proved that it cannot be understood in its direct literal meaning. Then he writes that there is no doubt that the book was written by a holy and inspired man named John, although Dionysius does not find it possible to identify him with the writer of the fourth Gospel and the conciliar Epistle. He assumes that the writer of the Apocalypse was some other John from Asia, especially since in Ephesus there were, they say, two tombs, and each was called the tomb of John. Dionysius gives three arguments in favor of his conclusion, borrowed entirely from the field of external evidence:
a) from the difference in character (ἦ θὄ) of both writers, as he discovered in the fact that the Evangelist does not indicate his name anywhere, does not expose himself anywhere - neither in the Gospel, nor in the Epistles - while the writer of the Apocalypse names his name already at the very beginning;
b) from the difference in thoughts, expressions and their combination and
c) from differences in language, namely their absence of ungrammatical forms of speech and syntax, foreign, incorrect and common expressions in the Gospel and Epistles and the presence in the Apocalypse of not purely Greek speech and language, mixed with foreign and in places incorrect sayings.
These criticisms of the Apocalypse - bearing in mind the time and circumstances - seem very characteristic in their conciseness and clarity, and retain their significance in Biblical criticism to the present day.
3) “Reproof and justification” (Ἔ λεγχος καì ἀπολογία). This work was written by Saint Dionysius under the following circumstances. Sabellius was a Libyan from Pentapolis and his views were widespread in his homeland, as in Rome, before the Bishop of Alexandria spoke out against them, Sabellius himself was probably already dead by this time.
In the year 257, Saint Dionysius drew the attention of the Roman Bishop Sixtus (Xistus) II to this heresy, which, in order to preserve the unity of the Divine, merged the three Persons in the Trinity.
In his Epistle to him, Saint Dionysius writes that he answered the brothers, both to the Epistles and to oral questions about the teaching that arose in Ptolemais of Pentapolis - a teaching “which is full of wickedness and contains much blasphemy against the Almighty, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, much unbelief regarding His only begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, the Word made man, and Complete madness in relation to the Holy Spirit."
He sent copies of these Epistles to Rome (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:5-6). From this message it is clear that Sabellianism in its later phase included the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in its system. In Libya, heresy reached such an influence that even some bishops adhered to the Sabellian way of thinking, and it was not enough for the Churches not to preach about the Son of God (Athan., Ep. desent. Dion., 5).
Dionysius, considering himself responsible for the Churches that were under his care, took decisive measures to eradicate evil. Eusebius mentions (Hist. eccl., 7:26) several Epistles written by him on this occasion: to Ammon, bishop of the Church of Bernice, to Telesphorus, to Euphranor, and also to Ammon and Euporus. In one of these Epistles (“to Euphranor and Ammonius” according to Athanasius of Alexandria), which was written around the year 260, Dionysius used the following expressions: “The Son of God is a work and created, and He is not His own by nature, but alien to Him in essence; The Father is to the Son what the worker is to the vine and the shipbuilder to the boat; and, as a work, the Son was not until he received being” (Athan., Ep. desent. Dion. 4).
These sayings of Dionysius seemed tempting to some of the brethren of the Alexandrian Church, who, being just, according to the expression of Saint Athanasius, but without asking Dionysius, in order to find out from him himself why he wrote so (Saint Athanasius, “On the Opinion of Dionysius” 13) went to Rome and accused him before his co-name Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, successor of Sixtus, that he:
1) separates the Son from the Father,
2) denies the eternity of the Son, thinking that God was not always the Father, that there was not always a Son, but on the contrary, God was without the Word, and the Son Himself did not exist until He received being,
3) calling the Father, does not name the Son, and calling the Son again, does not name the Father,
4) rejects the term ὁμοούσιος in relation to the Son,
5) He calls the Son the creation of the Father (see Athan., Er. de sent. Dion. 4:14, 16. 18).
Having received such a complaint, Dionysius of Rome convened a council, which “was indignant,” as Athanasius put it, against the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Rome wrote a Letter to the Church of Alexandria regarding Sabellianism and ways to correct its errors. It was directed in general against those dividing and dissecting the unity of command into some three forces, into three Deities and separate Hypostases. This Epistle of Dionysius of Rome is preserved in an extract from Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (Dedecret. Nic. syn., 26).
The surviving part of the Epistle addresses two issues. Firstly, here the Alexandrians are accused of the fact that, rejecting the blasphemy of Sabellius that the Son is the Father and vice versa, they preach in a sense three gods, dividing the Holy Unit into three Hypostases, one alien to the other and separate in everything; but they overlook that:
a) there must be an essential unity between the Divine Word and the God of all,
6) The Holy Spirit must abide and dwell in God and
c) it is absolutely necessary that the Divine Trinity be headed and concentrated in a single, as if certain, head - the God of all, the Almighty.
In the Alexandrian teaching, Dionysius of Rome is inclined to see the renewal of Marcion’s superstitious wisdom, dissecting and dividing the Unity of Command into three principles. Secondly, Dionysius of Rome condemns those who think that the Son is a work, and believe that the Lord received being as something from what was actually created; Meanwhile, the Holy Scripture speaks of a birth suitable and fitting for Him, and not of creation and formation. It is a very great blasphemy to assert that the Lord is in some way made by hand. If the Son was created, then there was a time when He was not. But He always was, since He is in the Father and since Christ is Word, Wisdom and Power; The Word, Wisdom and Power are God's own powers - why, if the Son was created, then there was a time when those powers did not exist, there was a time when God was without them; but this is the most absurd of all.
In many places of Divine words, everyone will find that the Son is called begotten, and not created, and these places clearly expose the false concepts that constitute the Lord’s birth and those who dare to call His Divine and ineffable Birth creation. Therefore, the wonderful Unit should not be divided into three Deities and the word “creation” should not eliminate the dignity and all-surpassing greatness of the Lord. On the contrary, one must believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Spirit - to believe that the Word is in unity with the God of all. Thus, both the Divine Trinity and the holy sermon about Unity of Command are observed.
In this writing, Dionysius of Rome did not mention the name of his Alexandrian brother, but wrote to him separately, telling him what he was accused of and probably asking for clarification. Dionysius considered it necessary to justify himself from the accusations leveled against him and wrote the treatise “Reproof and Justification.”
This work was written in four books. Eusebius reports: “he wrote four more books on the same subject (that is, about the heresy of Sabellius) and dedicated them to his co-name Dionysius of Rome (Hist. eccl., 7:26). Although neither Eusebius nor Jerome (De spirit. sancto. 69) report the titles of these books, there is no reason to doubt that they are talking about the same work, which St. Athanasius the Great calls “Conviction and Justification,” and St. Basil the Great’s Epistle “On Conviction and Justification” (Despirit. sancto. 29). These books, like most of the works of Saint Dionysius, are written in the form of Epistles.
In its entirety, this work has not reached us - only fragments have survived, mainly from St. Athanasius in the essay “On the Opinions of St. Dionysius” (15 excerpts): eight from the First Book, five from the Second, and one each from the Third and Fourth Books; three passages are contained in the work of St. Basil the Great: “On the Holy Spirit” (29): two from the middle of the work and one, apparently representing its final words. Finally, the passage preserved by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica (7:19) is also taken from the First Book. Before this Epistle, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote another Epistle to Dionysius of Rome, but it has not survived.
Usually the passage preserved in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica is given first place. It refutes the opinion of those who recognize matter as unhappening (μὴ ἀγένητον ε ἶ ναι τὴν ὕ λην). Although it is easy to imagine the place of this kind of reasoning in the system of evidence for the eternal Birth of the Son, however, the passage is not directed directly against the Sabellians or against the Roman criticism of Dionysius; but perhaps Dionysius had in mind some new theories of heretics who were not named. These persons accepted the originlessness (ἀγενησία) of matter and attributed to God only the ordering and control of matter. But this, says Dionysius, is impossible, since this theory, on the one hand, puts matter on an equal footing with God, while on the other hand, it subordinates matter to God.
Individual passages all relate to the disclosure of those issues that served as the subject of correspondence between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Based on these passages, it can be determined how Dionysius of Alexandria defended himself against the charges brought against him.
1) To the accusation that he separates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Dionysius responds with a decisive denial: “Of the Names I have spoken, each is inseparable and inseparable from what is united with it. I said: Father, and before adding the Son, I also designated Him in the Father. He added the Son, and although he would not have named the Father in advance, in any case He would have been understood in the Son. I added: the Holy Spirit, but added together, from where and through Whom He comes.” The most common names indicate communication. “How can I, using such Names, think that They are separated and completely separated from each other?”
2) Regarding the eternity of the Son, Dionysius expresses himself clearly and definitely: “There is always Christ as Word, Wisdom and Power; It cannot be said that God, who did not give birth at first, gave birth to them later.” “Like the radiance of eternal Light, and He (the Son) Himself is eternal.” “God is eternal Light, never began and will never cease; therefore, before Him and with Him there is also an eternal Radiance, beginningless, always born and manifesting Him.” “So, if the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, like Light from Light. If there is a parent, then there is a child; if there were no child, then how and for whom could a parent exist. But they both exist and always exist.”
3) Dionysius explains his negative attitude towards the term ὁμοούσιος or his non-use in this way: he admits that he did not use the term ὀμοούσως about the Son, since he did not find or read this name anywhere in the Holy Scriptures; however, his reasoning in no way disagrees with this idea: he used images that actually express the same attitude - he presented as an example human birth, obviously homogeneous, although he said that parents are different from children, because they themselves are not children, otherwise there would be neither parents nor children; said that a plant that has risen from a seed or from a root is different from that from which it grew, although, without a doubt, it remains homogeneous with it; and the river flowing from the source receives a different form and a different name, because neither the source is called a river, nor the river a source, but both exist, the source is, as it were, the father, and the river is the water of their source.
“They pretend,” says Saint Dionysius to his accusers, “as if they do not see these and similar words written by me at all and seem to be blind. With two fragmentary sayings (that is, one might think, comparisons of the relationship of the Father and the Son with the relationship of a winegrower to a vine and a shipbuilder to a boat), like stones from afar, they intend to overthrow me, not knowing that when reasoning about little-known objects that still need to be made accessible to knowledge, often not only similar, but also opposite examples serve to depict what is sought” (Er. desent. Dion., 18:4).
The most serious charges against Dionysius of Alexandria were that he called the Son a creation (ποίημα) and illustrated his point by pointing out the relationship between the vinedresser and the vine and the shipbuilder and the boat. Dionysius agrees that he used the indicated expressions, but he only casually used examples of these things that happened and created, as less suitable, in order to dwell on things that are more decent and related (parents and children, source and river).
Dionysius says that he called the Son a creation not in the literal sense, but in the sense of the genetic dependence of the Son on the Father, and that he uses the name “Creator” only in connection with the “Father,” and in this last name the Son is also included, so that ποιειν is equivalent to γεννάν. “I used the name of the Creator because of the flesh that the Word took and which really created. And if anyone suspects that this is also said in relation to the Word, then they should listen to this too without attachment. Just as I do not consider the Word to be a creation, so I call God not the Creator, but the Father. And if somewhere, while discussing the Son, I say by chance that God is the Creator, then in this case too one can be justified: the Greek sages call themselves the creators of their own books, although they are the fathers of their books, and the Divine Scripture also calls us the creators of heart movements, calling us the creators of law and judgment and truth” (Er. desent. Dion., 21).
The most suitable image for Dionysius seems to be the image of the mind (νου ς) and the word (λόγος): 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 being in it... Through the medium of the word, the mind is communicated to the souls of the listeners, entering them together with the word. The mind, being of itself, is, as it were, the father of the word, and the word is, as it were, the son of the mind. Before the mind it is impossible, but it did not come from somewhere outside, but exists together with thought and arose from thought itself. So the Father, the greatest and universal mind, has first the Son - the Word, His interpreter and messenger (Er. desent. Dion., 23). In response to the remark of Dionysius of Rome that the Alexandrians preach in some way three gods, dividing the holy Unity into three Hypostases, Dionysius of Alexandria decisively declares: “if they claim that the Hypostases, as soon as There are Three of Them, are separate, then There really are three of Them, even if the heretics did not want this; otherwise let them completely destroy the concept of the Divine Trinity.” “For for this reason, after the Unity, the Trinity is also divine” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanet., 29).
4) The treatises of Dionysius must include “Commentary on the beginning of Ecclesiastes.” Eusebius writes about this work as follows: “in the Epistle to the Bishop of the Pentapolis Churches, Basilides,” Dionysius says that he wrote an interpretation at the beginning of Ecclesiastes (Hist. eccl., 7:26), Eusebius, therefore, did not see this interpretation himself. Jerome (De vir. ill., 69) obviously speaks only on the basis of Eusebius.
But later writers had this commentary in their hands and cite excerpts from it. So the sophist Procopius of Gaza in the 5th century in his catena to Ecclesiastes introduced quite numerous scholia of Dionysius on Ecclesiastes (1:1–3:11). In addition, there are two short passages inscribed with the name of Dionysius and taken from a commentary on Ecclesiastes attributed to Gregory of Nyssa (printed in Pitra, Spicii. Solesm. Vol. Paris, 1852, pp. 17-19). As for the passages of Procopius of Gaza, they are undoubtedly based on the remains of the Commentary of St. Dionysius, although certain parts arouse doubts and suspicions. The other two passages are unlikely to be genuine. Procopius of Gaza says (Comm. In Genes. 3:76) that Dionysius in his commentary refuted the allegorical interpretation of leather garments and other objects in Paradise. But the surviving passages show that the author of the Commentary was much more inclined to an allegorical interpretation than to a literal one. It is very likely that the Commentary was written by Dionysius before he assumed the episcopal see.
As for the other exegetical works of Dionysius, neither Eusebius nor any other reliable witness mentions them. The manuscripts, especially the catenas, provide exegetical passages that bear the inscription Διονύσιου and are therefore appropriated to Saint Dionysius of Alexandria. But most of them undoubtedly belong to much later authors - there were bishops in Alexandria with the name Dionysius in subsequent times.
On the other hand, the exegetical fragments that actually belong to Dionysius of Alexandria may not be taken from biblical commentaries, but from other treatises or letters. In particular, five fragments of a commentary on the book of Job are known under the name of Dionysius, preserved in catenas on the book of Job, which are usually attributed to Nikita, Metropolitan of Irakli, 11th century. But one fragment is borrowed from Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite and Basil the Great; the remaining four are doubtful in their authenticity; in any case, the question of whether they belonged to Dionysius of Alexandria remains open. The same difficulty arises when deciding whether the passages representing a commentary on Luke belong to Saint Dionysius. 22:42 ~ff., on Acts. 5:4, Rom 11:26, on the Epistle of James, Rev 22:3.
5) Eusebius mentions (Hist. eccl., 6:26) the treatise of Saint Dionysius “On Temptations” (Περì πεψασμών), directed to Euphranor. No other information about this work has been preserved, and therefore it is impossible to even say what kind of temptations - whether internal stimulation to sin, or external suffering - the Alexandrian saint wrote about in them.
6) A significant section of the works of Saint Dionysius consists of letters, which all date back to the time of his episcopal ministry. They testify to the keen interest he showed in church issues, his administrative tact and talent, and the authority he enjoyed far beyond the borders of Alexandria and Egypt. But this section of the literary works of Saint Dionysius also suffered a sad fate: only two letters have survived in their entirety, fragments from others have reached us, and most are known only by their titles.
A whole group of Epistles was written by Saint Dionysius on the issue of attitude towards those who fell during the persecution of Decius; for the most part they are inscribed: “On repentance” (Περì μετανοίας), compiled at approximately the same time (251–252) and have almost the same content. These include Messages:
b) To Conon, Bishop of Hermopolis,
c) To the Alexandrian flock,
d) To the Laodicean brothers,
Of all these Epistles, only the Epistle to Konon has preserved a passage in which Saint Dionysius recommends a philanthropic attitude to those in mortal danger.
Closely related to the Epistles on the Fallen are a number of Epistles written on the occasion of the Novatian schism:
a) “To Novatian in Rome,” very likely as a response to his message about joining the Roman episcopal see (in the year 251) with a request not to lead to a schism in the Church and an exhortation to convince and force the brothers to return to unity, or at least to save their own soul. Apparently the whole letter was preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:45),
b) “To the Roman Confessors,” who “continued to favor the opinion of Novatus” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:46) – has not survived;
c) “To Favius” - to the Bishop of Antioch, written probably in 252, with the aim of discouraging him from sympathy with Novatian. Quite significant fragments from this Epistle are given by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:41, 42, 44); in them Dionysius reports on the persecution of Christians in Alexandria, the suffering of martyrs and the falling away from the faith;
d) To Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, in response to his letter about Novatian. Written after the death of Favius, therefore in 253. Apart from one phrase about the death of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:46), nothing has survived from this Epistle.
e) Romans about peace (Περì εἰρήνης),
f) To the Romans about the office of deacon (?) through Hippolytus (ἐπιστολὴ διακονική διà Ἰ ππολύτου);
g) To the Roman confessors, when they returned to the Church, two letters. We find only a mention of the last four Epistles in Eusebius.
On the question of the validity of heretical baptism, Dionysius wrote the following Epistles:
a) To Stephen, Bishop of Rome, in response to Stephen’s Epistle to him with a message about his intention to break off communion with the Churches of Asia Minor - an excerpt from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6:5),
b) To Sixtus, Bishop of Rome - three passages from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:5-6);
c) To the Roman presbyter Philemon - three passages from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:7);
d) To Dionysius, presbyter of Rome;
e) To Sixtus, Bishop of Rome - an excerpt from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9);
f) To Sixtus and the Roman Church;
g) Two short Epistles to the Roman presbyters Philemon and Dionysius.
In all these Epistles, as far as can be judged from Eusebius’ reports about them, Dionysius speaks in favor of the Church world, without touching on the principled side of the issue and without expressing his own view on the subject of the dispute; Apparently, he was inclined to believe that for the sake of the peace of the Church, each Church should remain with the custom established in It.
A special group of letters from Saint Dionysius consists of the so-called “Easter Epistles” (ἐπιστολαì ἐορταστικαί). It is not known from what time the custom was established that the bishops of the Alexandrian Church annually after the feast of Epiphany wrote Epistles to the bishops and Churches of the Egyptian province under their jurisdiction, in which they indicated the day of Easter and the beginning of Lent, and also, taking advantage of this circumstance, addressed appropriate admonitions or made other necessary messages.
The oldest such Epistles, about which news has been preserved, are the Epistles of St. Dionysius. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7:20), Dionysius wrote several of these Epistles, of which the following are mentioned:
a) To Domitius and Didimus, probably bishops of the province; written, one might think, before Easter of the year 251, from solitude in Libya (Eusebius incorrectly attributed it to the reign of Valerian). Passages in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7:11) contain an account of the martyrs at Alexandria, the imprisonment, release and flight of Dionysius himself.
In addition, in the same Epistle the Easter canon was set out for eight years and it was determined that the celebration of Easter should not be celebrated otherwise than after the spring equinox (Hist. eccl., 7:20);
b) The letters to Josephus, to the presbyters of Alexandria and to other unnamed persons are known only by title (Hist. eccl., 7:20);
c) the Epistles to the Alexandrians, to the Egyptian Bishop Hierax, excerpts of which are given by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 7:21), contain messages about the internecine war in Alexandria and were written, therefore, before Easter of the year 262;
d) The further Epistle to the Alexandrians depicts the disasters in Alexandria during the pestilence (Hist. eccl., 6:22), therefore, before Easter of the 263rd year;
e) In addition, with the establishment of calm in the city, Dionysius sent his Epistle to the Egyptian brothers, and then wrote several other different Epistles;
f) In the Epistle to Hermammon and the Egyptian brothers, written in. the ninth year of the reign of Gallienus, that is, probably before Easter of the year 262, Dionysius personally discussed the evil of Decius and his successors and mentions the peace under Gallienus - passages in Eusebius (7: 1, 10, 79, 23). The Paschal Epistles of Dionysius were collected into a collection and arranged in a certain order - this is indicated by a quotation in the Sacra Parallela.
Regarding the heresy of Sabellius, Dionysius wrote the following Epistles:
a) To Ammon, bishop of the Berenice Church,
b) To Telesphorus and Euphranor,
b) To Ammon and Euporus - this Epistle gave rise to the accusations of Dionysius before the Bishop of Rome, to the correspondence between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome and the compilation of the work “Reproof and Justification.” None of these Epistles has survived to our time, with the exception of a small excerpt from the Epistle to Ammon and Euphranor - but even in this passage the words of Saint Dionysius are cited in the transmission of the Arians, who found in this Epistle confirmation of the main provisions of their false teaching; however, Saint Athanasius confirms that the Epistle of Saint Dionysius actually contained the words attributed to him.
From other Epistles of Saint Dionysius we know:
a) Epistle to Bishop Germanus, who accused Saint Dionysius of cowardice and betrayal of his pastoral duty due to the fact that during the persecution of Decius he escaped by flight, and when the persecution of Valerian began, he did not hold the usual meetings of believers in such cases for consolation and cared more about his own well-being than about his flock. Two groups of fragments from the Epistle of Saint Dionysius concerning these accusations are preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (6:40~and 7:11); in them he gives information about his position at various times of his bishopric. The first group of fragments refers to what happened at the very beginning of the Decius persecution. Here Dionysius tries to show that they did not discover any reprehensible haste in flight and that only Divine Providence saved him from imprisonment and possible suffering.
The second group of fragments dates back to the time of the persecution of Valerian (in the year 257). These passages are very important in that Dionysius cites excerpts from official interrogation reports. The exile of Saint Dionysius followed so quickly that he did not have time to do or not do meetings; however, in both places of exile, meetings were held and Divine services were celebrated, and thus he continued to fulfill his episcopal duty.
b) To Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolis Churches (Cyrenaica), Dionysius wrote several Epistles (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:22 ~ and Hier. De vir. ill., 69). One of these Epistles has been preserved in its entirety, due to the fact that in its content it is canonical and, adopted by the Trullo Council, is included in the canonical collections of the rules of the holy Apostles, Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers. The date of this Epistle is unknown - most likely, it was written upon the return of Dionysius to Alexandria in the year 262. Particularly interesting in this Epistle is that part of it that made up the first. Basilides asked Dionysius at what time to stop the pre-Easter fast.
Some of the brothers, in accordance with Roman practice, waited for the rooster to crow, others broke the fast earlier. Dionysius replies that it is impossible, on the basis of the Gospel narratives, to establish the exact hour of the Resurrection of the Lord: their analysis leads Dionysius only to the conclusion that the Resurrection occurred at a very early hour. In view of this, Saint Dionysius can only give this advice: he does not approve of anyone who is in too much of a hurry and leaves the fast even shortly before midnight, as inattentive and intemperate; and those who want to be the last to break the fast, endure the most and endure until the fourth watch, he approves as courageous and hardworking; As for those who leave the post in the middle between them in accordance with their location or strength, he does not want to overburden them.
Saint Dionysius could not take personal part in the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (264–265) and sent a letter to the Antiochian Church in which he outlined his view of the teachings of the heretic (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:27). The fathers of the Second Council of Antioch appended a copy of this Epistle to their district Epistle (ibid., 7:30). But this Message has not survived. The Epistle to Paul of Samosata, known with the name of Dionysius, with ten questions from Paul and the same number of answers from Dionysius, is recognized as a monument of later origin from Apollinarian or Monophysite circles.
d) The Epistles are known by name only or in the most insignificant passages: to Origen on martyrdom (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:46); to Theoteknus, Bishop of Caesarea, written after the death of Origen - a grateful dedication to his memory (Steph. Gob. see Phot. Bibl., cod. 232); to Aphrodisius and about marriage (in Sacra Parallela); about Saturday; about exercise (περì γυμνασίου) (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:22).
1. 2. Notes on the Theology of Saint Dionysius
Having set out in detail the correspondence of Saint Dionysius of Alexandria with Dionysius of Rome, in which the essential content of his Trinitarian views is expressed, it remains only to make a few remarks about the general character of the Theology of this most famous successor of Origen in the Alexandrian school.
Dionysius of Alexandria, undoubtedly, in his theological convictions stood entirely on the basis of the views of his great teacher and in his Epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius with sharp consistency developed the so-called left order of Origen's views, emphasizing against Sabellius the moment of the Hypostatic separateness of Divine persons with the help of pronounced subordinationism. True, Dionysius of Rome understood the expression of Dionysius of Alexandria too roughly, since in the mind of the latter, like Origen, these expressions did not exclude the idea of the essential affinity of the Son with the Father, and even calling the Son a creature in Dionysius of Alexandria did not mean what was put into this term by Western theologians, who understood it in a too literal - not philosophical sense, as “very great blasphemy.” But the general tone of the Theology of Dionysius of Alexandria, which actually obscures the consubstantiality of the Divine persons, was correctly understood by the right-thinking Alexandrians and Western bishops.
However, even in his justification, Dionysius of Alexandria did not actually change his views at all: he, as he was, remained a real Origenist; but in the terminology of Origen’s Theology, he found the necessary data in order to dispel the accusations brought against him, and without essentially abandoning any of his thoughts, in his apology he only explains the sayings incriminated against him.
The accusation and defense of Saint Dionysius of Alexandria have an important dogmatic-historical significance in the sense that it shows the discovery in Alexandria itself in the second half of the 3rd century of two currents - the church-traditional one with its exclusive interest in the moment of the unity of the Father and the Son and with the characteristic term ὁμοούσιος and the scientific-philosophical one, with its interest in the subordinate difference of Hypostases. These two trends developed in parallel in the following decades.
The dispute about the expressions made by Saint Dionysius in the Epistle to Ephranorus and Ammonius did not end during his lifetime: it also arose in the 4th century due to the fact that the Arians and Anomies referred to them in confirmation of their teachings. Two great fathers of the 4th century had to speak out on this issue - St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Basil the Great. The first wrote a whole essay: “About Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, namely, that he, like the Council of Nicea, thinks against the Arian heresy, and in vain the Arians slander him, as if he were of the same mind with them,” in which Orthodoxy decisively defends him.
Saint Basil judged him differently. In a letter to Maximus the Philosopher (Er. 9:2), he writes: “As for the writings of Dionysius... my opinion about them is this. I don’t praise everything from Dionysius, but I reject everything else, because, as far as I know, he was almost the first to provide people with the seeds of this wickedness, which caused so much noise - I’m talking about the teaching of the Anomeans. And I believe the reason for this is not his crafty intention, but a strong desire to challenge Sabellius. I usually liken him to a gardener who begins to straighten the curvature of a young plant, and then, not knowing moderation in the straightening, 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, through his excessive jealousy, without noticing it, he is involved in the opposite evil. It would be enough to prove to him only that the Father and the Son are not 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 sameness 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 the Hypostases, then he accepts it when he defends himself against his co-name.”
In the same letter, Saint Basil says that about the Holy Spirit, Dionysius used words less appropriate for the Spirit, excludes it from the worship of the Divine and classifies it with some kind of earthly, created and servile nature. Perhaps Saint Basil had in mind some expressions of Saint Dionysius that have not survived to us, however, the right-thinking Alexandrians did not accuse him of errors regarding the Holy Spirit, and Saint Basil himself, in his book on the Holy Spirit (chapter 29), cites the expression of Saint Dionysius as proof of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit.
II. Saint Methodius, Bishop of Olympia
The merest information has been preserved about the personality and fate of Saint Methodius: ancient news even disagrees regarding the place of his bishopric. It is now recognized as substantiated that Saint Methodius was the bishop of Olympus in Lycia; the manuscripts of his works and Socrates call him the bishop of Olympus (Hist. eccl., 6:13); Mount Olympus is also mentioned by Methodius himself (De resurrect. 2:23). The news that after Olympus he was bishop of Tire in Phenicia and died in Chalcis in Greece is reported only by Jerome (De vir. ill., 83) and appears to be erroneous. The mention by later writers of Patara as the place of the bishopric of St. Methodius (first by Leontius of Byzantium Desectis. 3:1; cf. John of Damascus, De imag. orat. 3) is also explained by a misunderstanding. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, does not mention Methodius because he was an opponent of Origen, although he knew him: Hier. Adv. Ruf. 1:11). Methodius was the first to challenge the extreme views of Origen from an ecclesiastical point of view.
This attitude towards Origen determined the attitude of later writers towards him: some severely condemned him, others praised him - each in accordance with his own view of Origen. Saint Methodius suffered during the persecution of Maximilian, probably in the year 311.
Saint Methodius was a prominent church writer of his time. But the archaistic form of his works was the reason that after the Council of Nicea they were forgotten and lost, although the name of their author himself was famous and often mentioned. The only work of Methodius preserved in the Greek original is “The Feast of the Ten Virgins”; Only fragments have survived from other works, and only the Old Slavic translation of the collection, apparently of all his works, perhaps in an abbreviated form, complements what has been preserved in the original text, and makes it possible to get a clear idea of the literary activity of this Father of the Church. Almost all of his works, in imitation of Plato, are in the form of dialogues and, despite their prolixity and verbosity, reveal the author’s wit, vivid imagination, dialectical subtlety and eloquence.
The following are known from the works of Saint Methodius:
1) The only work preserved in Greek (in many manuscripts) in its entirety: “The Feast of the Ten Virgins, or on Virginity” ).
The title itself shows that the work is written on the model of Plato’s “Symposium”, and Methodius’s dependence on Plato in this work is very significant; but Plato’s glorification of earthly love is here contrasted with the glorification of virginity. The Virgin Gregory tells Evbul (that is, Methodius: see Epiph. Haer. 64, 63) about a feast in the garden of the daughter of Philosophy, Arete, at which ten virgins glorified the virgin life. The work represents a conversation between virgins, each of whom, one after the other, makes a speech in praise of virginity. Each individual speech can be called an oratorical work, but in their combination there is a lack of mobility and vital freshness: they follow one after another almost without any intervals, and since their subject remains essentially the same, repetition is almost inevitable.
The speeches open (virgin Marcellus) with praise of virginity, which is called extremely great, wondrous and glorious, the nursery of incorruption, the flower and firstfruits of it, the only most excellent feat. The Earth is not able to produce this nectar - Heaven alone can exude it, for virginity, although it walks on the Earth, must be thought to touch Heaven.
In ancient times, man was not perfect and therefore was not yet able to accommodate what was perfect - virginity. It was left only to the Lord to teach the doctrine about it, since He alone, having come, taught man to march to God. The Lord accepted the flesh, keeping it uncorrupted in virginity, therefore, if we want to be like God and Christ, we must try to observe virginity.
But the appearance of virginity does not reject the marriage established by God; however, virginity must be praised and preferred, while marriage is permitted by the Apostle as a measure for taming the flesh, virginity is the state of the first person; it is the elevation of the entire human organism to the level of spiritual life, triumph over material life and the best gift to the Lord. The means to preserve virginity are: reading the Holy Scriptures, abstinence, humility, hard work, solitude.
Aretha recognized all the winners, but the most distinguished was Thekla, who sang a hymn to the Bridegroom - Christ and His Bride - the Church, and the other virgins after each stanza (24 stanzas in total) repeated the refrain: “for You, Bridegroom, I am a virgin, and I meet You with a burning lamp.”
2) “On Free Will” (Περì αὐτεξουσίου) is largely preserved in the Greek text (ch. 1–7, 5) in manuscripts independently, ch. 5-12 in Eusebius (in Praepar. evang. 7:22) under the name Maximus - hence taken into the Philocalia - significant extracts in Photius (Bibl., cod. 236) and numerous fragments in the Sacra Parallela.
In the Old Slavic translation, the full text came under the title: “About God and about things, and about autocracy,” which more clearly indicates the content of the work. In a conversation, an unnamed Orthodox Christian refutes the Gnostic dualism and determinism of the Valentinians, proving that along with God there is no and cannot be eternal matter, as the original principle of evil: there cannot be two uncreated things and the continuation of eternal matter does not make God free from involvement in evil, as its First Author; further, mutually contradictory elements cannot develop from a single simple matter. Evil is not an essence, but a quality, and it must be traced back to the abuse of free will.
The devil, who rebelled against the commandment of God, came to the knowledge of evil. He is God's creation, although God foresaw his fall; but He did not destroy it, so that good would be the free deed of man. Of all living beings, free will is granted only to man for the purpose of his highest purpose.
3) The short essay “On living and acting more intelligently,” preserved only in the Slavic translation, is in close connection in content with the previous work and seeks to indicate correct behavior worthy of a person in the changing circumstances of real life. Everyone needs to be happy with their lot; dissatisfied with his earthly fate, Methodius points to the highest goal of human existence, the impossibility of perfect equality and the need for diversity for perfection.
4) The great dialogue “On the Resurrection,” originally probably entitled Ἀγλαοφών ἢ περì ἀναστώσεως in Greek, was preserved only in fragments by Epiphanius (Haer. 64:12–62) and completely in three books in the Slavic translation, with the Second and The third book is noticeably shortened - however, there is reason to assume that Methodius did not complete this work according to the proposed plan (see Methodius, Decibis, 1:1).
The content of the work is a reproduction of the conversation about the Resurrection that Evvul, Memian and Auxentius had with the doctor Aglaophon and Proclus from Miletus, in Patara, in the house of Theophilus, who was elected by them as a judge. Aglaophon and Proclus, aligned with Origen, denied the material identity of the resurrected body with the previous body and defended the view of the body as a prison and a place of purification of souls who had fallen into sin even before their appearance on Earth.
Evvul, Memian and Auxentius acted as defenders of Church teaching. Since their opponents developed the view of Origen, the work took on the character of a special polemic against the Alexandrian teacher, from whose work (“On the Resurrection”) large passages are preserved here. Bearing in mind the nature of Origen's argumentation, Methodius cites logical and natural scientific evidence. Man is a spiritual-physical being and thus was created from the beginning by the hands of the Creator Himself; Therefore, the body is not the cause of sin and not the punishment for it, but as God’s own creation it is intended for immortality. Death, the separation of soul and body, is only a consequence of sin, and the body became mortal so that the sin that primarily dwells in it and which during earthly life manifests itself in the best Christian would be completely blotted out by death. Redemption brings with it the reunification of what was violently severed, the renewal and transformation of everything. Those resurrected will not be incorporeal, but “like angels.” Only the dead can be resurrected, but the soul is immortal.
The resurrection is everywhere confirmed by the Holy Scriptures: almost the entire Third Book is devoted to refuting the evidence of Origen from the Holy Scriptures. In this dialogue, Methodius undoubtedly uses the works of Athenagoras and, probably, the lost work of St. Justin on the Resurrection.
5) The dialogue “Xenon” mentioned by Socrates (Hist. eccl., 6:13) was also directed against Origen, which is identified with the work “On What Happened” (Περì τω ν γενητω ν), preserved in extracts from Photius (Bibl. cod. 235). Methodius here refutes Origen’s teaching about eternal peacemaking: God in His absoluteness does not need the world in order to be the Creator, and the beginning of His peacemaking does not contradict His immutability, nor does its actual cessation. The Origenist being refuted here bore, perhaps, the allegorical name of Centaur.
6) “On the distinction of food and the heifer mentioned in the book of Leviticus (sic. right. Numbers), the ashes of which were sprinkled on sinners” - preserved only in the Slavic translation and represents an allegorical explanation of the Old Testament laws on food and the law of the red heifer.
The first chapters (1–5) talk about the suffering of the righteous - the speech is caused by the memory of the misfortunes experienced by the author himself. In further chapters (6-15) in the explanation of Numbers 19:14 ~ff, the doctrine of true purity and the spiritual understanding of Christianity is revealed: the sprinklings given by the Incarnation of Christ cleanse not only the bodies, but also the souls, and are incomparably more effective than the blood of a heifer and other legal cleansings; the true heifer is the flesh of Christ, and the food laws were only a shadow of the blessings to come.
7) “On leprosy” (Περì λέπρας), preserved in abbreviation in the Slavic translation; in the original Greek only in fragments. The work represents a conversation between Eubulus and Sistelius. Methodius argues that the provisions of the Mosaic law regarding leprosy serve as a guide for Christian penitential practice; then explanations are given regarding the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, especially Lev 13:47 ~ff.
8) “About the leech mentioned in Proverbs, and about the words “The heavens will tell the glory of God” - preserved only in the Slavic translation. In this work, Methodius explains Proverbs 30:15 and further in the sense of indicating the spiritual serpent, which arouses lust in the soul and then gives a spiritual interpretation of Ps. 18:2, without establishing an internal connection between these texts. The work was written for Eustachius.
9) Jerome often mentions (De vir. ill., 83; Ep. 48:13; Ep. 70:3; Comm. In Dan. praef. et ad 12:13) the work “Against Porphyry” (adversum Porphyrium) - an extensive refutation of fifteen books of this Neoplatonist. Philostorgius (Hist. eccl., 8:13) placed it below the corresponding work of Apollinaris of Laodicea. Only the passages that are significant for defining Methodius' teaching on Salvation have survived.
10) Fragments of Methodius's explanation of the book of Job (4:25, 27–29, 38, 40) give valuable indications of his teaching on grace.
11) Theodoret of Cyrus and the “Sacra Parallela” preserved minor excerpts from the work “On the Martyrs” (Περì τω ν μαρτόρων λόγος).
The works are known only by their titles:
12) “About the body,” about which Methodius speaks to his friend Eustachius in the essay “On the Leech” (10:4),
13) “On the Ventriloquist” against Origen and interpretations of the book of Genesis and the Song of Songs are mentioned by Jerome (De vir. ill., 83).
Two conversations in Greek attributed to Saint Methodius are not authentic:
a) “About Simeon and Anna on the Day of the Presentation and about the Holy Mother of God”,
b) “On the week of Vay” and the conversation on the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, preserved only in the Armenian translation (in fragments).
The revelations of Saint Methodius about the last times are recognized as a work that appeared only at the end of the 7th century.
II. 1. Theology of Saint Methodius
Quite numerous works of Saint Methodius or fragments of them make it possible to sufficiently clarify the direction and content of his theological views. Saint Methodius was not a particularly deep thinker and theologian, but he was an educated writer, a lover of philosophy and natural sciences, a conscientious researcher and a sincere polemicist. He represents an interesting example of a theologian who is strongly influenced by Origen and at the same time stands in sharp opposition to the characteristic features of the theological system of the Alexandrian teacher, often turning against the latter what he received from him. He calls Origen a centaur and condemns his allegorical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, and yet he himself applies it. But Saint Methodius does not limit himself to denying Origen, but reproduces the ideas and theories of the Asia Minor school (Irenaeus, Melito), trying, however, to internally bring together the Theology of Irenaeus with the Theology of Origen.
In basic terms, the theological views of Saint Methodius are presented in the following positions. In his Trinitarian teaching, Methodius recognizes the full Deity of the Word, the Son of God, not a Son by adoption, but an eternal Son, who never began to be and will never cease to be the Son of God (Conviv. 8:9). However, in some places one can see features of subordinationism (De creat. 9, 11; Conviv 3:4, 6; 7:1). As for the Holy Spirit, Saint Methodius sees in it ἐκπορευτὴ ὑπόστασις, which comes from the Father, as Eve came from Adam (fragment IV, 2551, in Draeseke. Apollinarios von Laodicea. Leipzig, 1892.).
Almighty God, out of love, for the sake of people, created this world out of nothing. The world is not eternal, but since God was never inactive, then potentially (δωάριει) He was in God from eternity (“On Free Will” 22:1). He created it with His Word-Logos in time.
An essential feature of man created by God in time is freedom and immortality: he is autocratic, autocratic, has a self-dominant will and a spontaneous choice of good, since God created man for immortality and made him the image of His eternity (Deresurrect.1:36, 2; 1:34, 3; 1:57, 6; Conviv 6:1, 2; 3:17). Saint Methodius refutes the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and their fall into sin, which precedes their union with the body (Deresurrect.1:55, 4).
The Fall occurred through the envy of the devil (“On Free Will” 17:5; 18:4~ff), that is, man directed his freedom to disobey God’s commandment. But evil in man is not an essence, but a matter of freedom (13:5). And although the guilt for sin falls not on the flesh, but on the soul, nevertheless, the lusts rule over man through the flesh (De resurrect. 11: 4, 3). But evil in man is not immortal - God, out of goodness, established death (De resurrect. 1:39, 5; 38:1; 45:5; 11:6, 3). Death is a punishment for sin, but, like any punishment, it should serve for correction and renewal (De resurrect. 1:31, 3; 11:18, 4). Just as an artist breaks a statue damaged by envy in order to turn it into a mass, so God does when he allows a person to die (Deresurrect. 1:43, 22 ff.). Thus, bodily death in the economy of salvation is a means to restore a person to a state of perfect communion with God.
So that sin and death would not become eternal, and so that the devil would be defeated by the same one whom he deceived, the Word became man (Conviv 1:5; 8:7; 10:2). The union of the Word and humanity is the closest, σονενώσας καì συγκεράσας Conviv 3:5), and, however, Jesus Christ remains God and man, and the body of Jesus Christ is like ours, because it must save the body (De resurrect. 11: 8, 7). And after the Resurrection it remains real, as during the Transfiguration (Deresurrect. 3:7, 12; 3:12, 3ff.). Here Methodius perceives and reveals the main idea of Asia Minor Theology - the idea of leadership: Jesus Christ is the second Adam, in whom our humanity is renewed and united with the Word.
Having become the Head of humanity, its representative, Jesus Christ suffered for us and cleansed us with His blood (De cibis. 15:11, 4). He is our Helper, Advocate and Physician (Deresurrect. 3:23, 11), bringing us forgiveness of sins, truth and immortality, resurrection of the flesh (Conviv 6:6; Deresurrect.2:18, 8; 24:4; 3:23, 4, 6).
The work of Jesus Christ is carried out in the Church and by the Church. The Church is a collection of believers - this is in a visible appearance, but in Her mystical essence She is the Bride of Christ. Just as Eve was created from the rib of sleeping Adam, so from Jesus Christ, who lay in the sleep of death, came the Holy Spirit, from Whom the Church was formed. And we can say about the Church that She is bone of the bones and flesh of the flesh of Christ. For the sake of the Church, the Logos left the Heavenly Father and came down to unite with His Wife. He fell asleep in the ecstasy of suffering, voluntarily dying for Her in order to present Her to Himself as glorious and blameless. She receives the blessed and spiritual seed which the Logos sows into the depths of the spirit; The Church receives this seed and develops it, like a woman, increasing and cultivating virtue (Conviv. 3:4, 8).
The Church daily increases in greatness, beauty and number, thanks to the assistance and communication of the Logos. It descends into every individual person and is revealed in moral life. Christ, as it were, dies again in everyone and unites him with the entire Church, so that he receives grace-filled powers in Her.
So everyone increases. But each individual person can grow spiritually only by communing with the Church: “the imperfect and just beginning the saving teaching grow and are formed, as if in the mother’s womb, from the more perfect, until they, having reached the maturity of rebirth, and then upon success themselves, having become the Church, will contribute to the birth and upbringing of other children in the receptacle of the soul, as if in the womb, inflexibly carrying out the will of the Word” (Conviv. 3:8).
The Church has special powers that regenerate people, and therefore she is in the proper sense the mother of all believers (Conviv. 3:81). “Those who are enlightened receive the features, image and courageous appearance of Christ; the image of the Word is imprinted in them and is born in them through true knowledge and faith, so that Christ is spiritually born in everyone. For this reason, the Church is in the womb and experiences the pangs of birth until the born Christ is depicted in us, so that each of the saints, through communion with Christ, is born anointed. Those baptized into Christ with the communion of the Spirit are made anointed, and the Church here contributes to the image of the Word in them and their transformation” (Conviv. 3:8). In eschatology, Saint Methodius is a conscious and sharp opponent of Origen, against whom he puts forward biblical and philosophical grounds. His eschatological interest is directed primarily towards the resurrection of the body and the state of glorification. He rejects the spiritual resurrection of Origen and teaches that the same body that we have in this life will be resurrected: man should not be transformed into an angel, but be immortal in what he is,
He, Methodius, also accepts the chiliastic teaching; he thinks that the world will exist for six thousand years, and then the righteous, having been resurrected, will reign for a thousand years with Jesus Christ before they ascend to Heaven (Conviv 9: 1, 5). Just as a person will continue to exist in his physicality, so will this world: by fire it will be purified for eternal existence.
III. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
At the beginning of the 4th century, a radical change took place in the external position of Christianity in the Greco-Roman Empire, which had the most favorable consequences for the internal life of the Church, giving Its members the full opportunity to concentrate all the strength of their spirit on resolving internal church problems. Not distracted by the external struggle for its very existence, the Church began to live a full life.
But this apparent calm flow of church life was not accompanied by the inner peace of the Church: a period of great dogmatic disputes began. They were a natural continuation of the previous work of theological life, and their broad and even acute development was an internal necessity, when the significant and formal differences that had gradually developed in the previous period in various areas of the Christian world freely emerged, opened up and collided with each other.
The struggle gave rise to an intense, extremely impetuous, lively and powerful movement of theological thought, which revealed a diverse creative activity, outstanding in its productivity and originality. Christian genius manifested itself with extraordinary power in various branches of theological knowledge, focusing primarily on what constitutes the very essence of Christianity.
Thus, the time has come for the heyday of ancient church theology: the strength of the external position of the Church gave it the opportunity for free and comprehensive development, and the fight against heresies provided abundant material for its work. New generations of church teachers appeared, enriched by the experience of the scientific activities of their predecessors. The theological works of this time remain guiding for all generations of Orthodox Christianity. Their great creators, who truly nourished their believers with their teachings, received the predominant title of “fathers of the Church.” The theological thought of the immediate period was based on the results of their theological work; She lives by them to this day, as if proceeding from the conviction that then all the essential questions that humanity can present to Christianity were posed and resolved.
The mighty spirit of Origen continued to have a strong influence on the course of theological thought: it can be said that almost all theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries worked more or less with the spiritual heritage of Origen, partly directly adjacent to him, partly becoming in opposition to his system and the direction of theological science created by him, but at the same time. at the same time inspired by his scientific ideals. Therefore, even the various theological movements of the 4th and 5th centuries are usually defined by their particular relationship to Origen. But already among Origen’s closest students and followers it is impossible to talk about the integral influence of his system, all the less possible now in view of the nature of the ensuing struggle.
The leading role in dogmatic movements until the middle of the 5th century belonged to Alexandrian Theology. But in this school there was no strict unity in direction; in it it is necessary to note several trends, or at least shades, observed even in Alexandria itself; they are determined by the individual characteristics of theological figures and the nature of their life relationships. Here, in the homeland and main place of development of Origen's speculation and exegesis, already at the end of the previous period there was a turn towards biblical realism and Church tradition. The “righteous” church Christians of the time of Dionysius the Great and Bishop Peter of Alexandria show traces of the gradual strengthening of that direction, which was called New Alexandria.
The exponent of this trend by the time of the Council of Nicaea is the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, the first energetic denouncer of the Arian error, who immediately correctly and clearly defined its essence and the consequences arising from it; he is an undoubted right-wing Origenist, who combined some aspects of the sublime philosophical system of the Alexandrian theologian with Church-traditional teaching. But the final imprint on the New Alexandrian direction was left by Saint Athanasius, the great father of the Church, tireless defender of the Orthodox confession of faith, the recognized “father of Orthodoxy.”
From the time of his clear appearance in the historical field until his death, he gave his life to the fight against Arianism, in which he acted as an insightful, unyielding, animated leader of the Orthodox. He was one of those strong natures who do not seek a fight, but never shy away from it. He clearly penetrated into the tendencies of his opponents and understood why he suffered and thereby won. To present in detail the life of Saint Athanasius means to set out the history of the struggle of Orthodoxy with Arianism over the course of the entire 50 years of the 4th century. Therefore, we are forced to limit ourselves to indicating only its main facts, in order to thus establish the framework of his literary activity.
III. 1. Sketch of the life of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
The main source of information about the life of the saintly Athanasius is primarily his own creations and mainly those in which he himself publicly gives an account of his activities, namely: “Apology against the Arians”, “Apology to Constantius”, “Apology about his own flight” and “History of the Arians to the monks”. Gregory the Theologian’s eulogy to Saint Athanasius (Orat. 21) is a panegyric with almost no biographical content, just like the Coptic eulogy to Athanasius preserved in fragments. The “Lives” of Saint Athanasius, which preceded the Benedictine edition of his works, are all of relatively late origin and do not have the value of primary sources. On the contrary, two chronological documents are very important: the chronicle of the Easter Epistles of St. Athanasius and the so-called Historia acephala.
The collection of Easter Epistles has come to us in incomplete form in one Syriac manuscript. In the title of each Epistle, precise marks are made, except for the Easter date and other chronological indications; then all these chronological prefaces were reproduced in another edition and combined into a whole preface to the entire collection of Epistles; in this other edition, which has come down to us in full, for each of the 45 years of the bishopric of St. Athanasius, the time of Easter celebration is indicated and all the important events of his life are recorded. (The Festal Letters of Athanasius. Ed. W. Cureton. London, 1848; Latin text cm. PG 26, 1351-1443; Syriac text with Latin translation by A. Mai. Nova patrum bibliotheca. T. 6 pars 1 Romae, 1853).
The Historia Athanasii, preserved in Latin, usually called Historiaacephala because it lacks a beginning, is a monument whose purpose seems to be the apology of St. Athanasius. He is distinguished by his great care in chronological calculations with precise dating by consulates and years of service of prefects and by his precise instructions to the day about the fate of St. Athanasius. This Historia acephala is found in the Latin canonical collection of the deacon Theodosius, preserved in Verona; published by Maffei (Verona, 1738) and reprinted in PG 26, 1443-1450, a much better edition by Batiffol (Mélanges de littérature et d'histoire religieuses, publ. a l'occasion du jubilé épiscopal de msgr. de Cabriéres, évequede Montpellier, t. 1 Paris, 1899. p. 99–108). As is obvious (and this is stated by P. Batiffol in Byzant. Zeitschr. Heft. 10, 1901, p. 130), other parts of Theodosius’ collection are connected with the Maffei fragment and borrowed with it from a certain, so to speak, apologetic dosscer, compiled according to the instructions of St. Athanasius himself, in the year 367 and continued until his death.
Moreover, say A. Gutschmid. Kleine Schriften. Bd. 2 Leipzig, 1889. S. 439 sq.), that both named documents - the Preface and the Historia acephala - stem from one source, which at first glance gives the impression of great care in chronological calculations, dating by consulates and years of service praefecti auqustales and its precise instructions to the day about the fate of Athanasius.
It is clear, therefore, that from the time the Easter Epistles with their Preface became known and the chronological indications of the latter, in connection with the dates of Historia acephala, were applied in Church historical science, the previous chronology of the life of St. Athanasius and the Arian disputes, based on Socrates and Sozomen, was superseded, especially since the dates obtained from the Preface and Historia acephala were in excellent agreement with chronological indications obtained from other reliable sources (the time of the exiles of St. Athanasius, the Roman Council of 341, the Council of Serdica in 343, not in 347, and so on). An ancient monument is also the Coptic Eulogy to Athanasius, belonging to a contemporary of Theophilus of Alexandria († 412), but it contains very little biographical material (O. v. Lemm. Koptische Fragmente zur Patriarchengeschichte Alexandriens // Memoire de l’Académie Imperialdes Sciencesde St. Petersburg. 1888. VIIsér. t. 36, 1 11).
Saint Athanasius was born in Egypt and, in all likelihood, in Alexandria. The date of his birth can now be determined with greater accuracy than before, thanks to the ancient Coptic word. According to this document, Athanasius was 33 years old at the time of his election to the bishopric. Now the question is when he took the episcopal see. In this regard, the opinions of researchers fluctuate between 326 and 328. If we accept the first date, then Saint Athanasius was born in the year 293; with the second date, he was born in the year 295 - the last date is usually recognized.
The sources do not provide information about the parents of Saint Athanasius - it is not even known whether they were Christians - they are also very stingy in reporting the childhood of the future teacher of the Church. The later glory of Saint Athanasius cast its rays on the early years of his life; hence the well-known legend that Saint Athanasius, while still a boy, during games performed the correct Baptism on some of his comrades, that Bishop Alexander, observing this from afar, called him to himself and declared Baptism valid, and advised his relatives to prepare the boy for church service (Rufin. Hist. eccl., 1:14). Of course, this narrative can hardly be seriously discussed, since, in addition to the surprising decision of the bishop, it encounters a chronological difficulty: Bishop Alexander took the see of Alexandria after Achilles, in the year 312, when Athanasius, even assuming a later date for his birth, could no longer indulge in children's games.
Saint Athanasius in his childhood and early youth was under the impression of the last great, general persecution to which Christianity was subjected - the so-called Diocletian persecution; its waves reached the native country and city of Saint Athanasius: Bishop Peter, among others, fell victim to the tormentors. The environment of Saint Athanasius' youth greatly contributed to his development into a very knowledgeable fighter for Orthodoxy. He was born and raised in a city which, as a focal point, par excellence reflected the intellectual, moral and political life of the Greco-Roman world. In Alexandria, where paganism, despite its approaching fall, had not yet completed its role, it appeared before him, embodied in the majestic temple of Serapis; here, year after year, Osiris was mourned, Isis, Apis and Nile were worshiped. Alexandria was the spiritual center of culture, science and learning. It was a wonderful place of trade and was distinguished by its vibrant industry.
With Saint Gregory the Theologian (Orat. 21), it must be recognized as natural and self-evident that Saint Athanasius received a good modern education, although not as broad and deep as the great Cappadocian fathers later possessed. His creations, especially the early ones, provide undoubted evidence of the kind of education that was given for the most part to children and young men of the best classes.
But Saint Athanasius was one of those rare individuals who receive incomparably more from their own natural gifts than from the accidents of origin or situation. At the same time, there is no doubt that even in his early youth he was instructed in the truths of the Orthodox Faith according to the traditions of the Alexandrian school and studied the Holy Scriptures. In the words of Gregory the Theologian, he knew more of his books than another person knows even one of them; By tirelessly reading the works of the fathers and teachers of the Church of the previous time, he developed in himself a subtle and correct understanding of the deepest truths of Christianity. Early on, Saint Athanasius entered into close personal relationships with Saint Anthony and other ascetics of Egypt and Libya, as evidenced by the opening words of the biography of Saint Anthony.
When Saint Athanasius became a youth, the state of affairs in the world Empire quickly changed. From the political unrest that followed the removal of Diocletian from the affairs of government, the autocratic rule of Constantine the Great arose, and Christianity, from persecuted and suppressed, first became a recognized religion, along with paganism, so that by the end of the life of Saint Athanasius it became the state religion. But the Church had to enter into a struggle of a different kind, which excited the minds and divided for a long time not only theologians, and which forced the Emperors to constantly devote their attention to it; it was a struggle not about theological subtleties, but about the vital interests of Christian humanity: the question was about what place in the economy of faith should be given to Christ.
According to the state of theological and philosophical views - as they developed towards the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th century - this question fell into several particular ones, from which, over time, new questions grew: if the Word of God, the Logos, really exists, then in what relation does He stand to God? to one God? Is He not an integral part of the Divine essence? or He is only a creation, like people - true, infinitely higher, but nevertheless a creation created by the free will of God. If He is of exactly the same essence as God, then is there any room for difference and is the dignity of God and the Almighty not violated if such a being stands next to Him? And further, if the Word is a creation and He must nevertheless be worshiped, then wouldn’t this be the deification of the creature? Isn’t the old pagan polytheism, which was so feared, penetrating into the Church at the same time?
These questions troubled many hearts and were on the lips of many. But they received an acute presentation precisely in Alexandria, in the Arian heresy that arose here. Saint Athanasius, as a result of this very beginning, was brought face to face with Arianism and remained the leader of the fighters against it until the end of his days. He immediately came out with a very definite view of the essence of heresy and the content of the opposite truths of the Church Faith. In his first works he expressed the main thoughts of his entire life, for which he fought and to which he achieved victory.
Very early, Saint Athanasius entered the clergy of the Alexandrian Church: according to the testimony of the Coptic word of praise, he held the rank of reader for six years. By the beginning of the Arian disputes - between 318-320 - Saint Athanasius was already a deacon; his name is among those deacons who signed the district Epistle of Bishop Alexander. He was close to the elderly Bishop Alexander: “Athanasius visited Bishop Alexander very often and was respected by him” (Apol.contraArian., 6), perhaps as his personal secretary and adviser; This relationship was the reason why Athanasius was taken by Bishop Alexander to the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. But they also created irreconcilable enemies for him even before the Council, and especially when “they saw the experience of his pious faith in Christ at the Council that met in Nicaea, where he boldly rebelled against the wickedness of the Arians” (ibid.).
Saint Alexander died shortly after the Council of Nicea - according to some, on April 16, 328 (the date is usually accepted and based on the Syriac Preface to the Paschal Epistles), according to others, on April 16, 326. Saint Athanasius was appointed his successor. How his election came about is difficult to imagine clearly in view of the discrepancies in the reports of ancient authors. Saint Athanasius' opponents argued that he was elected by a minority; as if after the death of Bishop Alexander, some, and then only a few, recalled Athanasius and he was ordained by six or seven bishops secretly, in a secret place. But according to the testimony of the 339 Egyptian bishops who gathered at the Council, expressed by them in the district Epistle (cited in the “Apology against the Arians”), during the election of Saint Athanasius, complete unanimity was shown, both among the bishops and the entire church province: “Nothing was said against Athanasius, they said everything wonderful about him, calling him a zealous, reverent Christian, one of the ascetics and in truth bishop" (6).
Obviously, pointing out the incorrectness in the election of Saint Athanasius was one of the methods of his Aryan opponents to fight him. His election was done correctly. But it goes without saying that Athanasius did not receive the votes of supporters of the Arians, Melitians and other schismatics. From that time on, the fate of Orthodoxy was almost identified with the fate of Saint Athanasius, who appeared as an indestructible stronghold of Orthodoxy during the most critical period of the Arian unrest, when Arianism threatened to suppress Orthodoxy by force and presented itself as a representative of the entire East.
The first years of St. Athanasius's reign were occupied by ordinary affairs: councils, pastoral Epistles, preaching, annual visits to the Churches of the district, and annual church duties absorbed his time. But from the very first steps of Saint Athanasius’ ministry at the See of Alexandria, he had to face opponents who played a sad role in his subsequent fate.
The Egyptian Church was torn apart by the Melitian schism and, although the Council of Nicea eased the path to ending the schism, there were still reasons for numerous disputes about the competence of the Melitian clergy.
As soon as Saint Athanasius became the bishop of the people, the Melitian unrest began, which was soon combined with hostile actions against him, caused by his decisive anti-Arian sentiment.
Soon after the council, Arianism intensified. By hypocritical repentance of their errors and ambiguous statements of their teachings, the leaders of Arianism convinced Emperor Constantine of their agreement with the teachings of the Universal Church and were returned from exile, and Eusebius of Nicomedia demanded that Saint Athanasius accept Arius into church communion. Athanasius refused, and the Eusebians directed all their forces to eliminate the hated enemy. The prelude to the struggle was attacks on the correctness of his election, and after Arius and his supporters refused to accept him into church communion, the struggle itself began. The Melitians, together with Eusebius of Nicomedia, brought forward a number of accusations against Saint Athanasius. Since it was dangerous to accuse on the basis of theological differences, so as not to come into conflict with the symbol approved at the Council of Nicaea, which had official meaning under Constantine the Great, it was necessary to focus on attacks against the personality of the new Alexandrian saint. They said that Afanasy
a) Burdened the Egyptians with a special linen tax in favor of the Alexandrian Church,
b) Delivered gold to the rebel Philomenes,
c) During the visit, Mareota sent his presbyter Macarius to the presbyter Ischira, once dedicated by Kolluf, and he, with the knowledge of Athanasius, attacked Ischira, committed a riot, broke the cup, overturned the throne and burned the books; in addition, they presented Saint Athanasius as immoral in his private life and a violator of the general church peace. Saint Athanasius went to Nicomedia at the end of the year 330 and so completely justified himself before the Emperor that the latter provided him with a letter in which he called him a man of God (Apol. contra Arian., 61–62).
But the Melitians did not calm down; they again raised the case of Ischira and brought up another more serious accusation: that Athanasius killed Bishop Arsenius of Ipsel; his severed hand, which they showed everywhere, was the main evidence. The emperor instructed the censor Dalmatius, his relative, to conduct an investigation. It did not produce the results desired by the enemies of Saint Athanasius, since the supposedly dead man, hidden by accusers in a remote monastery, was found alive in Tire and exposed by the Tire bishop. The emperor wrote a favorable letter to Athanasius, and this triumph forced the head of the Melitians, John Arkaf, as well as Arsenius himself, to temporarily and outwardly humble himself (Apol. Contra Arian., 65–70).
After a fruitless attempt to force Saint Athanasius to appear at the council in Caesarea in 334, the Eusebians managed to get the Emperor to convene a new council in Tire. The Bishop of Alexandria received a formal order to appear there and left Alexandria on July 11, 335. Fifty bishops subordinate to Athanasius went with him to defend his good name. At the council, the Eusebians took the position of judges, the Melitians - accusers. The whole situation of the cathedral showed in advance that the accused could not expect justice and impartiality. All the old accusations were brought against Saint Athanasius, in particular the murder of Arsenius, the refutation of which brought him a new triumph. Saint Athanasius interrupted the cry of the meeting about the deposition with a calm question: “Do any of you know Arseny?” After an affirmative answer, he brought a man whom everyone recognized as Arseny. Saint Athanasius raised both his hands high, one after the other, and said ironically: “I think, however, no one among you holds the view that God gave man more than two hands.”
But even before deciding his case at the council, Saint Athanasius left for Constantinople with some faithful friends to appeal to the Emperor’s own sense of justice. The council condemned Athanasius, deposed him from the pulpit and forbade his stay in Egypt, after which the members of the council went to Jerusalem for the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was performed with great solemnity.
At first, Athanasius was successful at the Court, but the heads of the Eusebians who arrived in Constantinople took advantage of the fact that the powerful position of the Bishop of Alexandria gave sufficient reason for suspicion on the part of the Emperor, and brought a new accusation against him: that he threatened the capital with famine by stopping the supply of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. The emperor did not heed the excuses of the accused and expelled Saint Athanasius to Trier in Gaul. This was at the end of the year 335.
It is difficult to understand Constantine’s behavior in this matter: on the one hand, he condemns Saint Athanasius to exile, as if trusting the political accusations against him, but on the other hand, he did not allow the appointment of a successor to Saint Athanasius to the See of Alexandria, which could not have happened if he had taken seriously the condemnation of him by the Eusebians in Tire.
There was unrest in Alexandria. The people did not stop demanding the bishop back and even organized demonstrations in churches. The famous hermit Anthony wrote to the Emperor several times, but it was all in vain.
In Trier (Trevs), where Saint Athanasius arrived on November 6, 335, he was met with great favor by the Emperor's eldest son Constantine and Bishop Maximin. Despite the enormous distance, Saint Athanasius was in constant communication with his friends and believers of Alexandria through correspondence; his tenth Easter Epistle, written in the year 337, before returning to Alexandria, shows with what sense of faith, tenderness and Christian heroism the exiled shepherd supported and cared for his flock. And the flock remained faithful to their rightful shepherd: all the efforts of the Eusebians to introduce Arius into church communion in Alexandria were dashed by the threatening hostility of the Orthodox in Alexandria.
Arius died in Constantinople under extremely dramatic circumstances in 336. The death of the Emperor himself followed on May 22, 337. Soon Saint Athanasius was returned from exile by Constantine the Younger. He left Trier with a letter from Constantine the Younger, who sympathized with him, to the Alexandrians, dated June 17, 337. He made his journey through Pannonia, had an audience with Emperor Constantius in Mysia, passed through Syria and returned to Alexandria, in the presence of popular cliques, on November 23, 337. His absence lasted 2 years and 4 months.
The ruler of the Eastern half, Constantius, from the very beginning of his reign, fell under the influence of representatives of a theological direction hostile to Saint Athanasius; in addition, such a person as Athanasius, in such a high position as the episcopal see in Alexandria, was a speck in his eye. This was the basis for the enemies of Saint Athanasius in their further plans against him. The Melitians and Arians, excited by the energetic course of action of Saint Athanasius and encouraged by the elevation of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the episcopal see of Constantinople, again began hostile actions against Saint Athanasius. Not content with the old accusations, they brought up new ones: Athanasius, by his return to Alexandria, caused unrest and shedding of blood; he ascended to the throne only by order of the Emperor, without a resolution of the council.
The Arians even consecrated a new bishop in Alexandria - the Arian Pistus - then they sent an embassy to the Roman Bishop Julius, with the aim of presenting to him their accusations against Athanasius and asking for official recognition of their candidate. But Julius entered into communication with the accused. Saint Athanasius convened a council in Alexandria, consisting of almost a hundred bishops and writing an Epistle, which reveals the complete inconsistency of the accusations and the innocence of Saint Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian., 3-19). Meanwhile, the Eusebians, at a council in Antioch, at the end of January or beginning of February 340, installed Gregory the Cappadocian bishop of Alexandria. On the 23rd of March he entered Alexandria under cover of civil and military force; his accession to the department was accompanied by incredible cruelty and violence.
Saint Athanasius left Alexandria on March 19, four days before Gregory arrived there, and hid for some time in the outskirts of Alexandria. Then, after Easter (April 15th), he went to Rome by sea.
Before the Council of Rome, which took place in the fall of the year 341, Saint Athanasius presented and defended his case and was consoled by the declaration of his innocence after a thorough and thorough investigation. For their part, the Eusebians, having gathered in Antioch in the summer of the following year, at the Council of ἐν ἐνκαινίοις confirmed the deposition of Athanasius.
The exiled man spent three years in Rome, where he enjoyed general sympathy and, in particular, the favor of the aunt of the Eastern Emperor Eutropia. His stay in Rome was also beneficial in that Western Christians were drawn more and more into the great cause, which they saw in some way personified in Saint Athanasius. In addition, the Western clergy was introduced to the idea of eremitic life, as it was realized in the Egyptian desert. In Rome, Saint Athanasius received letters from Alexandria, which saddened and delighted him - they saddened him with the message of new persecution of the Arians and consoled him with the fidelity and devotion of the Orthodox. In April or May 342, Athanasius was summoned to Milan by Emperor Constance; here he learned the project of the Western Emperor to obtain from Constantius the convening of a great council by the bishop of the two halves of the Christian world. Now the time of extraordinary activity of the saint began.
At the beginning of the year 343, Saint Athanasius first visited Gaul to consult with Hosius, and from there together he went to the council in Serdica. There, after reviewing everything that was said “for and against” Saint Athanasius, he was declared innocent by the majority of Orthodox bishops.
To publish this decision, two Epistles were compiled - one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya. For their part, the Eusebians, having retired to Phillipopolis, proclaimed anathema against Athanasius and the bishops who supported him. The Eusebians obtained from Emperor Constantius extremely strict measures against Saint Athanasius and the presbyters most devoted to him. An order was given that if Athanasius tried to appear in Alexandria, he would be seized and put to death. Under such circumstances, the exiled bishop could not think of entering into communion with his flock. From Serdica he went to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated Easter in 344, then to Aquileia, following the friendly invitation of Constance.
The fathers of the Council of Serdica sent two legates to Constantius with instructions to ask him for permission for Athanasius to return to his district. The threatening letter from Constance, which they carried with them, and the difficulties on the Persian border forced Constantius to show great restraint. Meanwhile, an unexpected event occurred that made Athanasius’s return to the See of Alexandria less difficult than it seemed a few months ago: on July 26, 345, Gregory the Cappadocian died, probably a violent death. Constantius gave in and began to persistently call Athanasius to Alexandria, calling him a man known to everyone for his righteousness and honesty. But only after the third Epistle did Saint Athanasius overcome his natural hesitation, left Aquileia, first went to Trier to see his patron Constans, then went to Rome, where Bishop Julius, rejoicing at his restoration and wishing to express his high respect, presented him with a congratulatory Epistle of the Alexandrian Church.
Saint Athanasius took the Northern road, in the middle of the summer of 346 he passed through Adrianople and reached Antioch, where he saw Constantius. The audience was gracious. Constantius promised no longer to listen to the accusations of his enemies and handed Saint Athanasius a Letter for the Egyptian bishops and the Alexandrian Church, for the prefect Nestorius and other officials, who destroyed the previous orders on measures against Athanasius.
During his stay in Antioch, Saint Athanasius did not want to enter into communication with the local Arian bishop Leontius; he took part in the liturgical meetings of the Eustathians. The emperor asked to cede one church in Alexandria to the Arians.
Athanasius had enough tact not to offend the Emperor and circumvent his request, making the condition of fulfilling it the provision of one church in Antioch to the Eustathians - the Arians did not accept such a condition. Maximus of Jerusalem presided over a council of sixteen bishops when Saint Athanasius passed through this city; he received him with honor and gave a letter of greeting to the Alexandrians. Finally, on October 21, 346, after an absence of more than seven years, Athanasius entered Alexandria. The people and civil authorities came out far to meet him and turned the entire further path of the beloved “pope” into a triumphal procession.
The return of Saint Athanasius to Alexandria was accompanied not only by the joy of the population, but also by a remarkable upsurge in religious and moral life (Hist. Arian., 25).
Saint Athanasius himself expressed his feeling of gratitude to God in his Easter Epistle of the year 347, which begins with the exclamation: “Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” After the expulsions and persecutions, a relatively calm period began, which lasted ten years and which Saint Athanasius knew how to use for the good of the Church. He first of all convened a council, at which the resolutions of the Council of Serdica were approved, then he decisively pursued a policy of firm prudence and prudent leniency, which had a disastrous effect on the Arian party.
Two or three years later he was already in communion with more than four hundred bishops; even his excellent opponents, like Ursacius and Valens, wanted to gain favor with him.
The death of Emperor Constance in January 350 by assassins sent by Magnentius deprived the Bishop of Alexandria of a powerful patron and revived the aspirations of the Eusebians. Vigorous measures against the Arians and Melitians, some of the initiations made by Saint Athanasius in his diocese, easily served as a pretext for new accusations. But the plans of Constantius, who was afraid of the usurper Magnentius, did not yet include raising the case of Athanasius again; he even wrote a reassuring Epistle to Saint Athanasius, in which he wrote: “We wish, according to our will, to be your bishop in your place at all times.” In the same Message, in another hand, it was written: “May the Divine protect you for many years, beloved Father.” (Apol. Ad Const., 23).
Meanwhile, it turned out that all the measures of Constantius, through the colorless formulas of the confession of faith, to bring the disputing parties to unity failed. Constantius turned to violence and expelled the most stubborn opponents of his plans. The defeat of Magnentius finally freed his hands. Then a new coalition was formed against him who, almost alone in the East, boldly held the banner of the Nicene Confession; the main leaders were: Leontius of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea, Ursacius and Valens.
Saint Athanasius tried in vain to prevent trouble by sending Serapion of Thmuis to the court, accompanied by Egyptian bishops and presbyters. Constantius was strongly prejudiced against the accused, and the death of Magnentius, in Augustus 353, gave him the opportunity to gratify his irritation. Again, various accusations were brought forward, mainly with political overtones. They recalled that Saint Athanasius was on friendly terms with the Emperor Constance, and announced that he had incited him against Constantius. The messenger came from Magnentius, who wanted to involve the great bishop in his cause - and the latter was declared an accomplice of the usurper, despite his loyal behavior in this matter. Later, in the year 354, for the sake of great need, Athanasius allowed the celebration of Divine services in a church built on Imperial land and not yet consecrated - this was interpreted as a new seizure and profanation.
They even went further than accusations: they tried to arrange a treacherous trap for him when they sent the Emperor a forged letter in which the Bishop of Alexandria asked permission to appear at court. Permission was given immediately, and Athanasius's refusal to make the journey, which he did not want and in which he saw the insidious plan of his enemies, caused new resentment.
In Rome, on April 12, 352, Bishop Julius, the faithful defender and friend of Saint Athanasius, died; On May 22, Liberius ascended to the throne. The latter’s letter, in which he invited Athanasius to come to him and threatened to break with him due to Athanasius’ refusal, is considered fictitious; but there is no doubt that the Eusebians sent to Liberius a statement of their accusations against Athanasius. Further events in which Constantius took part, showing violent actions, had to do with the Western bishops at the council in Arelate, at the end of 353, and at the council in Milan, in the spring of 355, then with Hosius of Cordova and Bishop Liberius, in order to encourage them to condemn Athanasius and enter into communion with the Arian bishops of the East.
Meanwhile, decisive actions were being prepared against Athanasius himself. Little by little, restrictive measures were taken against him personally or against his friends and flock. In the summer of 355, the Imperial notary Diogenes arrived in Alexandria, and on January 5 of the following year, another notary Hilary, accompanied by the regional governor Sirian, arrived in order to force the bishop to leave. But Saint Athanasius, relying on the word of Constantius, given after the death of Constance, demanded a written order from the Emperor. The denouement was carried out by Sirian on the night of February 8th to 9th with an attack on the Church of St. Theons, where Saint Athanasius performed Divine services with a large gathering of believers. By some miracle, Saint Athanasius, who remained at his post, was saved by a handful of priests and monks from five thousand soldiers who burst into the church and surrounded it. In vain did the Orthodox of Alexandria protest against the violence that accompanied or followed this attack.
Constantius issued an edict to find Saint Athanasius, and forced all bishops to break off communication with him. The episcopal see in Alexandria was given to the Arian George the Cappadocian, who arrived in Alexandria on February 24, 357.
Saint Athanasius hid for several days in Alexandria or in the surrounding area, and then went into the desert. Here he wrote: “Apology to Emperor Constantius.” He could not believe that the Emperor had any real part in all that had happened; At first he cherished the idea of appearing at court and even set out on the road, but, having learned the true mood and bloody intentions of Constantius, he returned to the desert. Pursued by Imperial detectives, he was exposed to great danger and had to change his place of refuge frequently. The monks and hermits of upper Egypt - all devoted to the one whom Saint Pachomius glorified so many times and to whom Saint Anthony, dying, sent his tunic - were the main instrument of Providence in the salvation of the great exile; most of them would rather be tortured than hand him over.
This period of life was the most painful for Saint Athanasius: Arianism was visible everywhere and completely triumphed; the majority of bishops - both individually and at councils - submitted to the pressure of the combined force of secular power and heresy, condemned Athanasius and signed Arian and semi-Arian symbols.
The scattered defenders of the Nicene teaching were deprived of the opportunity to act, and some of them did not withstand the painful exile until the end and with their fall embarrassed the conscience of the rest of the faithful. All the main sees were occupied by proteges of the Arians, and in Alexandria the faithful Christians were persecuted by the new bishop, an Arian. But always persecuted and always running away, the great champion of the Nicene faith did not cease to be the soul of the movement against the triumphant heresy. It is enough to glance at the list of works and their dates to see how much of them were written during a forced stay in the desert. He refuted the teachings of the Arians, revealed the illegality of their actions, encouraged the Orthodox and affirmed in them the true understanding of the faith. To encourage his flock, he even personally appeared several times in Alexandria, experiencing all the inconveniences of a secret stay in it and endangering his life. Meanwhile, the external victory of Arianism opened up the possibility of revealing internal weaknesses.
Having eliminated Saint Athanasius, the strict Arians began to express their teaching more openly, and then it was discovered that the Eastern bishops were under the leadership of the enemies of the Arians only through a misunderstanding. The majority of Eastern bishops, with Basil of Ancyra at their head, rebelled against Arianism in defense of the doctrine of the true Divinity of the Son of God, arguing that He is in everything and essentially similar to the Father (ὄμοιος κατà πάντα, κατ ' οὐσίαν ὀμοιούσιος ). Among Arianism itself there was a division into moderates - the Omians, who enjoyed influence at court, and strict - the Anomies. An attempt at a general agreement on the basis of Homianism at the Councils of Arimin and Seleucia (359) ended in failure: in the West there was clearly a mood in favor of the Nicene Symbol, and in the East - in favor of Homiusianism, and the forced signature of the Ohmic formula at both councils and the subsequent deposition of the main Homiusians and Anomians did not stop the discord.
Saint Athanasius correctly assessed the real significance of these disagreements and in his essay “On the councils that took place in Ariminum Italia and Seleucia Isauria,” he definitely stated that the Omiusians defend the Nicene Confession itself, disagree with it only in the term ὀμοιούσιος, but are not far from accepting the latter. This point of view turned out to be extremely important in the fight against Arianism, as the near future showed.
Emperor Constantius died on November 3, 361. Julian issued an edict by which the bishops of the "Galileans", who had been exiled in the previous reign, were allowed to return to their cities and provinces, in the hope that discord among Christians would increase from personal meetings of opponents. The See of Alexandria was vacant, since George the Cappadocian was captured by the people and then barbarously killed on December 24, 361.
Saint Athanasius returned to Alexandria on February 21st of the following year. Wasting no time, he set about establishing order in his Church, restoring general church affairs disrupted by the Arian policies of Constantius, and purifying the theological atmosphere. A few months later he convened the famous Council of Alexandria, which is of extreme importance in its dogmatic importance and its historical influence on the final results of the Arian disputes.
The condition of church communion with the Orthodox was only the recognition of the Nicene symbol and the condemnation of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit belongs to the number of creatures, although the old defenders of the Nicene Confession identified οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, however, the correctness of the terminology μία οὐσία was recognized at the council. τρει ς ὑπόστασεις, used by Meletius of Antioch, against the emerging Apollinarianism, it was proclaimed that the Son of God received in the Incarnation not only a body, but also a rational soul. Julian could not bear for long the enormous significance that Athanasius, “the enemy of the gods,” had, and on October 24, 362, Athanasius left Alexandria for the fourth time, consoling his friends that this fleeting cloud would soon pass.
Saint Athanasius sailed along the Nile and, having eluded the detectives sent after him, returned for some time to the outskirts of Alexandria, then retired to Memphis, and from there to Thebaid, where he was very solemnly greeted and cordially received by the hermits. He visited the island of Tavenna, studied the rules of monastic life, being interested in its smallest details. He retained the greatest memories of this visit, and when Abba Theodore, who met him, died in the year 368, he sent Abba Orsisius and the monks a letter of consolation and encouragement.
Julian died on June 25, 363, and took with him to the grave everything that he had undertaken and planned. With the accession of Jovian to the throne, the exile of Saint Athanasius ended. He was officially restored to his rights to the See of Alexandria.
In Antioch, he saw the new Emperor and, at his request, wrote a statement of faith (“Message to the Emperor”). Complaints against him addressed to the Emperor by the Arians of Alexandria and their leader Lucius were ignored. But Jovian died unexpectedly on the night of February 16-17, 364.
Emperor Valens, who had adopted Arian policies, issued an edict on May 5, 365, expelling all the bishops deposed by Constantius and returned by Julian. At this news, the people of Alexandria became agitated and demanded that the governor of the province leave the bishop. He promised to write to Valens, and the movement calmed down. But Athanasius, probably warned of what was secretly afoot, quietly left the city on October 5, and the next night the prefect and the military commander burst into the Church of St. Dionysius, where the bishop usually celebrated Divine services, and thoroughly searched it.
Saint Athanasius hid in the village “by the new river”, in the tomb of his father. But the regrets and cries of the people threatened with indignation, which is why Valens yielded to the Alexandrians and gave orders not to bother Athanasius anymore. He returned to Alexandria on February 1st, 366. Now began the last brief period of comparative peace, which ended his life, full of tireless struggle, anxiety and suffering.
The great Alexandrian teacher remained until the end of his life the defender of the Nicene Confession and the revered leader of the Orthodox of the East. He rebelled against the desire to replace the Nicene Creed with the Confession compiled at Rimini, convened a council in 368 or 369 and wrote the Epistle to the African Bishops. At his insistence, the Roman Bishop of Damasus, after the deposition of Valens and Ursacius, opposed the Milanese Bishop Auxentius. Saint Basil the Great turned to him with trust and respect when he decided to enter into communion with the West in order to establish Orthodoxy in the East. Athanasius, for his part, treated Saint Basil with respect and love and wrote in his defense “An Epistle to the Monks,” who were tempted by his prudent caution.
Saint Athanasius, against whom so many forces rose, who spent so many years in exile, often amid the greatest dangers, died calmly in Alexandria on the 2nd of May, perhaps on the night of the 2nd to the 3rd, 373. He ruled the Alexandria Church for 46 years.
III. 2. Literary works of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria performed great service for the benefit of the Church not only through his tireless struggle for the truth of Orthodoxy throughout his long episcopate, which brought him the veneration and reverent amazement of both his contemporaries and subsequent generations of the entire Christian world, but also with his numerous works. It goes without saying that such a turbulent life, with its constant anxieties, intrigues of enemies, persecutions, repeated flight, exiles to distant countries, was not conducive to systematic and concentrated theological and literary activity; it forced him to live practically by the ecclesiastical interests of the time and to use the scientific theological and philosophical element only to the extent that it was useful for his immediate tasks. Therefore, almost all of the most significant works of Saint Athanasius stand in connection with the circumstances of the modern life of the Church and the personal fate of the saint.
The works of Saint Athanasius experienced the common fate of literary monuments of antiquity. Neither Saint Athanasius himself compiled a list of his works, nor did any of the subsequent historians set out to list all the works of the great father of the Church. Therefore, at the present time we are unable to say exactly how many works and which ones were written by Saint Athanasius.
The main source of information about the works of Saint Athanasius are the inscriptions in their handwritten collections; but, on the one hand, not everything written by Saint Athanasius could end up in collections or retain the name of its author, and on the other hand, which in this case seems to have primary significance, works that did not belong to him could be inscribed with the name of Saint Athanasius out of ignorance, and sometimes even intentionally (Apollinarians).
Finally, the purity and fidelity of the tradition of the text suffered greatly: the Luciferians, Apollinarians, and Nestorians distorted the text of the original works of Saint Athanasius. Therefore, when printed editions of the works of Saint Athanasius began, at the same time the need for a critical study of them immediately became clear, and above all in relation to the question of authenticity, which continues to this day, but even now cannot be considered complete.
The best Greek edition of the works of St. Athanasius belongs to the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maurus (Maurinians); it can be called an outstanding monument to the publishing activity and scientific merits of the Benedictine Order. It was prepared by Maran, publisher of the works of St. Basil the Great, but executed and completed by Montfaucon (Paris, 1698), one of the most remarkable representatives of the Maurinian congregation. Montfaucon made every effort to give the text of the works of Saint Athanasius an exemplary form: he used all previous editions, studied all the manuscripts containing the works of Saint Athanasius, which the book depositories of Europe could deliver to him. The collection of works of Saint Athanasius, published under his leadership, contains everything that has been preserved with the name of this father in Greek and Latin: omnia opera, quae extant vel ejus nomine circumferuntur - therefore, all the works that exist or are in circulation under his name are not only genuine, but also forged.
All works that have come down under the name of Saint Athanasius are given in a carefully processed and strictly ordered form; they are divided into three groups - genuine (genuina), dubious (dubia) and spurious (spuria), and historical, philological and paleographic data are provided to justify this division.
The works recognized as authentic are arranged, as far as possible, in chronological order, the text is critically established on the basis of comparison of manuscripts, and the most important discrepancies are indicated.
In addition to a detailed biography of Saint Athanasius, the publication is equipped with a number of indexes and many historical and critical notes. Montfaucon continued his work on the study of the works of Saint Athanasius even after the publication of this publication. He discovered several more fragments from the lost works of St. Athanasius, which he published in his publications: “Collectio nova Patrum” (Paris, 1706) and “Bibliotheca Coisliniana”. These newly discovered works were included in the Second Edition of the works of St. Athanasius in 1777 in Padua (3 volumes in 4 books). The latest edition, with some additions and in partly changed order, is reprinted in the Patrology of Minya, where it occupies volumes XXV-XXVIII of the Greek Series (Paris, 1857).
Everything that was published after this under the name of St. Athanasius (Pitra, Analecta Sacra et classica, Paris, 1888) or was known before this and was missed by Min (A. Mai. Nova Patrum bibliotheca. Vol (2), Roma, 1844, pp. 357-382) is of no importance. But works of a literary critical nature, continuing to the present day, complement and correct the works and conclusions of the Benedictines.
The collection of works of St. Athanasius was translated into Russian by the Moscow Theological Academy (First edition in 1851–1854 and Second edition with additions in 1902–1903). The translation is based on the text of the Montfaucon edition with later additions to it. Only those works whose authenticity can be verified more or less reliably are translated.
The initial translation was produced under the editorship of Professor P. S. Delitsyn, known for his experience in translations. The Russian translation is distinguished by accuracy and clarity, for which purity of language and fluency of speech were sometimes sacrificed.
1) Among the works of Saint Athanasius, according to the usual opinion, apologetic treatises were written earlier than others: “The Word on the Gentiles” and “The Word on the Incarnation of God the Word.” Both works actually represent two parts of one apology for Christianity. This is directly indicated by the beginning of the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word”: “In the previous word, taking a little from much, but in sufficient measure, we discussed the delusion of the pagans regarding idols, their superstition” and so on (1); here the author repeatedly refers to the “Word against the Hellenes”, as standing in an inextricable connection with the second “Word”: “as it was said about this in the first word” (4), “what was said before” (11). "The Word Against the Hellenes" begins with the promise of offering a little about the faith of Christ; but this is discussed only in the “Tale of the Incarnation” - therefore, according to the original plan, both works in their content should have represented something unified.
In the first work, the author sets his task, first of all, to expose the ignorance of unbelievers, to show them that faith in Christ the Savior does not deserve contempt at all and cannot be considered devoid of a reasonable basis, so that, after exposing the lies, the truth will shine by itself, and so that for the addressee, whom he calls the most blessed, it will be certain that he has believed in the truth and, having come to know Christ, has not fallen into deception (1)
In the First Part (2–29), the author refutes idolatry, the source of which he sees in the sin of man, which turned him away from the true God to the sensory world and in detail and comprehensively proves the contradiction of idolatry to sound reason. The second part (30–47) reveals that there is one God, Whom the Christian religion worships. The truth of His existence is led, first of all, by the study of the human soul, which is the image of God, endowed with reason and immortal (30–34), as well as by observation of the visible world, contemplation of the amazing order and harmony in the Universe (35–39).
Further, having established that there must be one One by whom the world was created, preserved and governed, he proves that this Creator and Ruler of the Universe is the Divine Logos Himself, and depicts the nature of the Logos, His activity in preserving and governing the world, omnipotence, goodness and wisdom, adding that he who knows the Divine Logos also knows God the Father (40-45); all this is supported by evidence from the Holy Scriptures (45-47).
In conclusion, the author says that faith in the Divine Logos and piety will have the fruit of immortality and the Kingdom of Heaven, and the reward that follows the opposite path will be great shame and irresistible danger on the day of Judgment.
In the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word,” the author shows in the Incarnation the correction and restoration of the original work destroyed by sin. In order to return to man the principle of life and the knowledge of the one God, the Word became incarnate, died and was resurrected. He argues that the Incarnation was necessary, possible, and worthy of God. Part One (1–32) provides an explanation. reasons why He, who by His nature is incorporeal and is the Divine Word, by the mercy and goodness of the Father, for the sake of our Salvation, appeared in human flesh.
In Part Two (33–57), the author proceeds to rebut the objections of Jews and pagans. He denounces the unbelief of the Jews with Old Testament prophecies, especially carefully explaining Daniel’s prophecy about the seventy weeks (33–40).
Against the pagans, he proves that their various objections, in which they ridicule the mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, are unfounded, and he explains that it is neither impossible nor meaningless that the Word of God appeared in human flesh (41-45). Then, on the basis of the miraculous spread and action of Christianity, in which not human, but truly Divine power is revealed, he proves the Divine dignity of the Savior and the Divine origin of the Christian religion (46-55).
In conclusion, he exhorts the reader to read the Scripture for himself in order to learn the fuller and clearer details of what the author says, but warns that for a correct understanding of them it is necessary to lead a life similar to the life of those who wrote the Holy Books, and the inspired teachers who read the Scripture and became witnesses of the Divinity of Christ.
All known manuscripts of the works of Saint Athanasius and, following them, all editions of them, without any hesitation, assimilate the “Word against the Gentiles” and the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word” to Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria.
Until recently, there was no doubt about their belonging to Saint Athanasius and in pathological studies. Only at the end of the last century were isolated voices raised (V. Schultze and J. Dräseke) against the authenticity of these works, seeking to prove that they cannot have as their author Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, but were written by an outstanding representative of the Antiochian school, Eusebius of Emesus, around the year 350 (J. Dräseke. Athanasiana // Theol. Studien und Kritiken. Bd. 66, 1893, pp. 251–315). V. Schultze recognized the arguments of J. Dräseke as unshakable (Theol. Literaturblatt. 1893, No. 17, Sp. 191). But other researchers spoke out against this attempt. This unanimous condemnation of efforts to shake the established conviction that the “Tale against the Gentiles” and the “Tale of the Incarnation of God the Word” belonged to Saint Athanasius is based primarily on the evidence of the manuscripts containing both named works and assimilating them to Saint Athanasius.
Then their belonging to Saint Athanasius is certified by a number of church writers from the 4th to the 9th centuries. Such is the external evidence in favor of the attribution of both works to Saint Athanasius. As can be seen, this evidence is not overwhelming either in quantity or quality, and their significance cannot therefore be overestimated.
Positive additions to historical evidence are provided by those features of the works that give them a local Egyptian flavor. The author of the works constantly, first of all, points to Egyptian relations. For example, we can point to “The Word Against the Pagans,” where, to prove that not only every country, but also every city, every village has its own gods, he points to Egypt: “there is no need to talk about the vile Egyptian customs, they are before everyone’s eyes” (23).
He reveals an amazing acquaintance with an area that at that time was considered unknown - with Egyptian religion and mythology (compare Orat, contra gent., 9, 22, 24, 25 and Orat, deincarnat. 45, 47, 51). Therefore, we can say that both works were written in Egypt and primarily for the Egyptians.
The dating of both works is usually based on the observation that they contain no traces of the Arian struggle and the Nicene Creed. As for the first observation, it is not recognized by everyone as correct: they find (Karl Hoss. Studien über das Schrifttum und die Theol. des Athanasius. Freiburgim Br., 1899) in these works a slight polemic against Arianism. But the second observation can be considered completely fair and forces us to believe their origin is earlier than the year 325. It is impossible to attribute the writing of these works to a time after the year 330, because their author often with visible pride contrasts the many pagan cults with the unanimity with which Christians everywhere serve the One and the same Lord (Orat.deincarnat. 46, 49).
Such an instruction was unthinkable at a time when a fierce struggle broke out between the Orthodox and Arians and each party taught about a different Christ. This started in the year 330.
On the other hand, the fresh memories penetrating both works about examples of Christian martyrdom and the Christian joy with which the ascetics met death indicate their proximity in time to the persecution of Diocletian and his successors (see especially Orat. deincarnat., 28). These considerations lead to the conclusion that the “Sermon against the Gentiles” and the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word” were written around 320, perhaps shortly before the Council of Nicaea. If we accept that Saint Athanasius was born in the year 295, then at the time of writing these works he was about 25 years old.
The origin of both works at this time, that is, when Saint Athanasius was still relatively young, but was still a bishop of the Alexandrian Church and was not involved in the struggle for the purity and integrity of the Orthodox teaching, to which he later devoted all his strength and time, also explains those features of them in comparison with other works of the same author of a later date, which are pointed out as arguments against their belonging to Saint Athanasius.
Having recently completed his education, Saint Athanasius, naturally, in his first works, intended for pagans, abundantly applies his knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, as well as other philosophical systems, in observations of the laws of nature, in the works of Homer, and puts his thoughts into a school-rhetorical form, which is not observed in his later works.
Later, he devoted himself entirely to practical activities and no longer had time for studying nature and for the rhetorical construction of his works, for scientific studies of Homer, Plato and Heraclitus. In addition, the struggle with Arius and the Arians was not conducted on philosophical grounds at all. In view of these considerations, the authenticity of both works must be considered completely unshakable.
2) “On the words: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father...” and so on (Matthew 11:27), is a small treatise, perhaps unfinished, or a fragment of a large work, in which the false interpretations that the Arians gave to these words of the Lord are disputed, basing on them their teaching that the Son of God is not eternal and possesses Divine power and other Divine properties not by His very nature, but only by the will of the Father. The author understands them in relation to the Son of Man, His work and glorification. He proves the unity of the Father and the Son essentially with a text from the Gospel of John (16:15): “All things that are imaginary to the Father are Mine.”
As far as is known, there is no other evidence that this work belongs to Saint Athanasius, except for the evidence of manuscripts. But in its content and form it bears all the signs of origin from Saint Athanasius.
The beginning of the treatise, with its indication of those who adhere to the Aryan heresy, Eusebius and his accomplices, suggests its origin during the life of Eusebius of Nicomedia, that is, before the year 342.
3) “District Address”. In this work, Saint Athanasius talks about the violence carried out during the installation of the Arian Bishop Gregory the Cappadocian to the See of Alexandria, and describes the indignation caused by this. Saint Athanasius compiled it before his departure to Rome at a time when he was still hiding in the outskirts of Alexandria, therefore, a little after Easter of the year 340. (Gregory entered the city on March 23 of this year.) Its authenticity is recognized as indisputable.
4) "Apology (Protective Word) against the Arians" is a work of important historical significance. It contains an account of the history of the discussion of the case of Saint Athanasius by various councils and a narrative of the relationship of the holy father to the Meletians, Arsenius and others. In support, Saint Athanasius cites a lot of documentary data: the Epistles of councils, bishops, the Emperor - in the first part (3-58) from the forties of the 4th century, in the second (59-88) - from the previous time.
Saint Athanasius disputes and proves the complete inconsistency of all the accusations brought by the Arians personally against him in Tire and Philippopolis. The apology was written around 350, after the return from the second exile (40–41) and after the repentance of Ursacius and Valens (88), but before their second appearance in the year 351.
The last two chapters (89–90) about the fall of Liberius and Hosea were added later - hence the dispute about their origin from St. Athanasius. And the entire work does not raise doubts about its authenticity.
5) “Epistle on the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea.” The detailed title defines the subject of the Epistle as follows: “The Epistle that the Council of Nicea, having seen the treachery of the Eusebius adherents, set out its definition against the Arian heresy in a decent and pious manner.” The Epistle contains a justification and at the same time a history of the terms (οὐσια and ὁμοούσιος) adopted by the Nicene Fathers into the Symbol, explaining the meaning of the definition and the way in which they were led to the choice of especially the last famous term. The letter is important for the history of the Council of Nicaea. The authenticity of this work is indisputable and only its dating causes controversy. It obviously assumes the death of Eusebius of Caesarea (3) and Eusebius of Nicomedia (9).
In general, researchers are inclined to believe that it was written after the return from the second exile and during a period of relative calm; but Saint Athanasius foresees the imminent possibility of violent actions on the part of enemies (2). Based on this, it can be written between the years 346–355, more precisely around the year 350 or 351.
6) “About Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, namely, that he, like the Council of Nicea, thinks contrary to the Arian heresy, and in vain the Arians slander him, as if he were of the same mind with them.” There is no reason to assume that the work was caused by the fact that the Arians objected to the statement of Saint Athanasius, who ranked Dionysius in the work “On the Determinations of the Council of Nicaea” as witnesses in favor of ὁμοούσιος; there is no indication of this in the content of the work. It is more natural to assume that the reason for its composition was the abuse on the part of the Arians of the Epistle addressed in the year 260 by Saint Dionysius to the Alexandrian bishops Euphranor and Ammon.
Saint Athanasius asserts that his famous predecessor, using expressions cited by the Arians, speaks not about the Word, but about Christ, considered in His human nature.
Since Saint Dionysius wrote in defense of himself precisely against this understanding of his word by some Christians, which was adopted by the Arians, Saint Athanasius in his Epistle cites significant extracts from these writings, refuting the references of the Arians and showing that Dionysius thought about the Son of God in a completely Orthodox way and was completely alien to Arian opinions.
Since Saint Athanasius had at hand all the works of Saint Dionysius, now mostly lost, knew the actual meaning of his words and expressions and set forth the view of Saint Dionysius adopted by the Alexandrian Church, this Epistle is important for the correct assessment of the theological views of Saint Dionysius. This treatise was compiled at the same time as the previous one, in some cases a little earlier, in others later.
7) “Epistle to Dracontius.” Dracontius, the abbot of the monastery, was elected bishop of Hermopolis; he ran away and hid: Saint Athanasius wrote him an Epistle in which he warns against some who think to see in bishoprics the causes of sin or imagine that they will not find a subject for Christian renunciation outside of monastic life. Thus encouraged, the elected bishop accepted the burden of government and soon had the opportunity to become a confessor of the faith. The epistle was written before Easter 354 or 355.
8) “The Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya” was written by Saint Athanasius after he escaped the hands of the ruler of Syrian on the night of February 8-9, 356, in order to warn the bishops of Egypt and Libya against the plans of the Arians and, in particular, against any symbols that they intended to put into circulation and impose under threats of expulsion, explaining that in the newly compiled in the symbols of faith, under a plausible appearance, often under passages quoted from the Holy Scriptures, Arian wickedness is hidden; he points out their instability, special tricks in compiling and introducing them, sets out and refutes the actual teaching of Arius and points to his death as a manifestation of the Divine judgment over the heretic. At the end, Saint Athanasius calls on the shepherds to courageously endure all kinds of violence, to be ready to endure everything rather than abandon the Nicene Symbol and the defense of the truth.
This Epistle was compiled after February 9, 356, and before February 24, 357, when George the Cappadocian entered Alexandria, but when they were already talking about the intention to send him to Egypt (7).
9) “Apology to the Emperor Constantius” (Defensive speech before King Constantius) was probably written in the summer of 357, when Gregory the Cappadocian was in Alexandria, and had the purpose of refute the accusations that were brought by the enemies of Saint Athanasius before the Emperor Constantius, when after the death of Constance and the usurper Magnentius he became autocratic, and which led to the third exile of the saint Athanasius, namely that he:
a) During frequent visits and conversations with Constance, he incited him against Constantius and tried to create enmity between the brothers,
b) Sent letters to the usurper Magnetius to gain his favor,
c) In the great Alexandria church, built at the expense of Constantius, when its construction was not yet completed and it had not been consecrated, Athanasius allowed the solemn service to be performed, and
d) Having received an order from Constantius to go to Italy, where he himself intended to arrive, he did not obey.
With this part of the Apology, Saint Athanasius went to Constantius to personally defend his cause - he was not convinced that the Emperor was so devoted to Arianism and thought that the Arians allowed themselves to do a lot without his knowledge. But on the way he received such bad information about the intentions and deeds of Emperor Constantius that he was fully convinced of the unthinkability of personal defense of his cause. He again took refuge in the desert and supplemented his “Apology” with a statement of facts that initially seemed incredible to him (the exile of Liberius, Hosius, Paulinus of Trier, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercella, Lucifer of Calaris and others for refusing to sign the condemnation of Athanasius and the violent measures of Constantius, by which the rest of the Western bishops were forced to sign).
The apology is distinguished by a calm tone, full of dignity and strength of argument. In style, this is one of the best works of St. Athanasius. At the end of the Apology (30) to Constantius, Athanasius defends himself regarding the Emperor's mocking expression that he fled Alexandria out of cowardice. Soon he devoted an entire essay to this issue.
10) “Apology for his flight” (“A defensive word in which Saint Athanasius justifies his flight during the persecution carried out by the Duke Sirian”). Athanasius fled before the mercenaries; his enemies did not fail to take advantage of the opportunity to disgrace him, proving that out of cowardice he abandoned his flock when they were subjected to special disasters. The answer to these accusations was the Apology, which was highly respected by ancient writers and in language and style was almost inferior to its predecessor. Saint Athanasius with dignity exposes the true feelings of his accusers, proves that in certain circumstances it is not only permissible for a person, but directly and necessarily, to ensure his life and safety by flight, and contrasts them with the teachings of Christ, His example and the examples of the prophets and Apostles; then, going on the offensive, he forcefully depicts the wild rage of his pursuers and their sad deeds, and describes the circumstances of his escape, accomplished with the help of God.
This “Apology” was composed before the death of Leontius of Antioch, or at least until the time when the news of this death reached Saint Athanasius (compare Chapter 1), probably at the end of the year 357.
11) “Message to brother Serapion (about the death of Arius).” Serapion, Bishop of Tmuy and friend of Saint Athanasius, asked to be informed about the saint’s own trials and about the death of Arius. On the first two points, Saint Athanasius sent Serapion his work, compiled for the monks: “from this,” says Saint Athanasius, “you can learn what concerns me and the heresy.” This work can only be “The History of the Arians to the Monks.” Whether Saint Athanasius composed another work of a more dogmatic nature to refute Arianism and whether it is located among his works that have come down to us - these questions cannot be explained satisfactorily. In the Epistle, Saint Athanasius responds to Serapion’s third request: he tells about the death of Arius what he learned from the presbyter Macarius, who was in Constantinople during this event, and concludes that in the unfortunate fate of Arius there is no doubt that God’s judgment of heretical teaching was manifested in the unfortunate fate of Arius, which should encourage the Arians to return to the true Church.
12) “Epistle” and “Epistle of Bishop Athanasius to the monks” (“History of the Arians”). Two works internally related to each other, like the Book and the Preface or the accompanying Message. In well-known ancient catalogs they are usually designated simply: “Epistle to monks or hermits.” The title “History of the Arians” is not original, but it well denotes the subject of the book, compiled to satisfy the desire of the monks of Thebaid and not intended, according to its author, for publication. It is a condensed description of the Arians' persecution of the Orthodox from 335 to 357. In it, the author often expresses the feeling of indignation caused by the untruths of the Arians, which he witnessed, and the difficult state of church affairs, upset by heresy. The circumstances in which Saint Athanasius found himself, and the polemical goal that he pursued in composing this work, sufficiently explain why the calm and cold tone of a historian is not found in it.
“The History of the Arians” begins exabrupto: “But they, for what they built all this, in a short time brought it to fruition” - and then we talk about the Council of Jerusalem in the year 335. One might think that the scribes omitted the information that was already in the Apology against the Arians, as well as the beginning or the First Part of the work, because it repeated the Second Part of the Apology.
When Saint Athanasius wrote this work, Leontius of Antioch was still alive, and George the Cappadocian ruled the Antiochian Church, so it must be dated to the end of the 357th or the beginning of the 358th year. The message about the fall of the Roman Bishop Liberius (chapter 41) is considered a later insertion and raises the question of its authenticity, as well as the last chapters of the Apology against the Arians.
13) Four words against Arians. These four speeches or books (λόγοι) against the Arians are the main dogmatic work of Saint Athanasius, representing a complete and comprehensive refutation of Arianism and an exposition of the Orthodox teaching about the Divinity of the Word and the Holy Trinity.
Athanasius’s goal is to reveal the folds in the chest of the vile heresy and show the stench of its recklessness, so that those who are still far from it will flee it, and those deceived by it will repent and with open eyes of the heart understand that just as darkness is not light, and lies are not truth, so the Arian heresy is not good (1).
To do this, in the first book, he sets out the teaching of Arius on the basis of the “Thalia” and, first of all, emphasizes the novelty of it, contrasting the true and catholic teaching handed down by the fathers (1-9) and then proves by explaining the passages of Holy Scripture falsely interpreted by the Arians, and with the help of rational arguments that the Son of God did not come from nothing and was not created from anything, but is eternal, born from the essence of the Father - at the same time he explains the nature of His birth and its difference from humanity, and the various intricacies of the heretics are resolved (10–39).
In the rest of the part, as well as in the Second and Third Words, he analyzes and explains the passages of Holy Scripture that were perverted by the Arians and establishes their true meaning, while almost the entire Second Word is occupied with defining the true meaning of the saying: “The Lord created me”... (Proverbs 8:22).
In the Fourth Word, the author carefully defines the mutual relationship of the Father and the Son, proving especially that the Word is not a simple quality of the Father, not another principle existing in Itself, but the own generation of the Father’s nature, distinct from Him, but not separate, and refutes Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, although there is also talk of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Recently, the question has been sharply raised regarding the 4th word: they deny not only its connection with the first three, but also its belonging to Saint Athanasius. To prove that the so-called 4th word was not originally connected with the rest, they point out first of all that the 4th word is completely absent in some manuscripts containing the first three, and in some other works are adjacent to the 3rd word. In addition, in terms of its content, the 4th word is not required by the first three, but rather is excluded by them: in it the author gives a justification of Orthodox Christology, touching, on the one hand, the relationship of the Logos to God, on the other hand, His incarnation, and partly sets out what was discussed in the first words; but the main objection is not directed against the Arians - only chapters 1-8 are directed against them - but against other enemies of the Orthodox teaching; chapters 8-29 are against Marcellus of Ancyra, and from the 30th to the end it refutes the false teaching of Paul of Samosata and his adherents. Why the title itself: “against the Arians” does not correspond to the content of the 4th word.
But the 4th word not only does not stand in connection with the 1-3 words against the Arians, but, they say, does not belong to Athanasius. The assumption of J. Dräseke, identifying it with the “Book of Faith against the Arians,” which, according to Jerome (De vir. ill., 127), Maximus, a contender for the See of Constantinople, presented to the Emperor Gratian in 381, is recognized as having no significance at all; but the idea that the 4th word is not authentic is vigorously supported. The basis for this is the style, which, as they say, is of a completely different character: Saint Athanasius writes at length, and in disputes with opponents loves to refute their objections with great thoroughness.
Meanwhile, the author of the 4th word has one thought crowding out another; Therefore, the presentation is concise, the sentences are mostly short. With great dialectical skill, which Saint Athanasius does not achieve, the author knows how to bring his opponents adabsurdum. However, this difference in style is explained by the fact that the 4th word is only an outline or collection of materials and fragments for refuting the Eusebians and Marcellians; this is partly responsible for the astonishing conciseness - some passages give the impression as if the author only wanted to outline the train of thought of the argument (3) “the same should be said about the Son,” cf. also chapter 15 and others) this explains the fragmentary beginning of the 1st, 5th, 9th and 31st chapters. Although we must agree that all the features of style cannot be explained in this way.
On the other hand, the origin of the 4th Word from Saint Athanasius is supported not only by many parallels in thoughts between the 3rd and 4th Words, but even more so by the fact that the simultaneous polemic against the Eusebians and against Marcellus was not as clear among any of the Eastern opponents of the Eusebians as it was with Saint Athanasius. Under such conditions, one cannot categorically affirm or deny the authenticity of the 4th Word - it must be classified as dubia.
Usually the time of origin of the words against the Arians was believed to be between 356 and 361 - the third exile of St. Athanasius; but recently, some researchers, based on the text of the words and historical hints in them, have argued in favor of an earlier dating, namely in 338–339 or 347–350.
The words of Saint Athanasius against the Arians constitute the first experience of a detailed and complete analysis of the foundations on which the Arian teaching was based. The desire and need to reveal, as far as possible, all types of Arianism and not leave even minor objections to Orthodox teaching without refutation led to repeated repetitions that violate the harmony of the plan and the systematic presentation.
The clear awareness of the danger of the situation and the fiery jealousy of the author sometimes gave his polemics a harsh tone. The first experience turned out to be extremely successful. He is distinguished by: deep penetration into dogmatic truths with an unswervingly true, strictly ecclesiastical understanding of them, firmness and determination of inner conviction, awareness of the importance of the teaching being revealed, abundance, subtlety and clarity of thoughts, accuracy of expressions, extensive knowledge and deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures, the power of dialectics, simplicity of presentation. These merits of the Words against the Arians were also recognized by the contemporaries of Saint Athanasius - they were guided in their works by Saints Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. They are called the classic presentation of the doctrine of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and the source of Theology.
14) Messages to Bishop Serapion. Saint Athanasius wrote four Epistles addressed to Serapion, Bishop of Tmuya, during the third exile of the saint, between the years 356 and 361, perhaps in the year 359, after the Epistle on the death of Arius. The reason for them was a letter from Serapion, in which he informed Saint Athanasius that “some, although they have retreated from the Arians for their blasphemy against the Son of God, nevertheless think wrongly about the Holy Spirit and claim that the Holy Spirit is not only a creature, but even one of the ministering spirits, and differs only in degree from the Angels” (1:1). Saint Athanasius calls these heretics τρόπικοι, because they sought to find metaphors and images (τρόποι), and not direct speech in all those places of Holy Scripture with which the Orthodox proved the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, explaining them τροπικω ς. The First Epistle sets out in detail the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, revealing the teaching about Him in the Holy Scriptures and Church tradition and proving the connection of the new error with Arianism.
To Serapion’s request to more briefly outline the teaching about the Holy Spirit, so that it would be more convenient to give advice to those asking about faith and reject errors, Saint Athanasius responded with two Epistles, and prefaced the teaching about the Holy Spirit (in the second Epistle) with a brief presentation of the teaching about the Divinity of the Word on the basis that having knowledge of the Son, one can acquire good knowledge about the Spirit: “for what property have you come to know?” We are with the Son with the Father, the same property as we find that the Spirit has with the Son” (Er. 3:1).
The third Epistle briefly sets out the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Due to the fact that the second and third Epistles are so closely related to each other in content, they are considered one Epistle, which was subsequently separated by mistake. In their content, these two letters represent an extract from other works of Saint Athanasius.
The Fourth Epistle provides an answer to the new objections of the heretics regarding the Holy Spirit, who ironically said: “if the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then does it not follow that He is the Son and that there are two brothers - the Word and the Spirit”; or: “if the Spirit receives from the Son and is given by the Son, then does it not follow that the Father is the grandfather, and the Spirit is His grandson” (Er. 4: 1).
Saint Athanasius expresses the desire that in the teaching about the mystery of the Holy Trinity, incomprehensible to the human mind, what is taught by the Holy Scriptures and the faith devoted to the Church will be preserved unshakably, without the admixture of human guesses and conclusions. Then he dwells in detail on the doctrine of sin against the Holy Spirit, in response to Serapion’s question about the meaning of the text, that sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the next.
Having pointed out the difficulty of its implementation, he explains it as directed against those persons who would dare to attribute to the devil and demons the manifestation of Divine power in the incarnate God the Word.
Regarding the 4th Epistle, the question has been raised whether it originally covered all 23 chapters, as is now the case in printed editions. The fact is that in the manuscripts only chapters 1–7 are placed as the 4th letter, the rest (8–23), representing an explanation of Matt. 12:32 ~for the most part they are placed separately, and thus the handwritten Tradition does not speak in favor of both parts belonging to one work. In addition, in terms of its content, the Second Part does not seem to be connected with the First, therefore it is considered as an excerpt from another, perhaps also sent to Serapion, Message. The authenticity of all Messages is not disputed.
15) “Message about the councils that took place in Ariminum in Italy and in Seletskia in Isauria.” Saint Athanasius first tells about what happened at these councils and about the machinations of the Arians, as a result of which Constantius forced the Orthodox bishops to sign the Arian symbol, and then, regarding the symbols developed at them, he establishes a striking contrast between the firmness of the Orthodox faith, defined in Nicea, and the instability of all Arian confessions of faith from the beginning of the heresy to the various Seleucan formulas; for proof, eleven confessions of faith are given, compiled by the Arians in different places and at different times. This doctrinal anarchy can only be cured by a sincere acceptance of the Nicene Confession with its ὀμοούσως.
Saint Athanasius justifies this term, but at the same time reveals a conciliatory attitude towards the Omiusians, who, like Basil of Ancyra, “accept everything else that was written in Nicaea, but doubt only the saying: consubstantiality”; with them “we reason as brothers with brothers who have the same thought as us and only doubt about naming” (41).
The work was written at the end of 359, when the council in Arimin had not yet ended (55). Chapters 30–31, containing the Decrees of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, are inserted subsequently.
16) “Scroll to the Antiochians” - this conciliar Epistle to the Antiochian Church, sent by Saint Athanasius on behalf of the bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt and Libya, who gathered in Alexandria in the year 362, reports on the decision made at the council regarding the conditions for the admission of Arians to the Church.
A necessary condition for acceptance into the Church was recognized as the confession of the Nicene Faith, the condemnation of Arianism, the doctrine of the creation of the Holy Spirit, as well as all other heresies (Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, the Manichaeans, Euzoius and Eudoxius). At the same time, the decrees of the Council of Nicea were confirmed, the confession of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son and the perception by the Son of God in the Incarnation of a perfect Man, consisting not only of a body, but also of a rational soul, was expressed.
In view of the fact that the Orthodox in Antioch argued among themselves regarding the use of the terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, and the followers of Meletius spoke of one ου σία and three Hypostases, and the supporters of Paulinus recognized it necessary to preserve the consubstantiality to confess one only Hypostasis, the council, considering both thinking correctly and disagreeing only about words, he suggested to them the safest way - to use the expressions of the Nicene Symbol.
17) “Message to Emperor Jovian about faith.” In it, Saint Athanasius convinces Jovian to adhere, as the rule of Orthodoxy, to the Symbol of Nicea, confirmed by all local Churches, expounds the Symbol itself, ending with the confession of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and the consubstantial Trinity. – The message was written on behalf of the Council of Alexandria in 363 in response to the request of the new Emperor Jovian.
18) “The Life of St. Anthony” (365th year), described by Saint Athanasius in his “Message to Monks Sojourning in Foreign Countries,” probably to the Western monks of Italy and Gaul in response to their expressed desire to know how Blessed Anthony began his ascetic deeds, what he used to be, how he ended his life, and whether the widespread legends about him are true. Athanasius personally knew Saint Anthony from a young age and stood close to him; therefore he could write based on his own memories. However, he does not give a biography in the proper sense, but shows in the patriarch of the hermits an example of Christian perfection, briefly outlines his ascetic teaching and tells about his struggle with demons.
Saint Gregory the Theologian says (Orat. 21, 5) that Saint Athanasius, describing the act of the Divine Anthony, promulgated, in the form of history, the rule of religious life. This work was a great success and spread the ideas of Egyptian monasticism in the East and West. It is not without reason that the year 357, the third exile, is considered to be the time of its composition; some, however, attribute it to the year 365. Even during the life of Saint Athanasius, probably between the years 365 and 370, the life was translated (actually revised) by the presbyter Evagrius - who later became the bishop of Antioch - into Latin, and by an unknown person - into Syriac.
Both in the East and in the West, the work had a strong influence on Christian ascetic life, causing real enthusiasm for it.
The following people say that this work belongs to Saint Athanasius: Saint Gregory the Theologian, Ephraim the Syrian, Blessed Jerome and other church writers. But despite the numerous testimonies of Tradition, the authenticity and even reliability of the “Life” was subjected to strong attacks, and its historical character was completely rejected: it was seen as a tendentious work of already established monasticism. But other researchers, both Catholic and Protestant, defended the authenticity of the Life no less vigorously. The content and method of presentation speak for Athanasius. The teaching about faith and its actions, about demons, about methods of fighting the Arians, formulas for quoting Biblical books, etc., reveal a close relationship with the works of Saint Athanasius. And it is now argued (Schwartz) that only biased criticism can doubt the authenticity of the Life of St. Anthony.
19) “Message to the African Bishops” is a conciliar Epistle written on behalf of 90 bishops of Egypt and Libya with the aim of warning the bishops of West Africa against the intrigues of the Omians, who, on the basis of the Nicene formula, did not want to know anything about οὐσία and ὑπόστασις and sought to replace the Nicene Confession with the Ariminian. Contrary to this, Saint Athanasius emphasizes the complete sufficiency of the Nicene Symbol and exhorts to firmly adhere to it, and provides information about the Nicene Council and the Ariminian Council. Since the Epistle mentions the Roman Council, which was chaired by Damasus, at which Urzacius and Valens (10), as well as other councils, were condemned, its composition is attributed to the year 369 or 370.
20) “Epistle to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.” Bishop Epictetus of Corinth turned to Athanasius regarding the Christological disputes that had arisen in his Church. Some argued that the Word was transformed into flesh and changed in His own nature: “The Godhead, consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised and from being perfect became imperfect.” They assimilated to Him a body, which He did not receive from the Virgin Mary, but from its own essence formed for itself a satisfying body; they concluded that the body was consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word, that the body was not later than the Divinity of the Word, but was always coeternal with Him, and that this body suffered. The opposite party taught that “the Word descended on a holy man, as on one of the prophets, and did not itself become Man, having received a body from Mary, and another is Christ and another is the Word of God, before Mary and before the world the Son of the Father” (2).
It is difficult to say where the source of these false teachings was. As for the second party, one can see in it an expression of Antiochian tendencies. But regarding the first, there is significant disagreement among researchers; Apparently, Epictetus dealt with positions that partly came from the school of Apollinaris, and partly were derived under Apollinarian influence from Orthodox and Arian teaching; but it is even impossible to say with certainty whether these provisions are dependent on Apollinaris, since there is no sign of Apollinarianism - the doctrine of σωμα ἀνόητον. Saint Athanasius with equal energy rejects both understandings as contrary to the Catholic faith. Refuting the first, he asserts with the greatest clarity that the Word truly became man, and the body of the Lord was human by nature, borrowed from Mary and true; the body in which the Word was was not changed into flesh and bones, but appeared in the flesh (7–8). Against the teaching of the second party, Saint Athanasius affirms the personal identity of the Word and Christ (10-12).
As can be seen from the beginning of the Epistle, it was written after the Roman Council (369–370), which anathematized Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius and Valens, therefore in the year 370 or 371.
The message in ancient times enjoyed great authority. Apollinaris agreed with him. Epiphanius adopted it in his refutation of Apollinarianism. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon recognized in it an expression of their own conviction. In the fight against Nestorianism, it was subject to distortion, and Cyril of Alexandria defended its original text on the basis of “ancient copies.”
21) “Message to Bishop Adelphius.” Bishop and confessor Adelphius informed Saint Athanasius that some of the heretics reproach the Orthodox for the fact that in worshiping Christ, Whom, however, they recognize as a true and perfect Man, they worship the creature, and they themselves rejected the worship of the body of the Savior. Saint Athanasius condemns these heretics and proves that we must worship Christ God and Man, and this does not mean worshiping a creature, but the Word made man.
Due to the union of the Divine and Human natures into a single Hypostasis of God the Word, the Human nature should not be separated from the Word in order to worship the Word alone, but Divine reverence must be given to the Word and in the form of a servant, taken by Him for our salvation. He who dishonors the church dishonors the Lord in the church, and he who separates the Word from the body takes away the grace given in him.
There is no data in it to determine the time of origin of the Message, but in terms of its content it is close to the previous Message and therefore is usually dated to approximately the year 371.
22) “Message to Maxim the Philosopher.” Maximus the philosopher, probably the one who later sought the episcopal see in Constantinople, wrote to Saint Athanasius regarding various heretics: some denied that Christ is God, others said that the Word descended on Man, but did not become Man, and still others, finally, saw in Christ a Man born naturally. Saint Athanasius refutes these misconceptions; he proves that the crucified Christ is the Lord of Glory himself, that everyone should worship Him as the true God, and that in the actions of Christ Divine glory and power are revealed simultaneously with human weakness. The Message in its content has much in common with previous Messages and dates back to the same time.
23) “Easter or holiday messages.” These are pastoral Epistles to the churches and monasteries of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, written shortly after the feast of the Epiphany. There has long been a custom, reaffirmed by the Council of Nicea, by virtue of which the bishops of Alexandria wrote Easter Epistles (ἐπιστολαì ἐορταστικαί) announcing the time of Lent and Easter with appropriate exhortations. Athanasius, even when he was in exile, tried as much as possible to be faithful to this custom. Soon after his death, persons close to the Alexandrian saint united them into a meeting.
Only isolated fragments have survived from the Greek text of the Epistles of St. Athanasius and the Coptic translation. But in 1842 and 1847, in the Nitrian Monastery of Our Lady, a Syriac translation of the 13 Easter Epistles for the years from 329 to 348 was found in an 8th century manuscript. This Syriac translation is preceded by a Preface or Index, covering the entire period of the bishopric of St. Athanasius; it indicates for each year the time of celebration of Easter by the consuls, the prefect of Egypt and the main events relating to the life of the saint. This Syrian Chronicle, together with another chronicle published in 1738 and usually designated “Historia acephala,” as well as the Easter Epistles, constitute documents of the first order for the history of St. Athanasius, especially as regards chronology. Of greatest interest is the 39th Epistle (367th year) about the canon of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; in it the 27 books of the current New Testament are firmly established for the first time as the only canonical ones.
In the Appendix follows a book of the second order, intended for edification - the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, as well as the Teaching of the 12 Apostles and the Psalter.
The Easter Epistles are also important in the sense that they depict that side of the pastoral ministry of Saint Athanasius, which occupies little space in his other works, namely moral instruction. These are real sermons in the form of district Epistles, where all the duties of the Christian life are set out in brief exhortations.
24) The other letters of Saint Athanasius are almost all lost - what has survived, except for the noted Epistles, has little significance. Of these we can note:
a) “To the monk Amun” with instructions on keeping the flesh pure, on marriage and virgin life, written before the year 354;
b) “To the monks,” different from the one in which the “History of the Arians” was written, written in 358 to protect hermits from heretics;
c) two “Epistle to Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris” (359 or 360), in which Saint Athanasius praises him for his zeal and steadfastness in the Orthodox faith. Louis Saltet (Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 1906, 8–9, pp. 305–315) proves their falsity, of which, in his opinion, the Luciferians are guilty;
d) “To Rufinian,” which reports the decisions of the Council of Alexandria in 362 regarding the readmission of apostate Arians into the Church,
e) “To Abba Orsisius” two Epistles (363 and 364), one of them concerns the visit of Saint Athanasius to the monastery of Tavenna, the second - the death of Saint Theodore;
f) “To John and Antiochus”, “To Palladius” two Epistles, in which Saint Athanasius defends Saint Basil from unjust attacks (in the year 372),
g) Fragment of the “Epistle to Diodorus, Bishop of Tyre.”
25) “The Epistle to Marcellinus on the interpretation of the psalms” is an instruction on the study and use of the psalms, in which the Divine and Human being of Christ is prophetically indicated and in which one can find consolation in all life relationships: in the psalms all the feelings of a person’s soul are expressed, in them he prays, asks, thanks, pours out his heart, so to speak, in his own words. These pieces of advice were put into the mouth of a certain hardworking old man and addressed in the form of a letter to a hermit named Marcellinus. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this Epistle: the usage of words and the nature of the style are the same as in the writings of Saint Athanasius. But it cannot be identified with the work “De psalmorum titulis”, about which Blessed Jerome speaks (Devir. ill., 87).
26) “Exposition of Faith” (Ἑ κθεσις πίστεως) - a symbol in which the Catholic faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is set out and explained. Until recently, its belonging to Saint Athanasius was not in doubt; but now they no longer find it possible to place among the indisputably authentic works of the Alexandrian saint. The handwritten legend gives the title: “του αὐτου Ἀθανασίου εω κθεσις πίστεως” or even ambiguous: “του αὐτου "" The only witness from the ancient church writers can be recognized as Facundus of Hermian, who in the XI book of his work - “Pro defensione trium capitulorium libri XII” (P. L. 67) speaks about the expositio symboli of St. Athanasius. However, little importance is attached to this lack of historical evidence - more attention is paid to the very content of the “Exposition of the Faith”, in which many features are found that make its origin from Saint Athanasius doubtful, or even impossible.
In fact, the work in question does not represent a symbol, but only an explanation of it - an expositio symboli - but the underlying symbol is textually included in the explanation and can be highlighted, which was done by K. Hoss (see his Studien über das Schrifttum und die Theol. des Athanasius. Freiburgim Br., 1899, S. 110 sq). The symbol thus obtained is not identical with any of the ancient creeds; therefore, it was compiled by the author of the explanation himself, and in any case the latter belongs to the same theological direction that found expression in this symbol.
Here, first of all, the question is raised whether it is likely that Saint Athanasius, a tireless fighter for the Nicene Symbol, could allow the composition of his own or the use of such a symbol, which differs significantly from the Nicene Symbol. In the symbol “Exposition of Faith” we find ἀγέννητος, while Saint Athanasius in the First Sermon against the Arians (chapter 30) and “On the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea” (28) decisively polemicizes against this term.
Even more striking is the presentation of the second member: while in the Nicene Symbol and in most modern Confessions it is stated as follows: “and into one Lord Jesus Christ, born,” and so on (without Λόγος), here Λόγος is placed in the first place (“And in one... Word, Wisdom, Son..."), and the name “Jesus Christ” is completely absent from the symbol and placed only in the second half of the chapter, but not to designate the one Lord, as usual with Saint Athanasius, but as the name of the person whom the Word received. We will not touch on other details (see about them A. Stülcken. Athanasiana. Leipzig, 1899, S. 26 sq. And K. Hoss. Op. cit., S. II 1–113), we will only note that in the Theology of both the symbol and its explanation, obvious features of the Antiochian direction are found. If, moreover, we take into account the still noted (K. Hoss, S. 111) presence of a slight difference in the language and style of the Exposition of the Faith in comparison with the original works of St. Athanasius, then it will be clear why they now consider it necessary to place the Exposition of the Faith at least among the dubia of St. Athanasius.
The work is directed against the Arians and Sabellians. Its time of origin cannot be precisely determined. The use of the expression δμοιος τω @ Πατρί (O in the confession of faith by the Homousian (2) was impossible after the speech of the Omian party, therefore, around the year 358, but besides this limit, no other limit can be indicated as soon as the year 325 - the time of the Council of Nicaea.
27) “The most extensive discourse on faith” was first published by Montfaucon, who discovered it in a manuscript of the 10th century. The publication of this work by Montfaucon was accompanied by a lively expression of joy that “the excellent work of Athanasius against the Arians and other heretics contemporary with St. Athanasius, in which he, through syllogisms and dilemmas, exposes and refutes these enemies of the light,” was once again found.
The work reveals the doctrine of the Divinity of the Incarnate Word and its relationship to human nature; then a large number of texts of Holy Scripture are given, pointing to both the human and the Divine nature in Christ.
Most scholars recognize the authenticity of the "Word" as well as the "Exposition of Faith", with which it is internally connected. But a careful analysis of the “Most Extensive Discourse on Faith” carried out by A. Stülcken (op. cit., S. 28–40) and K. Hoss (Studien, S. 104–123) led to very interesting data regarding its nature. First of all, it was discovered that chapter 512 was borrowed from the “Tale of the Incarnation”, and the use was almost verbatim; further, part of the 14th chapter, the conclusion of the 21st chapter and the 22nd chapter. taken from the Exposition of Faith.
It seems even more strange that in the Lay itself some sections are repeated: the end of the 13th chapter is literally at the end of the 37th chapter, the 15th chapter with minor changes is repeated in the first half of the 25th chapter; chapter 16 - towards the end of the 26th and beginning of the 27th chapter, the first half of the 17th chapter - 28th chapter; the second half of the 17th chapter is repeated at the beginning of the 19th chapter, and the first half of this latter is repeated in the 28th chapter; the beginning of chapter 18 is in chapter 21; The 19th chapter is in the 28th and 29th chapters.
Further, the text of the Lay undoubtedly suffers from many gaps and, in addition, a lack of connection between the individual parts. Most chapters start out completely sketchy. A whole series of chapters represents nothing more than a set of provisions that were initially not connected with each other and in their current combination remain unadapted to each other; this is quite clearly seen in chapters 5–12; similar relationships are observed in chapters 13–20: most of these chapters are composed of passages from the “Exposition of Faith” and from provisions that are in their place in later chapters. The chapters starting from the 20th are better composed, but have as little connection with each other as the previous ones. This nature of the “Most Extensive Discourse on Faith” in itself raises doubts as to whether it belongs to Saint Athanasius. But in addition, they find that the details of the content of the “Word” further confirm this unfavorable conclusion: in the “Word” all the signs of the Theology of the Antiochian school appear even more clearly than in the “Exposition of Faith”. According to all these data, K. Hoss and A.
Stülcken deny that this work belongs to Saint Athanasius.
But with such a decisive conclusion, it is necessary to take into account Tradition, which speaks of the ownership of the “Most Extensive Word on the Faith” by Saint Athanasius. True, the handwritten Tradition belongs to a later time (manuscript of the 10th century), but quotations from it are already found in Theodoret; in all three dialogues of his “Eranist” he cites nine passages from ὁ περì πίστεως λόγος ὁ μείζων - St. Athanasius. Towards the end of the 5th century, traces appear again in Pope Gelasius I's De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium (492–496); three quotes are clearly named as their source - λόγος περì πίστεως μείζων - by Saint Athanasius and are indeed found in the work in question.
The way out of the difficulty, which seems to be the nature of the work on the one hand and the evidence of antiquity on the other, can be found by following the path outlined by A. Stülcken, namely: Saint Athanasius really wrote ὁ περì πίστεως λόγος ὁ μείζων, but it has not been preserved in its original form. Currently, we have a reworking of it, which has also come to us in fragments and, perhaps, with distortions, but in any case with additions from other sources and, in particular, from the works of Saint Athanasius himself. Restoring the original work seems impossible.
28) “On the appearance of God the Word in the flesh and against the Arians” in its content represents an exegetical proof of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit and is divided into three parts:
a) Refutation of the objections made by the anomies against the Divinity of Jesus Christ; the Arians reinterpreted in favor of their teaching all the passages of Holy Scripture regarding the humiliation of the Word of God, not agreeing to explain them in relation to His humanity, and concluded from them that it was impossible to recognize the Son as consubstantial or even only similar to the Father - Saint Athanasius establishes the correct understanding of the controversial texts;
b) Evidence of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and sending into the world by the Son and
c) Evidence from the Holy Scriptures is one and the same Word. In addition, we are talking about many other dogmatic truths: about the birth of God the Son according to the flesh without the Father from the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, about the salvific consequences of His Incarnation, life and suffering for man, about the Eucharist as the true body of the Lord, and so on. The authenticity of this work has long been disputed, and currently some researchers deny that it belongs to Saint Athanasius (for example, W. Bright), others (O. Bardenhewer, Fr. Lauchert) assert its authenticity, attributing its composition to approximately the year 369. Ancient church writers: Theodoret, Gelasius, Facundus Hermianus, Lateran Council, Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Ephraim of Antioch) call it differently. There is also a variety of titles in the manuscripts.
This is explained by the fact that usually the title of a work does not cover its content in the form in which it has come down to us. At the same time, its content raises doubts as to whether it has truly retained its original appearance.
The first part (1–8) has a Christological character and ends with the words: “He, the true and by nature Son of God, bears all of us in Himself, so that we all bear within ourselves the one God.” After this, chapter 9 plainly states: Therefore it is impious to assert that the Spirit of God is created or made. Then begins a listing of Biblical evidence in favor of the fact that the Holy Spirit belongs to the same predicates that are characteristic of the Father and the Son - only chapters 11 and 12 again unexpectedly have Christological content, but are mostly a repetition of chapters 2 - 6; from chapter 19 to the end, all reasoning is Christological in nature, except for the conclusion of chapter 19, which is obviously inserted and can be omitted without difficulty.
The doubt caused by this plan of the treatise is further strengthened by the fact that chapters 8–19 are almost word for word similar to another work placed among the Afanasyevs: “On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit”, while the latter cannot be allowed to be dependent on the first, since in it the corresponding parts are in great coherence, while the treatise “On the Appearance in the Flesh” soullessly and without internal connection proves only individual predicates for each of the three Divine Persons. Bearing in mind the construction of the treatise, its contact with the work “On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit”, as well as the fact that in all manuscripts, as well as in Theodoret and Gelasius, the inscription does not have any relation to the trinitarian part, we can consider it completely justified to single out chapters 9–19 as not originally belonging to the treatise, agreeing, however, to admit that the 9th (in the second half), 11 and Chapter 12 retained something from the original text.
In this case, the second half of chapter 19, beginning with the words: “And the son is not the second God,” would be a direct continuation of the end of chapter 8: “yes, we all carry within ourselves one God.”
But even after highlighting the trinitarian part, they find, in addition to the difference in language and style, some features in the theological views of the author of the treatise “On Appearance in the Flesh”, which prevent him from being identified with Saint Athanasius.
In view of this, it would be more correct to place this work, after highlighting the middle part, among the dubia, and it should be noted that its authenticity is not completely excluded.
29) “The Book of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.” The work has survived only in Latin, and the Latin text is not a translation from Greek, but the original. In its content and method it is closely related especially to the treatise “On Appearance in the Flesh” and to the Epistles to Serapion. But this contact with the original works of Saint Athanasius has its basis in the fact that the Latin author used them to the best of his ability. The place and time of life of this Latin writer cannot be determined.
30) Two books against Apollinaris, book one: “On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ”; book two, “On the Saving Coming of Christ,” gives a persistent and detailed refutation of the errors of the Apollinarians, without mentioning the name of Apollinaris in the text, and the integrity of human nature in Christ is especially clearly defended. The misconceptions of the Apollinarians about the Face of Jesus Christ were quite varied. Some of those who were mistaken renewed the docetic opinion that the Word only apparently became incarnate, or that He took on not created flesh, similar to human, but heavenly, similar in nature to the Word Himself.
Others argued that the Word at the Incarnation received only the body, but could not perceive the human soul, damaged by sins and evil thoughts.
Others, finally, admitted the possibility of the Word accepting both the flesh and the human soul, but by soul they understood only the vital principle, the sensory soul, and not the rational soul.
The author of the books against Apollinaris examines all these opinions, refutes them and together sets out in detail and defends the essential points of church Christology, for example, the doctrine of the duality of natures in Jesus Christ, their Hypostatic unity, the necessity for the work of Redemption of the full human soul in Christ, His acceptance of the true human body from the Virgin Mary, the legality of Divine worship given by Christians to the Son of Man, and so on.
Two books are not two parts of one work, but two independent treatises; but the Second, apparently, has not been preserved in full. Those who recognize the authenticity of this work date its composition to the year 372; but doubts about its authenticity were heard even before Monfaucona, who, however, recognized them as unfounded.
This question was posed again by J. Dräseke, who, based on a thorough study of them, proved that both books were written after the death of Saint Athanasius, between 373 and 377, by Didymus the blind and one of his disciples, Ambrose, about whom Blessed Jerome speaks (De vir. ill., 126). Without accepting all of J. Dräseke’s assumptions and not sharing his objections, most researchers along with him deny, or at least consider their belonging to Saint Athanasius doubtful. The main objections to authenticity are:
a) Evidence of the ownership of books against Apollinaris begins only in the 6th century with John Maxentius, Proclus and Leontius of Byzantium;
b) The “conspicuous” difference in the language of the original works of St. Athanasius and the two books against Apollinaris. However, opponents of authenticity (for example, K. Hoss) stipulate that this difference does not seem so strong as long as the “Four Words against the Arians”, “Exposition of the Faith”, “The Most Extensive Discourse on Faith”, “On the Appearance in the Flesh of God the Word and Against the Arians” are recognized as authentic, the language of which deviates from the language of the authentic works of St. Athanasius. But as soon as these connecting members are highlighted, those who want to maintain the authenticity of both books abruptly move into the realm of a completely special language in comparison with the indisputable works of St. Athanasius from the Apology to the Epistle to Epictetus;
c) Opponents of authenticity are ready to agree with the defenders that the ideological content, the main tendency, the essential thoughts in general and in particular are thoroughly Athanasian, that the strongest argument against Apollinarianism is the idea with which Saint Athanasius struck Arianism, namely, that in the person and life of the God-man, in principle, the deification of human nature was accomplished in all its life moments and that this idea for the sake of which he lived, worked, fought, suffered, in the books against Apollinaris it is carried out with the broadest consistency and appears with particular strength, clarity and sharpness. But it is precisely the fact that the main idea of Saint Athanasius is carried out here with great sharpness and with strict, almost mechanical consistency that arouses suspicion.
d) In the books against Apollinaris, it is clearly established that unity between ὀμοούσι α is possible only according to φύσις, but not according to ὑπόστασις, that is, the author stands on the basis of the latest (so-called New Nicene) terminology: μία οὐσία .
e) Both books against Apollinaris are considered to be the works of Apollinaris, which were written and became known only after the death of Saint Athanasius.
For all these reasons they assert that the two books against Apollinaris could not have been written by Saint Athanasius, and they recognize it as very probable that they originate from the Alexandrian, who owes the main views and some particulars to Saint Athanasius: in this way both the similarities and deviations are most easily explained. But as you can see, the strength of the objections raised against the authenticity of the work is not so unconditional that the issue about it can be considered finally resolved - the authenticity of books against Apollinaris also has defenders.
31) “A saving word to a virgin (or about virginity)” ἀσκήσεως) - belongs to the category of moral and ascetic works that have come down to us with the name of Saint Athanasius. In it, in the form of exhortations to a virgin who dedicated herself to God, a number of ascetic and moral instructions are set out, which in their simplicity of construction are reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount and the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles.”
At the beginning, a brief statement of faith is given, and then ascetic exhortations to the virgin are mixed with simple general Christian rules of life.
In special sections, the author of the treatise talks about fasting, prayer and the implementation of Christian love and mercy, and points to the example of the Lord. In the speech about fasting, the first place is given to humility, sincerity of mood and a warning against any boasting. The hours of prayer are set in relation to the life and suffering of the Savior and ancient meal prayers are given, which are known from the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” and the “Apostolic Constitutions”.
Exhortations to love are based on the commandment to love God and neighbor. The treatise ends with an admonition to the virgin to always have a lamp ready in order to meet the Heavenly Bridegroom, praise to virginity and an admonition to direct her life in accordance with the rules laid down.
The treatise contains in abundance the words of the Savior, psalms, prophets and sayings from the book of Proverbs; There is great freedom in conveying the words of the Lord. One can often observe a coincidence in thought and form with the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" and other works of the second century; from later times used: Canones Hippolyti and Testamentum Domini nostri J. Christi.
Already the first publishers of this work (Erasmus - in the Latin translation, Jerome Commelinus - in the Greek text) expressed doubts about its ownership by Saint Athanasius; followed by the followers of Montfaucon and Migne. The basis for this was the simple style, not similar to other works of Saint Athanasius, and the liturgical formulas found in it; in addition, they drew attention to the fact that the ancient manuscripts of the works of Saint Athanasius do not contain a treatise.
A. Eichhorn, it seems, was the first to scientifically defend the authenticity of the work, based not only on the fact that the existence of such a work by St. Athanasius is attested by Blessed Jerome (De vir. ill., 87), but first of all on the fact that the way of life of virgins dedicated to God, assumed by the treatise, corresponds precisely to the period of St. Athanasius, and not to a later time.
A. Harnack recognized these grounds as worthy of attention. P. Batiffol spoke out against Eichhorna, arguing that the confession of faith placed at the beginning of the treatise reflects the teaching of the time after St. Athanasius, and the ethics he proposed are related to the ethics of the Eustathian sect, which was condemned at the Council of Gangra.
In 1905, a study by E. F. Vonder Goltz appeared. Eine echte Schrift des Athanasius Leipzig, 1905 (Texte und Untersuchung. 29. 2a), in which the author declares that all discussions about this treatise are hanging in the air until its text is firmly established; but this is absolutely not the case: they are content with the text printed by Min, which is not only replete with typos, but does not even accurately reproduce its original - the Basel manuscript (XIV century).
In addition, previous studies have not found an explanation of the difference between the extremely ancient and obviously later parts of the treatise, which does not escape the attentive reader.
E. von der Goltz was the first to study significant manuscript material, among which an important place is occupied by a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, which best reproduces the original text of the treatise, and based on a comparison of manuscripts, he gave a critically verified text (op. cit., S. 35–60), and it turns out that the liturgical passages that seduce researchers belong only to two later manuscripts. A careful and comprehensive study of the treatise is given by Ed. Goltz comes to the conclusion that the origin of the treatise on virginity must be sought in the ascetic circles of Egypt in the first half of the 4th century, that is, that it belongs not to the later, but to the early stage of ascetic life in Egypt, and that in terms of its ideas the treatise is best consistent with the works of St. Athanasius.
Neither in the entire content of the treatise, nor in individual expressions, nor in the style of Ed. Goltz does not find data that could eliminate the direct testimony of Jerome (De vir. ill., 87) that St. Athanasius wrote the work “De virginitate”, indirect indications in the word of St. Gregory the Theologian (Orat., 21), the testimony of Ephraim of Antioch and Photius (Bibl. cod. 229: Ἀθανάσιος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρίας ἐν τή πρòς τàς παρθένους ἐπιστολ ῇ), as well as evidence of a handwritten tradition from the 10th century, the study of which shows that the treatise in question belongs to those main works of the saint Athanasius, which are invariably reproduced in all later manuscripts. The monument does not contain any information about the time of origin. Ed. Goltz dates it to the second or third decades of the 4th century, but it seems more correct to place it around the time of the writing of the life of St. Anthony.
The exegetical works of Saint Athanasius, which were known in ancient times, have not reached us in full. The one most often mentioned is the Exposition of the Psalms; Only fragments of it have been preserved in catenas. The collection of fragments entitled “Expositiones in Psalmos” (PG 27, 55–590; additions by I. B. Pitra. Analecta sacra. Vol. 5 Paris, 1888, p. 3–20) should generally be considered authentic; but some passages are forged, in some the text is shortened, in others expanded - for a critical assessment, the Syriac translation, preserved in the manuscript of the year 599, is of great importance. In the explanation of the text, in contrast to dogmatic-polemical works, allegory dominates.
One might think that Saint Athanasius was engaged in the interpretation of the psalms in the last years of his life (366–373), when persecution did not disturb his peace. How Saint Athanasius looked at the Psalter is shown by the already mentioned “Epistle to Marcellinus”.
The work of Saint Athanasius, mentioned by Jerome (De vir. ill., 87), “De psalmorum titulis” has not survived to our time, and the commentary on the psalms found in Min (PG27) with the inscription - “De titulis Psalmorum” - does not belong to Saint Athanasius and was written, perhaps, by Hesychius of Jerusalem. The commentaries on the book of Job, the Song of Songs, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, and 1 Corinthians, borrowed from the catenas, placed in Min and supplemented by Pitra and May, require careful study.
Without listing all the works that are included in Min's patrolology in volume XXVIII under the headings dubia and spuria, we will note only the most important ones.
a) “Interpretatio in Symbolum”, Ἑ ρμηνεία εἰς τò σύμβολον. According to the studies of Caspari and Kattenbuscha - ἐρμηνεία comes from the symbol given by St. Epiphanius at the end of his "Ancoratus", and does not belong to Athanasius - it may have been the work of one of the first successors of St. Athanasius;
b) “Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos” stands in close connection with Doctrina 318 patrum. The latter consists of two parts - a brief statement of religion and a more extensive statement of moral teaching. The first part was adopted by Saint Basil the Great as his explanation of the Nicene Symbol, and the second part is the “Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos”. It is considered proven that the whole work is original, which then fell into parts. Its author was neither Saint Basil nor Saint Athanasius. Armenian tradition assigns it to Evagrius Pontus, and this view currently has defenders (for example, N. Bonwetsch);
c) The so-called “Symbol” of St. Athanasius (after the initial word Symbolum Quicunque) arose on Latin soil and from the 9th century enjoyed great authority throughout the West; It became known to the East quite late (around the 12th century), and undoubtedly does not belong to Saint Athanasius. Regarding its origin, science, despite zealous efforts, has not yet achieved indisputable results. Its authors are called Vincent of Lyrinsky, Honoratus of Arles, Caesarea of Arles, Ambrose of Milan; they proved its origin in Spain at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century in the fight against Priscillianism, and so on;
e) “On the Incarnation of God the Word” - two small works; the first of them is a kind of symbol in which the expression μίαν φύσιν του Θεου Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην is found, which was used in various senses by the Monophysites and St. Cyril of Alexandria (De recta fide, ad reginas 9 PG 76, 1211), who recognized his origin from Athanasius; the second work is an anti-Nestorian treatise with characteristic Apollinarian expressions. Their origin from Saint Athanasius was disputed back in the 5th century, and at present it can be considered proven that their author was Apollinaris of Laodicea, whose followers distributed them under the name of Saint Athanasius. It is very likely that this is the same origin of the works “Ὄ τι εἰς ὁ Χριστός”;
f) Published in 1904 in Arabic and in fragments in Coptic languages, the “Canons” of St. Athanasius, numbering 107, can hardly be recognized as authentic, although they undoubtedly come from Egypt and are far from the time of St. Athanasius.
III. 3. Theology of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
Saint Athanasius did not present his Theological teaching in the form of a complete system in any of his creations. He was a man of practical activity, and his works, as has been repeatedly noted, were written at the request of the circumstances of church and personal life - to defend the faith or to fulfill pastoral duties - and reveal individual points of Church doctrine.
And, however, among the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church, not many had such a deep and constant influence on subsequent church writers and on the disclosure of Church dogma as Saint Athanasius. His works are distinguished by the amazing richness of dogmatic content. In his words against the pagans, he reveals the doctrine of one God, His creation of the world and providence, the primitive state of man, the Fall, the consequences of sin and the need for the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of people.
He constantly studied the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the trinity of Persons and the unity of Their being, trying to explain the highest mystery with the completeness possible for a person. But, both by his own motivation, and even more in view of the nature of the modern church-theological struggle, he concentrated his speculation, all the power of his great mind, primarily on one problem, both fundamental in Christianity and fruitful in its theological content, and precisely on the problem of the Word incarnate - God, made man and the Savior of the human race.
He reveals the doctrine of the Word in all its relations - in His being in the bosom of the Father, in the work of Creation, in the work of Redemption, which He performs as the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ - the Divine-Human Person of the Redeemer - becomes the center to Whom everything is raised and Who, in His turn, brings light to the entire content of the Christian religion. Therefore, the ultimate task of Christian Theology in its essence should be nothing other than knowledge, as far as possible for man, of the Person and Redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the light of Divine Revelation.
In revealing the truth about the Face of the God-Man, Saint Athanasius is so deep and comprehensive that he not only clarified it and substantiated it against the Arians and Apollinarians of his time, but also received a solid foundation for the fight against subsequent heresies of a Christological nature - the Nestorians and Monophysites.
Saint Athanasius did not ignore Christian moral teaching, but for the most part explained it: not specifically, but in relation to other issues; however, it should be noted that all of his theology is based on moral and ascetic views and aspirations. Finally, the works of Saint Athanasius are rich in information about church life and Divine services of that time.
We will note only the essential provisions of the dogmatic teaching of the great father of the Church.
a) The teaching of Saint Athanasius on the Holy Trinity
Saint Athanasius does not dwell on the doctrine of God in Himself and does not reveal it in detail; nevertheless, this very teaching is a necessary point of his theological speculation. Saint Athanasius, in the spirit of Platonic philosophy, defines the deity with the same abstract features as Origen. God is a simple, blessed and incomprehensible essence (De Synod., 35). He is not accessible to any definition: one cannot say that God Himself exists - one can only say that He does not exist (Ep. ad. monach., 2).
The Divinity is above all essence and human imagination (Orat, contra gentes, 2). God is beginningless and eternal, incorporeal, invisible and intangible. He is the real bearer of the entire fullness of Divine life, the single beginning of the Divine essence (Orat, contra gentes, 41).
Like Arius, Saint Athanasius sharply separated the Divinity in Itself from everything created by Him. “Everything created,” he says, “has nothing similar in essence to its Creator” (De incarnat., 2). “What a resemblance there is between that which is out of nothing, and between the Creator who creates it out of nothing” (Orat, contra arian I, 1:20, 26, 53).
But at the same time, as Arius believed the Logos to be on the side of the line that touches creation, Saint Athanasius puts Him absolutely on the side of God. The Word was not created, but born. To give birth means to produce a perfect image of oneself and to communicate everything that is in oneself, one’s essence, one’s nature, one’s glory: thus God gave birth to the Word – the Son. The concepts of “Son” and “Word” in Saint Athanasius are mutually interchangeable: “we recognize Him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Son is that very Word” (Ed. ad Epict. 12).
Defining more closely the relationship of the Word-Son to God the Father, Saint Athanasius, on the one hand, asserts that the Son is different from the Father, and on the other hand, that the Father and the Son are one, since They are of one essence. The Son is the true and sincere Son of the Father, actually belonging to the Father's essence, the only begotten Wisdom, the true and only Word of God. He is not a creature, not a work, but the own birth of the Father’s essence. Therefore He is true God, as consubstantial with the true Father (Orat, contra arian I, 9). But the one Father and Son cannot be represented in the Sabellian way: They are one not in the sense that one and the same is sometimes the Father, and sometimes the Son of Himself; on the contrary, two are in number, because the Father is the Father, and He is not the Son, and the Son is the Son, and He is not the Father, but the nature is one, because Birth is not dissimilar to the One who gave birth, and is His image, and everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the Son is not another God, for he was not invented from outside. If the Son is anything other than birth, then He is the same as God.
He and the Father are one in affinity and characteristic nature and in the identity of the one Divinity (Orat, contra arian III, 4).
Since God cannot be without His Word, the Son is eternal in the Father (Orat, contra arian II, 32). But as a Son, He is begotten of the Father. Since God is eternal, the birth of the Son can only be thought of as eternal, because the essence of the Father was never imperfect, so that what actually belonged to it came to it later; The Son was not born as man from man, so that he would appear later than the Father’s being; He is God's birth and, as the actually existing Son of the ever-existing Father, exists eternally. People tend to give birth in time due to the imperfection of nature; and God’s birth is eternal according to the eternal perfection of nature (Orat, contra arian I, 14). Therefore, the Father is always by nature a Parent (Orat, contra arian III, 66), and the very name of the Father indicates the existence of the Son. In support of this thought, Saint Athanasius points to the usual comparisons of light and radiance, source and stream in the Alexandrian school. He eternally exists who is the image, the radiance of the Father, God from God, without Whom the Father would be ἄσοφος καì ἄλογος (Orat, contra arian I, 14, 25, 27; III:66; Denicaenisdecret.12:15).
But then the question arises, is this birth voluntary on the part of the Father? The answer to this can be yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the birth was not against the will of the Father and was not the fulfillment of a higher law. No, in the sense that the Father wants and loves the Son necessarily, just as he wants and loves Himself. “Since the Son is born by nature, and not by will, is He really unwanted by the Father and contrary to the Father’s will? No, on the contrary, the Son is desirable to the Father, and as He Himself says, the Father loves the Son and shows Him everything (Orat, contra arian V, 20). “Just as God, although he did not begin to be good by will, is not good against his will and will, for as He is, so it is desirable that the Son is, although he did not begin by will, yet not against the desire and will of God. Just as God desires His Own Hypostasis, so He desires His own Son, who exists from His essence.
Therefore, let the Son be desired and beloved of the Father” (Orat, contra arian III, 66). But it is also impossible to think that the Son came from the Father “by will or will” (Orat, contra arian III, 59), because through this the Son would be relegated to the series of temporary beings that the Father first wished to create, and then actually created (ibid., 60-63). Everything, indeed, was created by the will of God, but one must think about the Word that It consists outside of those who received being by will, or better to say, It Itself is, that living Fatherly Council by which all things were (ibid., 64). The Son of God Himself is Word and Wisdom, He Himself is reason and living counsel; in Him is the will of the Father, He is the Truth, the Light and the Power of the Father (ibid., 65). Therefore, he is mad who puts will and counsel between the Father and the Son. It is another thing to say: He came into existence by will, but another thing to say: he loves and desires the Son as his own by nature (ibid., 66).
Therefore, the Son is not an accidental product of the Father’s will, but an eternal, essentially necessary birth of the Divine nature; at the same time, the birth of the Son is not only a metaphysically necessary process of self-development of beings: it is an act of the life of a personal God, a manifestation of its moral fullness and is therefore imbued with the love of the One who gives birth and the One who is born.
Saint Athanasius, like Saint Irenaeus, decisively rejects all reasoning and assumptions about how God gave birth to the Son: “it is indecent to search for how the Word is from God, or how It is God’s radiance, or how God gives birth, and what image of God’s birth. Whoever dares to undertake such research is mad, because he wants to interpret with words the ineffable, that which is characteristic of God’s nature and known only to God and His Son. This means the same thing as trying to find out where God is and what the Father is like. But since it is wicked to propose such questions and is characteristic of those who do not know God, it is impermissible to venture into such research about the birth of the Son of God and God, and to measure His Wisdom by one’s nature and one’s weakness. But therefore one should not imagine this contrary to the truth” (Orat, contra arian II, 36).
Begotten from eternity, the Son is from the essence of the Father ἐκ τη ς οὐσίας του Πατρòς - Saint Athanasius insists on this expression of the Council of Nicea, which contains the condemnation of the blasphemy of Arius (De nicaenis decretis 19:23; De synod., 41:48). But at the same time, it is necessary to eliminate any sensory idea: one cannot think about the flow from the Father or the division of His essence. The Son is not a part of the Father, since the essence of the Father is indivisible. “Otherwise human birth takes place, and otherwise the Son is born from the Father. Human creations are, as it were, parts of those who give birth... People, when giving birth, exude from themselves... But God is not divided into parts, He is an indivisible and impassive Father to the Son.
In the Ethereal there is no outflow; there is no flowing into Him, as happens with people, but, being simple by nature, He is the Father of the one and only Son... He is the Word of the Father, in Whom one can imagine the dispassion and indivisibility of the Father” (De nicaenis decretis 2).
From here Saint Athanasius draws two conclusions: firstly, the Son possesses the entire essence of the Father, because this essence, which cannot be divided, is necessarily given to Him entirely. “Not in part only the image of the Divinity, but the fullness of the Father’s Divinity is the being of the Son, and the Son is entirely God” (Orat, contra arian. III, 6; compare Orat I, 16 and Orat. II, 24); secondly, the Father can have only one Son, because in Him is all the fullness of the Father: “being simple by nature, He is the Father of the one and only Son” (De nicaenis decretis 2).
These two conclusions destroy the very basis of subordinationism: the Son is everything that the Father is, except that one is the begetter, and the other is the begotten. On the contrary, from them the coexistence directly follows: the Son is ὁμοούσιος to the Father. Saint Athanasius rejects the expression ὅ μοιος primarily because it denotes only accidental and external similarity: “like is said to be like in relation not to essences, but to appearance and qualities” (De synod., 53); “Tin is like only silver and the wolf is like a dog, but tin is not made of silver and the wolf is not considered the son of a dog” (De synod., 41).
The term ὁμοούσιος cannot be considered completely appropriate, since to say that one object is ὄμοιος κατ ’ σύσία to another means to talk about its essence as if it were a simple attribute or accident. In any case, “whoever calls something similar in essence calls it similar in part, because similarity is a quality that can surpass essence, and this is characteristic of creatures; creatures by communion are likened to God... If He is also called the Son by communion, then... so called He is no longer Truth, and not Light at all, not God by nature” (De synod., 53).
But if they want to use this term - and Saint Athanasius is ready to put up with this - then they should at least add ἐκ τη ς σύσίας and insist on unity, which ὅ μοιος destroys. The term ὁμοούσιος simultaneously means that two beings - to which it is applied - are of the same essence, and that one of them has existence from the other. Saint Athanasius argues about the term with those who accept everything else written in Nicaea, but only doubt the saying consubstantiality; however, the fathers of the Council of Nicaea rightfully introduced ὁμοούσιος into the language of the Church: they could not find a better term (De synod., 41).
The following outlines the main provisions of the teaching of Saint Athanasius about the Son. The dominant thought, which he comprehensively reveals, is that the Word is the Son, namely the Son of God. One must never separate the Son from the Father and strive to know them separately: “being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father” (Orat, contra arian. III, 28). As the Son, He is numerically distinct from the Father, but as the Son, he is of one essence with the Father, absolutely the same essence as the Father, because this essence, which is communicated to Him, can neither be divided nor diminished. The bearer of this unity, when we have to talk about one God as a personal Spirit, is God the Father.
The teaching about the Holy Spirit is revealed by Saint Athanasius less fully than the teaching about the Son. However, he had to give an answer to the directly posed question about the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. He outlined his explanations in 1, 3 and 4 Epistles to Serapion. Saint Athanasius affirms the Divinity of the Holy Spirit on the basis of Holy Scripture (Ep. A dSerap. I, 4–6, 26), on the original tradition, teaching and faith of the universal Church (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 28). By whom all creatures are sanctified, He Himself cannot be a creature; He who gives life to creatures has no affinity with creatures and does not belong to them (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 23). If through the communion of the Spirit we become partakers of the Divine nature, then the one who claims that the Spirit is of created nature and not of God is crazy.
Those in whom the Spirit dwells are adored by the Spirit, and if the Spirit creates Gods, then there is no doubt that His nature is the nature of God (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 24). Recognition of the Spirit as a creature destroys the Holy Trinity: If He were a creature, he would not be joined to the Trinity, because the entire Trinity is one God. And it is enough to know that the Spirit is not a creature and is not counted among the creatures, because nothing foreign is mixed into the Trinity - on the contrary, It is inseparable and similar to Itself (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 17). The Spirit is God, of one essence with the Father and the Son, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος), with Them (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 2, 20, 27). “What property we have recognized in the Son with the Father, the same property the Spirit has with the Son” (Ep. ad Serap. III, 1). “Since the Spirit and the Son have the same power and nature as the Son and the Father, then he who calls the Spirit a creature will not necessarily have the same thought about the Son. For if the Spirit of the Son is a creature, then heretics should affirm that the Word of the Father is a creature” (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 21).
The stated teaching of Saint Athanasius about the Holy Trinity can be briefly expressed in his words: “So, there is a Holy and perfect Trinity, cognizable in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having nothing alien or given from the outside, not composed of the Creator and the creature, but wholly Creating and Creating. She is similar to Herself, inseparable by nature, and Her action is one. For the Father creates all things by the Word in the Holy Spirit. This is how the unity of the Holy Trinity is maintained. This is how it is preached in the Church “one God, who is above all and through all and about all” (Eph 4:6) - above all, as the Father, the beginning and source, through all - with the Word, and in all - in the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not only by name and manner of expression, but in its very truth and essence it is the Trinity. For just as the Father is He, so He is God above all - His Word, and the Holy Spirit is not alien to being, but truly exists and abides. And the Universal Church does not subtract anything from this wisdom... and does not invent anything more, so as not to plunge into pagan polytheism (Ep. Ad Serap. I, 28).
b) The doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word
But the center of the Theology of St. Athanasius was the Word incarnate, just as his faith in this Word was the soul of his entire life, filled with struggle. Based on this faith, he most strongly attacked Arianism, showing that, by denying the Divinity of the Word, heresy becomes contrary to the very inner feelings of true Christians, that it erects an indestructible barrier between God and man, since, according to the word of God, we can know the Father only through the Son, that it essentially destroys the work of Redemption, since we can receive salvation only in this case, if God appeared in the historical Christ in the full sense of the word; only God could restore in us the original image, destroyed by sin, and make us children of God: if people, as a result of crime, became subject to natural corruption and lost the grace of God’s image, then what else should have happened? Or was there a need for anyone else for the return of such grace and for the proclamation of man, other than God the Word, who created the Universe out of nothing in the beginning?
It was His responsibility to bring the corruptible again into incorruption, and to observe what was most just for the Father. since He is the Father's Word and above all, naturally He alone could recreate everything. He alone was determined to suffer for everyone and to intercede for everyone before the Father (De incarnat. 7).
If the Savior were a created being, then His Incarnation would not have brought to Humanity what it needs. If the Word, being a creature, had become Man, then Man would still have remained what he was, not being combined with God (Orat, contra arian. II, 67). Man would not have been deified, having united with creation, if the Son had not been the true God.
Man would not have appeared to the Father if the one who took on the body were not truly the Father’s Word by nature. And just as we would not have been freed from sin and curse if the flesh in which the Word was clothed had not been human by nature (because we would have had nothing in common with what was alien to us), so man would not have been deified if he who had become flesh had not by nature been from God, the true and proper Word (Orat, contra arian. II, 70).
If the Son were a creature, then man would still remain mortal, not uniting with God, because creation would not unite creatures with God, requiring itself to unite, and one part of the creation could not serve as salvation for the whole creation, itself having a need for salvation (Orat, contra arian.II, 69). Therefore the word, being God, became flesh, so that, having died in the flesh, by His power He might give life to all (Orat, contra arian. I, 44). Thus, the Son of God became human (De nicaenis decretis 14), the Only Begotten - Firstborn (Orat, contra arian. I, 62). It was not man who became God, but this God who became man in order to deify us (Orat, contra arian. I, 39).
The Incarnation must be understood in its proper sense: “The Word became man, and did not descend into man.” One cannot think that just as in former times there was the Word in each of the saints, so now It descended into man and sanctified him and appeared in him, as in other people, “The Word of God itself descended to the point that it became human (Orat, contraarian. III, 30). It is said about Him that He became flesh, not because He changed into flesh, but because for our sake He took upon Himself living flesh and became man (Ep. ad Epict., 8). It is unreasonable to assert that the Word changed into bones and flesh: “the body was not the Word, but the body of the Word was” (Ep.ad Epict., 6). Thus, “the true God was in the flesh, and the Word had true flesh; therefore, by deeds He made Himself known - the Son of God and His Father, and by the infirmities of the flesh He showed that He carried the true body, and that It was His own” (Orat, contra arian. III, 41).
Saint Athanasius always speaks only about the flesh (σάρξ) or about the body (σω μα), which received the Word, but at the same time he understands the whole of human nature. This must be emphasized in view of the newest view (A. Stülcken, Athanasiana, S. 90–106; K. Hoss, Studien, S. 76–79) that Saint Athanasius did not recognize a human soul in Christ: The Word became man in the sense that It was united with the body, but itself took the place of the rational soul.
But Saint Athanasius uses the terms (σάρξ and σω μα) in the biblical sense, which he himself explains as follows: “It is customary for Scripture to call man flesh” (Orat, contraarian. III, 30). “The word becoming flesh means the same thing as becoming a man” (Ep. Ad Serap. II, 2:7). Hence, Saint Athanasius indifferently uses the terms flesh, body, humanity to designate the human element in Christ.
To this it is necessary to add the general teaching of Saint Athanasius about the Incarnation, which he denotes not by the term ἐνσωμάτωσις (like Apollinaris), but ἐνανθρώπησις, thereby expressing the idea of the Word made man (compare: De incarnat. 37; Orat, contra arian. I, 43; Ep. ad Maxim., 2).
Since the body of the Word was His own or belonged to Him, It manifested Itself through it and in it. “Since the Word was in the flesh, then things characteristic of the flesh are said about Him, for example: hunger, thirst, suffering, toil, and everything like that that is acceptable to the flesh. The works characteristic of the Word itself, such as: the resurrection of the dead, the granting of sight to the blind, the healing of the bleeding woman, He performed through His body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh on Himself as if it were His own, because this flesh was His; and the flesh served the works of the Divinity, because the Divinity and the body of God dwelt in it.” Therefore, “when the flesh suffered, the Word was not outside it, which is why the suffering is called His suffering. And when He did divine things, the flesh was not outside of Him, but again in the body itself the Lord did these things.” When it was necessary to restore Peter’s mother-in-law, then he stretched out his hand in a human way, and Divinely stopped the illness, Lazarus, like a man, called out with a human voice. And Divinely, like God, he raised from the dead!
Just as the body is called His own body, so bodily sufferings are called His own, although they do not concern the Divinity. (Orat, contra arian. III, 31, 32). The Word refers to Himself suffering for the sake of our Salvation: “What the human body of the Word endured, the Word united with it attributed to Himself, so that we could partake of the Divinity of the Word. And what is extraordinary is that One and the Same One suffered and did not suffer. He suffered because His own body suffered, and He was in the suffering body, and did not suffer, because the Word, who is by nature God, is impassive. It was disembodied in a painful body, but the body had in itself the dispassionate Word, destroying the infirmities of the body itself. This Word did this and it was so that the Word, having taken upon itself what is ours and offering this as a sacrifice, could destroy it and, finally, having clothed us with His own, give the Apostle a reason to say (1 Cor. 15:53): “It is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and for this dead thing to put on immortality” (Ep. ad Epict., 6). Therefore, Saint Athanasius can speak about the crucified God (Ep. ad Epict., 10) and about θεοτόκος (Orat, contra arian. III, 14, 29, 33; Ep. Ad Adelph., 8).
c) The teaching of Saint Athanasius about the world and man, about the Fall and redemption
According to the teachings of Saint Athanasius, the truly existing is only the Divine, yet the created has only a relative existence and, in comparison with the truly existing, can be called non-existent: “The nature of created things, as having come from nothing, taken in itself, is something fluid, weak, mortal.”
The created world can be maintained in its existence only by communion with the truly existing Word from the Father: “the omnipotent, all-perfect holy Father’s Word, descending into the Universe, spread His powers everywhere, illuminating the visible and invisible, containing and holding together everything in Himself, leaving nothing devoid of His power, but reviving and preserving everything in everything, and every thing in particular and suddenly everything in the aggregate.”
Like a skillful musician who combines different tones into one sweet voice, and an experienced regent who stands at the head of the choir of singing children and wives, old people and young people and helps them bring out one harmonious song, the Word reconciles all the opposites in the world and produces a single world and a single order in the world. The Word rules over everything, provides for everything, arranges everything - only thanks to Him does creation stand firmly in being and is not destroyed (Orat, contra genytes 41 sg.).
Like the entire created world, man does not have the strength to always remain within himself: he is mortal, as if he came from nothing (Deincarnat., 3 and 4). Only communion with the Word could impart stability and constancy to its existence. If the rational nature participates in the Word and is created in His image, then man participates in this in a primary sense. “Above all that on earth, having taken pity on the Human race, and seeing that, according to the law of its own existence, it does not have sufficient strength to remain always, God gave people something more: He did not create them simply, like all dumb animals on earth, but created them in His image, imparting to them the power of His Own Word, so that, having in themselves, as it were, certain shades and having become verbal, they could remain in bliss, living the true life, and in the true sense - the life of the saints in Paradise" (De incarnat., 3).
Saint Athanasius paints the life of the first man in Paradise with the following features: “The Creator of the world and the King of kings, God, who is above all essence and human industry, created the human race in the image of His own Word, our Savior Jesus Christ, and through likeness to Himself made us a contemplator and knower of things, giving it the thought and knowledge of His own eternity, so that man, preserving this similarity, would never He removed ideas about God from himself, and did not retreat from cohabitation with the saints, but, having in himself the grace of the Giver, and having his own power from the Father’s Word, he was happy and conversed with God, living an innocent, truly blessed life.
Without any obstacle to the knowledge of God, man, in his purity, constantly contemplates the Father’s image - God the Word, in whose image he was created, and comes into amazement, understanding through the Word of the Father the Providence of everything, rising in thought above the sensory and above the bodily concept, with the power of his mind touching the Divine and mental in Heaven. When the human mind is not occupied with bodily objects and the lust aroused by them is not mixed with it from the outside, but it is all grief and collected in itself, as it was in the beginning: then, having transgressed the boundaries of the sensory and everything human, it soars in the heavenly things, and looking at the Word sees in Him the Father of the Word, enjoying the contemplation of Him and being renewed in love for Him.” While man's mind was entirely occupied with the contemplation of God, he did not pay attention to the needs of the body, passions and desires, which were inherent in him in Paradise; they were silent and could not become the determining principle for his will.
But as soon as, on the advice of the serpent, he abandoned the thought of God and turned to what was closer - to the body and bodily feelings, they began to grow and strengthen. Man fell in love with pleasure, considering it the most essential good; then the soul began to strive in various ways to reproduce them.
Following pleasures, passions penetrated the soul, then crimes. The body has become an instrument of sin. “Passion and desires have darkened the image of God in the soul. Having turned away from the path, and having forgotten about herself that she was created in the image of the good God, she no longer contemplates, with the help of the powers given to her, that God the Word, according to whom she was created, but, having become outside herself, her thoughts stop on the non-existent and imagine it. And this, as it were, a mirror in which one could see the Father’s image, having covered within itself a multitude of crowded bodily desires, no longer sees what the soul should mentally imagine, but rushes around and sees only what is subject to feeling. From this, filled with all sorts of carnal desires, and embarrassed by respect for the sensual, she finally imagines that God, Whom she consigned to oblivion in the mind, in the bodily and sensual, appropriating the name of God to the visible, and glorifying that one thing that seems pleasing to her and which she looks at with pleasure” (Orat, contra gentes 3, 4 and 8). The fall returned man to his natural state.
People were subjected to the mortal condemnation that God threatened them with, they were corrupted, and death, having reigned, took possession of them (De incarnat., 4).
The work of saving man, naturally, took upon Himself the Word, as the Creator of the World. “It was fitting for Him, Who is the Creator of affairs, to take upon Himself the renewal of affairs, so that He, who creates for us, could recreate everything in Himself” (Orat, contra arian. II, 53). God, in His omnipotence, could resolve the oath and man would become the same as he was before the Fall, but he could soon become worse, because he had already learned to break the law. Again the need to utter a command and resolve an oath would insist: the need for this would continue indefinitely, and people would still be guilty, servile to sin (Orat, contra arian. II, 68).
Since corruption was not outside the body, but began within it, it was necessary to instill life into it instead of corruption; so that, just as death occurred in the body, so life also occurred in it. Therefore, if the Word were outside the body, and not in the body itself, then, although death would naturally be overcome by the Word, because death cannot resist life, nevertheless, corruption would remain in the body (De incarnat., 44).
The Word in the person of Jesus Christ came into the closest contact with human nature, penetrated all its members and compositions and destroyed the very beginning of corruption in the body: “The Savior put on the body, so that, after the grafting of the body into life, it would no longer remain in death, but as having been clothed with immortality, after the Resurrection it would already remain immortal.” Straw can be protected from fire, but straw remains straw, and fire never ceases to threaten it; but if the straw is covered with a large amount of “stone flax”, then the straw is no longer afraid of fire, being protected by a fireproof shell. Likewise, the body of Christ was clothed in the incorporeal Word of God and thus no longer fears death or corruption, because it has life as a robe, and corruption is destroyed in it (Deincarnat., 44).
The consequence of the union of human nature with the Divine Word in the person of Jesus Christ was the transformation of this nature, its deification. The improvement and deification of the human nature of the God-Man occurred gradually, in accordance with its natural development and growth: “Humanity excelled in wisdom, gradually rising above human nature, being adored, becoming and being for everyone the organ of Wisdom for the effectiveness of the Divinity and His radiance” (Orat, contra arian. III, 53).
As the body prospered, the appearance of the Divine also prospered in it for those who saw it, and the presence of God in it became more and more obvious to all people. “Being a baby, He was carried, becoming a youth, He remained in the church and asked the priests about the Law, and as the body gradually grew and the Word revealed Himself in it, they already confess - first Peter, and then everyone - that He is truly the Son of God” (Orat., contra arian. III, 52). Mortal in itself, the body of the Lord could not remain dead, because it became the church of life; therefore, although he died like a mortal, he nevertheless came to life according to the power of the Life that dwells in him (De incarnat., 31).
The Lord removed from the flesh the fall of sin, of which she was a captive; in contrast to the changeability of Adam, expressed in his fall, Jesus Christ as a man was unchangeable in goodness, so that the new seduction of the serpent in relation to the second Adam could not have any power (Orat, contra arian. I, 51). The Son of God, as God, poured out the Holy Spirit on His human body, and it took part in the performance of numerous miracles for which the flesh served as an instrument. Grace and power to perform miracles belonged to the Word itself, the body was only “God-moved” in the word (Orat, contra arian. III, 31).
The deification of the flesh of Jesus Christ reached its completion in His Resurrection; it now receives new and more perfect gifts of grace. After the Resurrection, He calls Himself having received in humanity that very thing that He had as the Word (Orat. contra arian. III, 40). Finally, in the Ascension of the Lord, His glorified and deified flesh ascended to Heaven in the host of celestial beings and became an object of worship for the Angels and other Heavenly Powers (Orat. contra arian. I, 42).
In the person of Jesus Christ, human nature took part in the properties of the Divine nature, reached the highest possible degree of perfection, and became deified. But through His humanity, Christ is united with all Humanity, and as a result, all the grace-filled gifts received by the human nature of the God-Man are the property of all Humanity.
Explaining the words of the high priestly prayer of the Savior: “I in them and You in Me may be perfect as one” (John 17:23), Saint Athanasius writes: “Here the Lord asks for us something greater and more perfect. For it is known how the Word became in us; It has taken on our flesh. But You are also in Me, Father, because I am Your Word. And since You are in Me, because I am Your Word, and I am in them according to the body, and through You the salvation of people was accomplished in Me, then I ask that these too may be one according to the body in Me and according to its completion; so that they too will be perfect, having unity with this body and becoming one in it, so that all, as those borne by Me on Myself, will be one body and one spirit and will reach a perfect man” (Orat. contra arian. III, 22).
The Word deified Himself with a body so that we, as fellow-bodies, would remain immortal and incorruptible in it (Orat, contra arian.II, 74). Saint Athanasius denotes the change and glorification that will occur in the nature of the true followers of Christ, as a result of the mutual penetration of the Divine and human principles in the God-Man, by the term “deification.” The Son of God became the Son of Man for this purpose, so that the sons of men would become sons of God (Orat. contra arian. III, 34). Just as the Lord, having put on flesh, became man, so we, people, perceived by the Word, are adored for the sake of His flesh. The Word put on a created body so that in Him we too could be renewed and deified (Orat. contra arian. II, 47, compare: Ep. ad Adelph., 4).
The deification of the redeemed is expressed in the same features as the deification of the human nature of Christ, differing - while there is qualitative similarity - quantitatively. The Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant of His flesh in order to give it - and from him to all humanity - the power to know the Father (Orat. contra arian. III, 38; Ep. ad Serap. II, 9). He feared death in order to free us from the fear of death and make us partakers of immortality (Orat. contra arian. III, 54; II, 70). He was baptized, received the anointing of the Spirit, increased in wisdom and age and grace, so that through His flesh we would receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, grace and immortality (Orat. contra arian. I, 43-48). Since the human flesh of Christ was in unity with the true God (Orat, contra arian. II, 70, 67), sin was destroyed, and Humanity became free from it and immortal (Orat. contra arian. II, 56; III, 33); we become the church of God and His sons (Orat. contra arian. I, 43; II, 59); The Spirit of God lives in us, and we are united with the Father (Orat, contra arian. II, 25).
The man Jesus is in every way the representative of the entire Human Race, the second Adam (Orat. contra arian. I, 44; II, 65). His death is the death of all; for all He gave His body to death and thereby fulfilled the Divine sentence to sinful man (Orat. Contra arian. II, 69). This voluntary surrender of Himself to death was the Atonement for human sins and the destruction of death (Orat. contra arian. I, 45). He brought Himself to the Father and with His own blood cleansed us all from sins (Orat, contra arian.I I, 7). Having accepted death and rendered it inactive, He was the first to rise as a man, resurrecting His body for us; and since He has risen, we also are restored from the dead by Him and for His sake (Orat, contra arian. II, 61). At His Ascension He accepted man, and through the Ascension His deification was accomplished (Orat. contra arian.I, 45). Thus, the Son of God, having put on created things, became similar to us in body and is rightly called both our brother and Firstborn. He is the First-born “because when all people perished due to Adam’s crime, His flesh, before others, was saved and freed, as having become the body of the Word itself, and we are saved after it, as co-corporeals of the Word.”
In this body the Lord becomes our Leader in the Heavenly Kingdom to His Father (Orat. contra arian. II, 61).
Concluding our speech about the life, literary activity and main provisions of the Theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, we can say that he was not an original thinker and pure speculation did not captivate him. He is not distinguished by unique scientific concepts, like Origen, however, his immeasurable church-historical significance is based not only on his great life feat in the fight against Arianism, but also on a decisive reform in the direction and nature of scientific theology. This was achieved by a new, original combination of theological ideas and scientific concepts that had already been revealed and used in the Theology of their predecessors, and agreement with the deeply imbued essence of the Christian religion and its meaning for Humanity.
Saint Athanasius is an Origenist, and his Theology included, first of all, the essential elements of right-wing Origenism and Alexandrian church traditions, which characterize the Theological teaching of his predecessor in the department, Bishop Alexander; he also mastered the terminology of Origen's Theology.
The influence of Origen is especially noticeable in two early works of Saint Athanasius, written before the fight against Arianism and distinguished by their depth of speculation, scientificity and systematicity.
Saint Athanasius never addresses Origen with a reproachful word; he even praises him as a learned and hardworking man. Along with the influence of Origen, the philosophy of Plato had a noticeable impact on the Theology of St. Athanasius. But with these elements - established in the Alexandrian Theology - Saint Athanasius combined the soteriological teaching of the Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus: the close kinship and agreement of the soteriological creations of Saint Athanasius and Saint Irenaeus is indisputable. True, Saint Athanasius gave the teaching of Saint Irenaeus a philosophical justification using the concepts of Platonic philosophy; however, Asia Minor theology had such an impact on the general system of the Theology of Saint Athanasius that Origenism itself underwent significant changes, resulting in a real reform of church-scientific Theology.
He concentrated the entire Christian worldview in the idea of salvation and established an understanding of the essence of Christianity as the Religion of salvation. This idea was noted by Saint Irenaeus; Saint Athanasius developed it in his essay “On the Incarnation of the Word” and later especially advanced and deepened it in the fight against heresy. All his aspirations are directed towards knowledge of the Savior and the central significance of Christ in Christianity from the point of view of salvation. In the thought of Salvation, Saint Athanasius, with deep religious feeling, recognized the path that alone leads to the understanding and confirmation of the position of the Church Confession that in the person of Jesus Christ the full and real Divinity appeared on earth. In the great religious principle - the Salvation of Humanity for Divine Life through the God-Man - Christian faith and thought must receive their norms, Theology - its direction.
In the firmness and consistency with which Saint Athanasius reduced all the tenets of faith to this basic and central idea, lies the outstanding greatness and significance of Saint Athanasius for the religious thought and life of Christianity.
Although Saint Athanasius, during his long struggle with Arianism - which so deeply captivated him - could not write systematically, with full disclosure and justification of his thoughts, nevertheless, in his polemical works, genuine Christian speculation was based, so that Saint Athanasius did not abandon scientific soil throughout his literary activity; he only to a certain extent weakened the metaphysical idealism of Origen's Theology with religious and practical principles and aspirations with a significant inclination towards the latter. The Theology of Origen was also placed within this framework. Saint Athanasius limits Origen's desire to combine Christianity and natural knowledge into a universal system of religious philosophy and excludes the purely philosophical problems of the Origenists from Christian teaching, subordinating speculative and cosmological interests to religious and practical goals.
Thus, Saint Athanasius introduced a new stream into the theological science of the Alexandrians and thereby gave Church Theology a new imprint and direction, which determined the essential character of all subsequent Church Theological science.
IV. Saint Basil the Great
In the second half of the 4th century, a significant spiritual upsurge was noticed in Greek Theology. It is associated, on the one hand, with a freer attitude towards ancient education, since by this time paganism had been essentially defeated, and Christians could devote themselves to the study of classical literature without the same fears; on the other hand, with the coming revival of the true Origen, more complete and direct use of the fruits of his learning.
This rise of the scientific theological spirit found brilliant expression in the theological activity of the great Cappadocian fathers - Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory the Theologian. The theology of each of them presents individual characteristics, both in general character and in detail, but these are actually only varieties of one theological type. In terms of its basic principles and essential elements, it seems very complex.
First of all, he was influenced by the influence of Origen, who acted on the Cappadocian fathers all the more irresistibly because the principles of Origen’s Theology turned out to be the theological traditions of their native country, living tradition connected them with the recognized authority of the pre-Nicene era - Gregory the Wonderworker, a direct student of Origen. Memories of him by the time of the Cappadocian fathers, especially in the family of Basil the Great through his grandmother Macrina, were still extremely alive; his theological views were also not yet forgotten: the Cappadocians themselves testify to the influence that the symbol of the Apostle of their country had on their religious education (Bas. Magn. Ep. 196; Greg. Nyss. De vita Gregor. Thaumat.).
Traces of significant dependence on him in the theological thought of the Cappadocians are indisputable. But Gregory the Wonderworker led the Cappadocians to Origen himself. They studied Origen carefully and were fascinated by him. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian even compiled a selection of the best passages from Origen’s works – the Philokalia. True, they did not assimilate the erroneous opinions of Origen (with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa), but they undoubtedly penetrated into the spirit of his Theology. However, Origen's influence affected them to varying degrees: Basil the Great, a man of a more practical direction - a stronger and more positive spirit - was less subject to Origen's influence; it was much more reflected in Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa is a true Origenist.
Thus, Origenism in the softened form in which Gregory the Wonderworker presented it and with those restrictions on its freedom that were gradually made before that time and flowed by themselves from the state of Church Doctrine, constituted one of the essential assumptions of the theological activity of the Cappadocian fathers on specially dogmatic issues of their time.
But Origen actually defined the general character and spirit of their Theology, providing at the same time a whole series of concepts and necessary terms. The content of their Theological teaching was based on the Nicene Confession, hence their dependence on the Theology of Saint Athanasius naturally follows: they were disciples of Saint Athanasius and thereby strengthened their connection with the New Alexandrian Theology, with the essential feature that Saint Athanasius noticeably outweighed the tendencies and circle of thoughts of the Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus, and the Cappadocian Fathers - Origen's direction.
This preponderance is explained not only by the increased influence of Origen on them, but also by the reinforcement that Origenism found in their broad and deep classical education. Thanks to the latter, they comprehended the spirit of Hellenic culture and science and stood at the level of their contemporary scientific worldview.
When the Cappadocian fathers turned to the Hellenic schools, the times of dominance of one philosophical system and direction had long passed: in the 4th century, syncretism came into its own, and everyone chose their own paths, borrowing from one or another system the necessary data for their own constructions. Therefore, among the Cappadocian fathers we see, on the one hand, the predominance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influences, which were akin to the Origen direction of their theology and reinforced and clarified it; but on the other hand, they turned out to be not alien to Aristotelian views; the fight against Arianism, mainly with Eunomius, who, with the help of Aristotelian philosophy, gave Arian dogmatics a dialectical, scientific-philosophical form, forced the Cappadocians, with all their dislike for Aristotle, to a large extent use the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, which could not remain without influence on some aspects of their theological teaching and its terminology.
Finally, church-historical circumstances and the own aspirations of the Cappadocian fathers in the service of the Church placed them - especially Basil the Great - in close relations with the leaders of that conservative trend in Theology, which represented the traditions of Asia Minor Theology: in connection with the influence of Saint Athanasius, it undoubtedly had its share of influence on the direction and character of their Theology, restraining them from one-sided enthusiasm for metaphysical problems and encouraging them to show attention to practical-religious interests. With such an abundance of essential elements that were organically combined in the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, they, for their part, greatly contributed to the development of Church Theological Science: what Saint Athanasius expressed, although in a deeply philosophical spirit, but without proper formal dialectical treatment, was translated more as a biblical-church dogma than by a strictly philosophical-critical method into the precise language of modern philosophical concepts.
Therefore, the theological teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers is extremely important in the history of Church Theology. In their theological works, the Trinitarian problem received final resolution, and the understanding of the Church teaching about the Holy Trinity established by them and the formulas they created became the precious property of Orthodox theological dogmatics. But they only interpreted and revealed the Church's teaching, as it was expressed in the Nicene Confession, without changing its essence.
The mission of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa was different from that of St. Athanasius: at a critical moment in church life, they were called upon to give form and precise expression to the teaching that had been observed from the beginning in the Catholic Church and the defense of which St. Athanasius set as the goal of his life. Saint Gregory the Theologian presented this teaching with complete clarity and gave it the most perfect expression, making the lofty secrets of the faith accessible to everyone; Basil the Great put it into practice, and Gregory of Nyssa gave it a scientific and philosophical basis.
Involved in a dogmatic struggle, the Cappadocian fathers had to develop their activities in an environment that did not allow them to remain only a temporarily accepted point of view. In no country were the dogmatic contradictions of that time so fully represented as in their homeland and neighboring provinces.
In Asia Minor until the 90s lived the wittiest among the Arians - Eunomius. The fight against the pneumatomachus was more lively here than anywhere else, and the personal relationship between Basil and Eustathius of Sebaste intensified its passion.
Finally, the Apollinarians especially developed persistent agitation in Cappadocia. But it was difficult to fight all these opponents, not only because of the large number of attackers, but also because the fight had to be waged on two fronts: it was difficult, for example, to refute Eunomius without incurring criticism from the Apollinarians, or to consistently reveal the Orthodox teaching against the pneumatomachians without causing confusion in the ranks of some adherents of the Nicene Confession.
The Cappadocians saw the best defense in establishing a positive teaching, which would have long ago given a solution to the problems posed by their opponents. Their formulas were always directed against objections that were raised from without; but in all their constructions they did not lose the ground of their own religious principles.
There can be no dispute that the leader among the Cappadocians, both in church-administrative and theological terms, was Saint Basil the Great: he drew the main lines within which Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa carried out their further constructions.
Saint Basil the Great was born in Caesarea in Cappadocia around the year 330 (suppositions range between 329 and 331) and came from a well-known family in Pontus and Cappadocia (as well as in Lesser Armenia), famous both for its wealth, nobility and talents, and for its zeal for the Christian faith. His paternal grandparents had to flee to the forests of Pontus for seven years during Diocletian's persecution.
The father of Saint Basil, also named Basil, was a lawyer and professor of rhetoric and had his permanent residence not in Cappadocia Caesarea, but in Pontic Neocaesarea; his mother Emmelia was the daughter of a martyr. They had ten children - five sons and five daughters, of whom the most famous were: the eldest son Basil, Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Peter, Bishop of Sebastia and the eldest of the children, daughter Macrina - an example of ascetic life, which had a strong influence on the life and character of St. Basil. One of the brothers of St. Basil, Pankratius, was a lawyer, but still very young he gave himself up to an ascetic life and died early.
Saint Basil spent the first years of his childhood near Neocaesarea on an estate owned by his parents and owed his initial upbringing to his mother Emmelia and, especially, to his highly educated grandmother Macrina, who was a living witness to the last persecution of Christians and faithfully preserved the traditions of the famous Apostle of that country - Gregory the Wonderworker.
Subsequently, Saint Basil, in his Epistle to the Neo-Caesareans, who believed the slanderous accusations against him, speaks of the deep influence of Macrina on him: “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? 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” (Er. 196 (204)).
Thus, Macrina’s speeches and example of life made an indelible impression on Vasily, and one can think that in the quiet of village life on the Iris River, the seeds of the ascetic direction in its purest form were planted in the boy’s soul.
After initial training under the guidance of his father, Vasily was sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where his relatives on his mother’s side lived and where he could benefit from the lessons of the most famous representatives of science. Here he met his future friend Gregory of Nazianzus. Then he moved to the school of Constantinople, where he listened to the then prominent sophists and philosophers and probably became known to Lebanon. Finally, to replenish and complete his education, he went to Athens, famous in ancient times, but even then it was still the center of classical paganism and enlightenment. In Athens, Vasily already found Gregory, who took him under his protection and protected him from some of the troubles that newcomers were usually exposed to. A very close friendship was established between them, which then continued throughout their lives.
Gregory the Theologian, in his eulogy to Basil the Great (Orat. 45), enthusiastically and eloquently describes both this friendship and scientific studies in Athens. “We were led,” he says, “by equal hopes in the most enviable matter - in teaching. But envy was far from us; competition made us the most diligent. Both of us sought not to decide which of us should become first, but how to yield primacy to each other, because each of us considered the other’s glory to be his own glory. It seemed that one soul supported both... As for the lessons, we loved not so much the pleasant ones as the most perfect ones. We knew two roads: one - this first and most excellent - led to our sacred churches and to the teachers there; the other is the second and of unequal dignity with the first, led to the mentors of the external sciences. We provided other roads - for holidays, for spectacles, for public gatherings, for feasts - to those who wished.”
Vasily’s natural talents were fully developed. By the end of his stay in Athens, he was far superior to all his peers and possessed all the knowledge available at that time: “he studied everything in such a way that another does not study one subject, he studied every science to such perfection, as if he had not studied anything else.” He was a philologist, orator, philosopher and dialectician. “It was easier to get out of the labyrinth than to escape the snares of his word when he found it necessary.”
He learned so much about astronomy, geometry and the science of number relations that those skilled in this could not confuse him. His own physical ailments forced him to study medical science. He was also a lawyer and natural scientist. In a word, “it was a ship loaded with as much learning as human nature could accommodate.”
After 4 or 5 years in Athens, Basil returned to Cappadocia around the year 357 and spent some time teaching rhetoric in Caesarea, where they knew how to appreciate his talent. However, he soon abandoned this type of activity, which could bring fame, and also rejected the offer of the Neocaesarians, who wanted to entrust him with the education of youth, and he embarked on the path of ascetic life.
It is believed that Vasily was strongly influenced in this regard by Eustathius of Sebastia, whose close relationship subsequently caused Vasily a lot of trouble. Eustathius was an ascetic and preached forms of monasticism that were new at that time.
Around the year 356, he was elected Bishop of Sebastia, Metropolitan of Lesser Armenia. But it is even closer to look for an explanation for this step of Vasily in family influences, in which the powerful influence towards ascetic life in modern Christian society was strongly expressed.
After the death of Vasily’s father, his mother, her older sister, Macrina the Younger, and some virgins retired to the family estate on the Iris River near Neocaesarea and there they spent an ascetic and contemplative life. It was probably only at this time that Vasily received baptism from Bishop Diania of Caesarea and, perhaps, soon after baptism he was added to the clergy with the rank of reader.
Then, no doubt, on the advice of Eustathius of Sebastia, Basil undertook a great journey to Egypt, Syria and Palestine to become acquainted with the life of famous ascetics. He was captivated by their ideal of life and finally established himself in that direction, which created his fame as a great teacher of asceticism.
Upon returning from the trip, he distributed his property to the poor and settled near his mother and sister on the other side of the river, along with several persons of the same mind as him. They spent their time in prayer, contemplation, physical labor and the study of the Holy Scriptures, with Gregory, who often visited him, under the guidance of the most ancient interpreters, especially Origen, from whose works they compiled a collection at that time - Ὠ ριγένους Φιλοκαλία. Eustathius of Sebastia came here from time to time to visit his new students, and together with Vasily they visited Vasily’s mother, Emmelia.
Soon many imitators and disciples gathered around Vasily and monasteries for men and women were formed, in the organization of which Vasily sought to combine the cenovic life with the hermit life. At this time, Vasily wrote, at the request of the monks, his τà ἠ θικά - a collection of rules of moral life selected from the New Testament. By his example and preaching, he so contributed to the Christian improvement of the surrounding inhabitants that, according to the testimony of Rufinus (Hist. eccl., 2:9), in a short time the whole of Pontus took on a different appearance.
At the same time, Vasily began to take some part in the dogmatic disputes that worried the Eastern Church. When Constantius forced (in 359) the Westerners in Ariminum and the Easterners in Seleucia to sign the colorless confession of the Omians, Basil took the side of the Omiusian Basil of Ancyra and in 360 he was in Constantinople with an embassy from the Seleucia Council - he listened there to the debates of Eustathius of Sebastia and Eunomius. From this time on, Basil took a very definite position in the sense of those Omiusians who - in the common struggle against Arianism - overcame their suspicious attitude towards ὁμοούσιος and united with Athanasius of Alexandria.
When George of Laodicea brought the connecting formula of Constantius (Nica formula) to Caesarea, Dianius of Caesarea did what the leaders of the Omiusians did in Constantinople and what many others did (including Gregory of Nazianzus the Elder) - he signed it. This led to an estrangement between Vasily and Dianius, whom he revered from his youth, and Vasily avoided communicating with him for some time. On his deathbed, Dianius called Basil to him and convinced him that, despite signing the Nicene formula, he internally remained faithful to the Nicene Confession. This was in the year 362.
After the death of Dianius, great controversy arose when electing his successor, and the bishops gathered in Caesarea, yielding to popular pressure, elected one of the noble citizens - Eusebius, a man distinguished by an exemplary life, but not only a layman, but not yet baptized and little familiar with church affairs.
Eusebius, in order to attract a husband who enjoyed such respect and importance as Basil to closer participation in church affairs, ordained him - probably - in the year 364, to the rank of presbyter and used his help in preaching and in administrative duties. But the theological and ecclesiastical superiority of the presbyter over the bishop soon led to disagreement between them, which even threatened church division in Caesarea, especially since the monks took the side of Basil. To prevent disorder, Basil wisely left Caesarea and retired to his dear solitude in Pontus; here he again took up the establishment of monasteries.
But difficult times came for Orthodoxy when Emperor Valens declared himself a strong supporter of Arianism. The Arians directed all their efforts to take possession of the Cappadocian Church, and the expected arrival of the Emperor himself in Caesarea threatened the Orthodox with great dangers. Then Basil, with the assistance of Gregory, reconciled with Eusebius, returned to Caesarea in 365 and energetically opposed the aspirations of the Arians.
From that time on, Presbyter Basil appeared as the de facto leader of the Caesarea Church and during the rest of the time of Eusebius’s bishopric he developed the most extensive and fruitful activities in leading the community, establishing church discipline, inculcating monasticism and asceticism, and in constant preaching. According to Gregory the Theologian, “he was everything to the primate: a good adviser, a truthful representative, an interpreter of God’s Word, a mentor in affairs, a rod of old age, a support of faith, the most faithful in internal affairs, the most active in external affairs. In a word, he is recognized as benevolent as he was previously considered unfriendly. From that time on, Church rule passed to Vasily, although he held second place in the department.
Speaking about Basil’s activities at this time, Saint Gregory praises “his courage before his superiors, both in general before everyone, and before the most powerful in the city; his decisions of disputes, not taken without trust, but after uttering through his lips, through use turned into law; his intercession for those in need in spiritual matters, and sometimes in carnal matters (because this, too, by winning people over with good disposition, often benefits the soul), feeding the poor, receiving strangers, caring for virgins, written and unwritten rules for monastics, ordering prayers, beautifying the altar, and other things that only a truly man of God and acting according to God can use for the people.”
Vasily’s charity was especially evident during the severe famine that befell Cappadocia in the year 368, when he used all his estate, inherited from his mother who died around that time, to feed the hungry and, with his admonitions, encouraged others to generous charity. This period of Vasily’s activity dates back to his compilation of the second collection of monastic rules. His conversations on the Sixth Day on Psalms and many others come from the same time. While in the rank of presbyter, he also wrote books against Eunomius.
In the year 370, the Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius died, and in his place, despite strong opposition from some bishops, with the energetic assistance of Gregory of Nazianza the Elder, Basil was elected. Opposition found its basis in personal and dogmatic antipathies, especially possible among the difficult and unclear religious-party relations in the East. Therefore, Basil found general recognition in his diocese only after a certain period of time.
As bishop of Caesarea, he was metropolitan of all Cappadocia, and his jurisdiction extended over 50 suffragan bishops in eleven provinces. A better choice could not have been made for such an important department. Vasily had everything for this: personal holiness, extensive general education, eloquence, deep knowledge of Christian teaching and administrative talent.
From the point of view of Orthodoxy, he had an unblemished reputation: he was not bound by party obligations, and no compromises or signatures of religious formulas could be pointed out to him. He represented the ancient and simple faith of Pontus, preserved in his family. Saint Athanasius (Epist. ad Pallad.) with joy and gratitude to God welcomed the gift of a bishop to Cappadocia - a true servant of God.
Vasily's episcopal service lasted only about nine years and was full of tireless work, struggle and grief. The very election to the see was accompanied by a painful circumstance for him - the disagreement with him of many Cappadocian bishops (including even his uncle Gregory).
With the assistance of friends who acted as mediators, Vasily, through a prudent, restrained course of action, without excessive severity, without any pandering or ingratiation, achieved that in the first half of 371, the danger of a Church schism was eliminated and those dissatisfied with him were convinced of the need for unity with him.
But just as peaceful relations in the diocese began to improve, an accidental circumstance caused new troubles. Valens's government was busy redistributing provincial districts. Cappadocia, from which Armenia Minor and Pontus had already been separated, was again divided into two civil provinces, the new district being called Cappadocia II. Basil tried in vain to prevent this by writing letters to his most influential friends under Valentine, since such a division, with the formation of a new center of civil life, was unprofitable for the Caesareas.
The city of Tiana was made the civil metropolis of the new province. The Tian bishop Anthimus was not slow in drawing a corresponding conclusion from this administrative division in relation to church government: he immediately appropriated to himself metropolitan rights over the bishops of Second Cappadocia. Vasily rebelled against this. Hence the discord, and Anthimus took advantage of the previous discontent of the bishops towards Basil and began to attract dioceses and parishes to himself, either by flattery or by violence, deposed and expelled bishops and presbyters inclined towards Basil, and forcibly delayed the delivery of products to Caesarea from the estates of the Caesarean Church in Taurus, since they had to go through the new province.
Basil, for his part, as far as he could, supported the former unity of the metropolitanate and, as one of the means to achieve this, established new bishoprics in the regions of the second Cappadocia and replaced them with the most worthy and faithful persons to him. Nazianz remained faithful to him; he left his brother Gregory in Nissa, a small place west of Caesarea. To the south he wanted to have a bishop at Sasima, a postal station on the way from Cilicia. Vasily appointed his friend Gregory for this department. The latter did not share Vasily’s plans, did not want to be drawn into the struggle between the two metropolitans, and protested against moral violence.
There was a painful disagreement between friends. Gregory with great reluctance yielded to Vasily, but did not actually take control of his diocese. The struggle ended with reconciliation between Vasily and Anfim; the details of this event are unknown, but it is very likely that Saint Basil, in order to restore peace and preserve unity in the faith, found it necessary to give in. In any case, the discord was ended, on the initiative of Basil, by a personal meeting and agreement with Anthimus and other bishops of the second Cappadocia and the possible multiplication of bishops everywhere to confirm the believers in the unity of doctrine and for the moral improvement of life.
In his ecclesiastical area, both initially in its full scope and in its reduced limits, Vasily showed himself to be an administrator of the first rank. He was especially concerned about the strict implementation of the canons of the Church: he carefully ensured that only worthy persons entered the clergy, eliminating any partiality and any type of simony, and demanded the same attention and rigor from the bishops under his command; He prepared quite a few bishops in his clergy for other Churches and led newly appointed bishops with his Epistles, for example, Amphilochius of Iconia and Ambrose of Milan. He traveled tirelessly, surveying his Churches and making sure that church discipline was not violated anywhere, restored the effect of violated canons, based on his observations and at the requests of others, he himself established laws and formulated rules, and called on other bishops to similar activities. A monument to his concern for the improvement of Divine services remains his liturgy, his prayers, his regulations regarding prayers and Divine services in the monastic rules.
Vasily often acted as an intercessor before the secular authorities for the poor, unfairly accused, and oppressed. For the clergy, he asked for exemption from taxes and a special Church court. His Epistles are numerous, in which he is the intercessor of the weak, the defender not only of individuals, but also of cities and villages - either he asks the master to forgive his slave, or he convinces the pagan to reconcile with his son who converted to Christianity.
In particular, Saint Basil showed zeal in organizing charity. He used all his personal funds and all the income of his Church for the benefit of the poor, so that he himself was perhaps the poorest of the inhabitants of Caesarea.
In every district of his metropolis he established almshouses; in Caesarea he built a huge charitable institution, which included: a hotel, a hospice, an almshouse, a hospital - it represented a whole new city.
But due to the circumstances of the time, the main task of Saint Basil’s activity was the defense of the Orthodox faith and the restoration of Church peace and unity.
In the Eastern Church during the reign of Valens (364-378), external dominance belonged to the Arians, who, on the main point of the Arian disputes - the question of the Divinity of the Son of God - split into several parties. In general, this question was resolved by some in the sense of His consubstantiality with the Father, by others in the sense of complete similarity in everything, by others in the sense of only similarity to the Father and, finally, even complete dissimilarity.
At the same time, disputes about the Holy Spirit began to arise, and not only the Arians, but some of those who Orthodoxy taught about the Son of God treated with extreme apprehension the decisive formulation of the doctrine of the Divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, and not moderately zealous defenders of consubstantiality, like Marcellus and Photinus, gave real reason to suspect Sabellianism behind consubstantiality, or, like Apollinaris of Laodicea, began to spread incorrect views on the Incarnation of God the Word.
Further, many Orthodox bishops, not only the original defenders of Athanasius and his teachings, but often also their deputies, who turned out to be Arians only in words and not in reality, were expelled and their churches remained under the control of the presbyters alone, being at the same time subject to persecution by the ruling party of the Arians. Many stood in complete bewilderment between Arianism and Orthodoxy, horrified by the thought that the Son is unlike the Father, and fearing monarchism in the doctrine of consubstantiality, and sometimes simply not being able to understand a whole series of symbols, where one was more ambiguous than the other, compiled under Constantius in order to unite all the opponents of Athanasius - such, of course, could not enjoy the trust of either the Orthodox or the Arians. Finally, there were those who, guided by more personal interests, curried favor with the Arians and were ready, in the event of their decisive victory, to persecute the Orthodox, but for the time being did not want to break the alliance with the Orthodox - there was almost no way to find out their real views.
With such a confusion of dogmatic views and party interests, with mutual fears and suspicions of all kinds, there was too little communication between the Eastern bishops. Councils of Orthodox bishops were not allowed, and it was difficult for them to sort out mutual relations and determine the actual number of supporters of the Nicene Confession.
This general sad situation was strengthened and aggravated by the Antioch schism. In Antioch, in addition to the Arian Euzoius, there were two Orthodox bishops: Meletius, installed by the Arians in the year 360 and deposed by them when it was discovered that he was Orthodox, and Paulinus, who in the rank of presbyter all the time after Eustathius was a representative of the strict defenders of the consubstantial in Antioch; in 362 he was installed as bishop of Antioch by Lucifer of Calaris.
The hasty and thoughtless course of action of Lucifer, who was guided in his relations with Meletius by his personal view - not accepted at the time by the Council of Alexandria - and later recognized as a directly schismatic view of the need to depose any bishop who had in any way entered into communication with the Arians. This schism at this time had serious consequences, among other things, because it supported distrust of the East in the West: Orthodox Eastern bishops recognized Meletius as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, being confident in his Orthodoxy and condemning the installation of Paulinus during his lifetime; Westerners - inclined to consider the entire East Arian - supported Peacock.
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria entered into church communion with him, as with a constant defender of the Nicene doctrine, although he did not agree with the opinion of Lucifer, he recognized Meletius as Orthodox and was in communion with the Eastern bishops who recognized Meletius.
Under such conditions of church life, in order to maintain and - in the future - establish Orthodoxy in the East, it was necessary, first of all, to clarify the actual state of affairs, to dispel the general mistrust of Eastern bishops towards each other, to create the basis for mutual communication and unity of the undoubtedly Orthodox. Saint Basil took on this task, displaying great tact and the greatest condescension towards those who err through ignorance, so as not to alienate anyone from the union with the Church, and at the same time, with the greatest courage, defending the true teaching from attacks on its purity by heretics.
For this purpose, he entered into relations with many outstanding bishops of that time: Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, his successor Peter; Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Ascholius of Thessaloniki, Ambrose of Milan, Valerian of Aquileia, Damasus of Rome and others, encouraged everyone to a common unanimous defense of the faith, stopped discord between bishops, organized - as far as circumstances permitted - meetings of bishops whom he knew as Orthodox, tried to eliminate misunderstandings between them. In order to more accurately achieve the restoration of unity between the bishops in the East, Saint Basil decided to turn for help to the West, which at that time was free from Arian oppression and whose Orthodoxy in the eyes of the East was beyond doubt.
With the help of Saint Athanasius, Basil entered into relations with the Western bishops and the Roman Bishop of Damasus. Both in writing and through special ambassadors, he asked them to pay attention to the state of church affairs in the East, to become familiar with it through proxies, in order to renounce unfair suspicions regarding persons who are actually Orthodox; he depicted in vivid colors the external and internal disasters of the Church, begged for assistance in convening a council against the Arians and, in general, to help restore peace in the East; finally, he urged him to intercede with Valentinian so that he would restrain his co-ruler Valens from persecuting the Orthodox. But in the West they were poorly informed about church affairs in Syria and Asia Minor and responded to the fervent appeals of St. Basil with cold indifference and even arrogance. After all this, Saint Basil was left with only a bitter feeling of regret for his useless requests. “It is in vain,” he said, “to ask for help from arrogant people. If God has mercy on us, why do we need outside help?
If His anger continues, what benefit will the arrogance of the West bring us? They don’t know the truth, and they don’t want to find out, but only sanctify lies by their example” (Er. 231).
The difficulties were further aggravated by the fact that the question of the Holy Spirit was added to the previous dogmatic disputes. Even in his books against Eunomius, Saint Basil resolutely defended the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and the unity of His nature with the Father and the Son. In his sermons, he limited himself to only asserting that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, that He is essentially holy and cannot be separated from the Father and the Son, but not only did not attach the term ὁμοούσιος to it, but even avoided clearly calling Him God. This caution was caused by purely practical considerations: openly calling the Holy Spirit God would have been a welcome reason for the Arians to expel him and seize the See of Caesarea; for those still hesitant on this issue, this would be an additional reason to fear rapprochement with the Orthodox.
But some of the zealots of Orthodoxy, especially among the Caesarea monks, were tempted by this behavior of Basil and interpreted it as a betrayal of the faith, so Gregory the Theologian wrote to the monks in his defense, and even Saint Athanasius found it necessary to support him (in the Epistles to John, Antiochus, and Palladius), who expressed confidence that Basil was doing this, being weak for the weak, and the weak introduces.
On the other hand, when Saint Basil wanted to introduce the confession of the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son into Divine services and began to conclude the praise of God and the Father in two ways in his prayers, then with the words: “with the Son and with the Holy Spirit” (μετà του υἱου σύν τω @ then some rebelled against him, accusing him of using unusual and mutually contradictory formulas. To put an end to doubts regarding the teaching of Saint Basil about the Holy Spirit and, in general, to clarify the Orthodox teaching on this issue, Amphilochius of Iconium asked Basil to reveal the meaning of the expressions under discussion. In response to this request, Saint Basil wrote a book about the Holy Spirit.
His relationship with Eustathius of Sebastia caused Saint Basil many troubles. Vasily was carried away by his asceticism and a close friendship was established between them. Eustathius' dogmatic views were not stable, and for the sake of personal gain, he deceived both the Orthodox and the Arians, trying to be in communication with everyone. When Eustathius clearly leaned towards the Arians, he brought upon Vasily - who remained in communication with him - suspicion of the purity of his Orthodoxy. Basil managed to obtain from Eustathius satisfactory explanations and the signature of the Nicene Confession with explanations compiled by Saint Basil together with Theodotus of Nicopolis. But Eustathius soon openly opposed Vasily and before the Orthodox explained his action with all kinds of slander against Vasily, accusing him of communicating with Apollinaris, and of tritheism, of pride and seeking, and of church disorders. Saint Basil had to eliminate the accusations, and explain his former closeness with Eustathius, and take care of maintaining the Orthodox in Sebaste.
On the other hand, among the adherents of consubstantiality, who were tempted by a long-term connection with the Arian Eustathius, was Atharvius of Neocaesarea, an undoubted adherent of the Sabellian heresy, who incited the inhabitants of his homeland, the Neocaesareas, against Basil, accusing him of inclination towards Arianism for communicating with Eustathius, as well as of innovations for changes in church singing and in monastic rules and so armed them against Vasily that when he visited his brother, monk Peter, near Neocaesarea, a formal disturbance occurred in the city.
To restore church peace in Pontus, Saint Basil called on Atharvius in writing to reform, convinced the Neo-Caesarean clergy to counteract the spread of Sabellianism among them, explained to them and the people the insignificance of the reasons for which Atarvius armed them against him; finally, he personally visited Pontus and achieved the complete unification of the local bishops, but could not reconcile the Neo-Caesareans with himself.
Basil's firmness in the fight against Arianism, shown by him even in the rank of presbyter, could not help but attract the attention of Valens, who was merciless in his desire to bring triumph to Arianism. Many bishops had already yielded to the Emperor's insistence, or were removed from their sees. Valens tried to force submission from Saint Basil, but he courageously repelled Valens' attempts to persuade him to Arianism.
In the year 372, Emperor Valens, having established Arianism in other provinces of Asia Minor, came to Cappadocia and sent to Saint Basil the praetorian prefect Modest, a man indiscriminate in his means of pleasing the Tsar. Theological reasoning, promises and, finally, threats were used, but without any success.
For scientific disputes, Saint Basil was too insightful theologian and skillful dialectician. The promises did not deceive the ascetic who had renounced everything; nobles in matters of faith had no authority for him at all, and all the threats that Modest could indicate: confiscation, exile, torture - Vasily found simply inapplicable to a beggar bishop exhausted by labor and illness. The prefect, who imagined himself omnipotent, was amazed at his powerlessness before the Christian bishop. Saint Basil showed the same firmness in the face of Valens himself, however, observing respect for the Emperor, and with his behavior he made such an impression on Valens that the latter left Saint Basil alone, although the enemies of the Caesarea saint strenuously sought his exile.
However, Saint Basil, as the tireless and most prominent defender of Orthodoxy after Saint Athanasius, throughout his life remained for the Arians the subject of hatred and all sorts of intrigues, and only the love of the inhabitants saved him from violence on the part of the Arians, sometimes forcing the persecutors themselves to seek in him salvation for themselves from the rage of the people. Amid constant dangers, Saint Basil supported the Orthodox, deprived of their shepherds, affirmed their faith and patience, called for courage, and aroused hopes for a better future. In connection with this area of activity of Saint Basil, there is a large number of his letters to the Churches, bishops, clergy, and individuals.
The circumstances of church life were too unfavorable and difficult, and the time of Saint Basil’s activity was too short for him to fully achieve the results of his labors favorable to the Church: they were revealed only after his death. But he did see signs that better days were approaching for the Orthodox Church.
Valens was killed in 378. In the last months of his life, persecution of the Orthodox decreased, and the law of his successor Gratian established religious freedom. In Constantinople, the Orthodox, suppressed for 30 years, by the end of 378 turned to Gregory the Theologian, calling him to the capital of the Empire; a favorable answer to their request was given to them in agreement with Saint Basil. This was his last thing and his last joy. A harsh lifestyle, excessive continuous work, constant grief and the serious illnesses caused by all this prematurely exhausted his naturally fragile body. He died on January 1, 379 at the age of only 49 years and was mourned by the entire population of Caesarea without distinction of creeds or religions.
Saint Basil is revered in the Orthodox Church as one of the three ecumenical great teachers (οἰκουμενικαì μεγάλοι διδάσκαλοι). He is great as a bishop, orator, theologian and ascetic, great for his tireless activity for the benefit of the Orthodox faith, great for his dedication and strength of character. As a man of word and deed, he was rightly called great by his contemporaries.
IV. 1. Works of St. Basil the Great
Saint Basil the Great, as a cursory sketch of his life shows, was a man of primarily practical activity. Therefore, most of his literary works are conversations; another significant part is letters. The natural aspiration of his spirit was directed, apparently, to questions of Christian morality, to what could have practical application.
But, due to the circumstances of his church activity, Saint Basil often had to defend the Orthodox teaching against heretics, or the purity of his faith against slanderers. Hence, the dogmatic-polemical element, to a greater or lesser extent, appears not only in many conversations and letters of St. Basil, but he also owns entire dogmatic-polemical works, in which he shows himself to be a deep metaphysician and theologian. Apparently, all the works written by Saint Basil have not reached us: Cassiodorus, for example, reports that he wrote a commentary on almost all of the Holy Scriptures.
On the other hand, among the works acquired by Saint Basil, some are disputed in their authenticity with greater or lesser grounds. We will focus on the analysis of only those of them whose belonging to Saint Basil is beyond doubt. The best edition of the works of St. Basil belongs to the Marinians - Garnier and Maran (Paris, 1721–1730; 2nd ed. Paris, 1839): their publication is still used as the basis for literary-historical and textual-critical works, which actually concern only individual issues. The Russian translation was published by the Moscow Theological Academy. The surviving works of Saint Basil are divided into five groups in content and form: dogmatic-polemical works, exegetical, ascetic, sermons and letters.
a) Dogmatic-polemical creations
a) The most important dogmatic-polemical work of Saint Basil - “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” - δυσσεβου ς Εὐνομίου. The content of this work is determined by the dogmatic provisions of Eunomius, revealed by him in his “Apology”; From this work of Eunomius, Saint Basil cites passages and writes a refutation of them. Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus, was a representative of that strict Arianism that arose in the 50s of the 4th century, to which Arius himself seemed insufficiently consistent.
The founder and first leader of this new Arianism (Anomianism) was Aetius. His only gifted student was Eunomius the Cappadocian, who presented in his works a detailed and systematic disclosure of the theological principles of Aetius.
Possessing a strictly logical mind, he sharply criticized the Nicene doctrine of consubstantiality, and the influence of his views was so strong that such authoritative church leaders and writers as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia had to come out to fight him.
In the system of Eunomius, distinguished by strict logical restraint and consistency, Christianity lost its religious character and turned into a logical scheme of abstract concepts, into pure rationalism; the content of the Revealed Teaching was sacrificed to dialectics, so that, according to the fair remark of Theodoret (Haer. 4:3), for Eunomius θεολογία turned into τεχνολογία. Aetius and Eunomius argued that with the help of the dialectical method, a person can know the very essence of the Divine as God Himself knows it. Having set himself the task of accurately determining the essence of the Father, Eunomius found that such an essence is the “unbornness” of the Father or His absolute originality. The characteristic and central thesis of Eunomius’ Theology is the statement: “Ungeneracy is the very essence of the Divinity.”
Ungeneracy, as an exclusively Divine predicate, is incommunicable to other entities. Since the essence of the Son is “begotten,” He cannot be from the essence of the Father, but from non-existents; not consubstantial with the Father, because this would introduce division into the essence of God - absolutely simple - and not co-essential, because begotten cannot be similar to unbegotten. He is the begetter and the creation. The divine will or energy, before all centuries, was moved in an exceptional way for the creation - the birth of the Logos. It was created directly by the energy of the Almighty and, like the most perfect work of an artist, is an imprint of the entire power of the Father, His deeds, thoughts and desires. Not being equal to the Father either in essence, or in dignity, or in glory, the Son, however, infinitely rises above creatures and is even called by Eunomius the true God, Lord and king of glory, like the Son of God and God.
The Holy Spirit is the Third in order and dignity, therefore, the Third and in essence, the creation of the Son, different in essence from Him, since the work of the first creation must be different from the work of God Himself, but also different from other creatures as the first work of the Son.
Eunomius, who gained the favor of the Arian Eudoxius - Bishop of Antioch, and from the 360th year of Constantinople - in the 360th year became Bishop of Cyzicus; but since his teaching caused church unrest, the next year, at the insistence of more moderate Arians, he was deposed by Constantius and exiled.
On this occasion, Eunomius set out his teaching in writing and called his book “Apology” (Ἀπολογητικός), in it he clearly expressed the essence of his teaching, that the Son is a creature, although elevated above other creatures, and is unlike the Father in essence and in every respect (ἀνομοίος κατ ’ οὐσίαν καì κατà πάντα ).
This work was highly valued by many Arians and the rigor of the development of the system and dialectical subtleties aroused surprise in many. Therefore, Saint Basil the Great, at the request of the monks, undertook a refutation of it in 363–364. The work against Eunomius consists of five books, but only the first three indisputably belong to St. Basil; and the fourth and fifth, in their structure, presentation and language, are significantly inferior to the genuine works of Saint Basil, in some opinions and interpretations they diverge to the point of contradiction from his genuine works and are not so much a harmonious work specifically against Eunomius, as a collection of evidence in general against the Arian false teachings regarding the Holy Trinity. There was an attempt (J. Dräseke, Apollinarios von Laodicea. Leipzig, 1892) to assimilate these books to Apollinaris of Laodicea, but recently they have been considered more likely to belong to Didymus of Alexandria (A. A. Spassky. Apollinaris of Laodicea. Sergiev Posad. 1895. pp. 339–373).
The first book is busy exposing the sophisms that Eunomius wove around the term unbornness. Saint Basil refutes the main position of Eunomius, that the essence of the Divinity is ungeneracy. Based on general usage and Holy Scripture, Saint Basil explains that the essence of things is comprehended by the human mind in parts, and not perceived directly, and is expressed by several different names, each of which defines only one attribute.
The names assigned to God have the same meaning, both positive: holy, good, and others, and negative: unborn, immortal, invisible, and the like.
Only from all of them taken together does it seem like an image of God, very pale and weak compared to reality, but still sufficient for our imperfect mind. Therefore, the term “unborn” alone cannot be a perfect and complete definition of the being of God: one can say that the being of God is unborn, but it cannot be argued that unbornness is the being of God.
The term “unborn” only indicates the origin or mode of being of something, but does not define the nature or being. Finally, Saint Basil speaks of the community of the Divine nature through birth and the equality of the Father and the Son.
Against the paradoxical statement of Eunomius that he comprehended the very essence of God, Saint Basil says that the human mind testifies only to the existence of God, and does not determine what God is, and the Holy Scripture certifies that the essence of God is incomprehensible to the human mind and, in general, to any creature.
In the second book, Saint Basil proves that the Son is truly and from eternity born, since there is no time in God. God has in Himself a fatherland, co-extended with His eternity; therefore the Son, who exists eternally and always exists, did not begin to be at any time, but when the Father, then also the Son. The Son is not a creature or creation, but as begotten of the Father, He is of one essence with Him and equal in dignity with Him. In the third book the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is briefly and precisely proven and the assertion of Eunomius is refuted that He, being third in dignity and order, is also third in nature.
The fourth book first gives an abbreviated repetition of the evidence against Eunomius set forth in the first and second books, and then explains the passages of Holy Scripture which, apparently, can serve as evidence against the Divinity of the Son and which were actually cited by the Arians. The fifth book speaks in detail about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son, and explains the passages of Holy Scripture related here.
b) “On the Holy Spirit” (Περì του ἁ γίου Πνεύματος), in 30 chapters. The work was written at the request of Saint Basil's friend, Bishop Amphilochius of Iconia, around the year 375, regarding the changes made by Saint Basil in the final doxology. Then they usually ended the prayers and hymns with the doxology “To the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.” This formula was accepted by both the Arians and the Doukhobors, since it allowed for the possibility of explaining it in the sense of their teaching about the created subordination of the Son and the Spirit - the heretics referred to it in support of their opinion. To make such references impossible, Saint Basil began to preferably use the doxology “to the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Rumors began about this, and Saint Basil was accused of innovation. Amphilochius asked Saint Basil to justify the change he introduced.
In response to this request, Saint Basil composed the aforementioned dogmatic-polemical work, which aims to prove that the Son and the Holy Spirit have an equal part with the Father, since They are of the same nature with Him. Saint Basil points out at the beginning that it is indeed necessary to discover the hidden meaning in every utterance and in every syllable, but that heretics direct their sophistic reasoning about syllables and prepositions to confirm their false teaching and the difference in essence of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The subtle distinction of prepositions: with, through, in - was borrowed by heretics from external wisdom, and in the Holy Scriptures the use of these prepositions is not strictly maintained, and they are applied to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that confirmation for Arian views cannot be found in the previous doxology.
Moving on to defending his own formula of glorification, Saint Basil first speaks of the glorification of the Son. The heretics argued that since the Son, but together with the Father, but necessarily after the Father, therefore, below the Father, then the glory of the Father is given through Him, and not together with Him, insofar as the latter expression denotes a service relationship, and the former equality.
Saint Basil asks on what basis the heretics say that the Son is after the Father, and proves that the Son cannot be inferior either in time, or in rank, or in dignity. Therefore, both formulas of doxology can be accepted and known in the Church, with the only difference being that “when we take into consideration the greatness of the nature of the Only Begotten and the excellence of His dignity, then we testify that He has glory with the Father; and when we imagine that He gives us blessings and brings us to God and makes Him His own, then we confess that this grace is accomplished by Him and in Him. Therefore, the saying: with Him is characteristic of those who praise Him, and the saying of Him is especially fitting for those who give thanks.”
Next, Saint Basil speaks about the glorification of the Holy Spirit and, first of all, proposes to explore the ideas common to all Christians about the Holy Spirit, borrowed from the Holy Scriptures and from the unwritten Tradition of the Fathers, namely about His greatness and dignity, about His actions in the world, especially about the impact on the soul. The heretics’ assertion that the Holy Spirit should not be placed along with the Father and the Son, because He is alien to Them by nature and inferior in dignity to Them, Saint Basil refutes by pointing to the Lord’s commandment about Baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the confession pronounced before Baptism, which the heretics now renounce: “whoever rejects the Spirit, for that faith in the Father and the Son will turn into futility, and he cannot have this faith unless the Spirit is present.”
References to Baptism only in the Lord, in Moses, and baptism in water cannot serve as an objection to the conclusions drawn. In this regard, Saint Basil speaks in detail about the Old Testament prototypes, about the actions of Baptism, and finds out that the union of the name of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in the sacrament of Baptism, where life-giving power is given, elevating our nature from a state of destruction to immortality, establishes a unity that cannot be thought of as accidental, now existing, now ceasing, but necessarily presupposes the consubstantiality of the united persons.
This unconditionally indivisible unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is also obvious from the unity of Their actions in creation, where the Father is the original Cause, the Son is the creative Cause and the Holy Spirit is the perfect Cause: “imagine the Three - the commanding Lord, the creating Word and the affirming Spirit.” One principle, creating through the Son and working in the Spirit. They are united in the House of Man's Salvation, in the distribution of spiritual gifts and in the future Judgment. But the most important proof that the Spirit is united with the Father and the Son is what is said that He has the same relationship with God as the Spirit in Him has with everyone (1 Cor. 2:11 ~ - “Who knows the message from man” and so on).
Invented by heretics to designate the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son, the term “counting” (ὑπαρίθμησις), as opposed to “numbering” (συναρίθμησις), for this purpose is absurd, since it determines the relation of the individual to the species or the species to the genus, and introduces the idea that the one is in God's being is not something real, but only mentally imaginable. The Orthodox, although they confess three Hypostases, do not thereby destroy their real unity in essence and do not allow the Son to be called the second God, and the Holy Spirit the third, which is implied by the term ὑπαρίθμησις, “thus the Hypostases are confessed, and the pious dogma of unity of command does not fall.”
After this, Saint Basil decisively establishes the position that the Holy Spirit should be glorified in exactly the same way as the Father-Son and proves this on the basis of the identity of the names assigned to the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scriptures, with the names of the Father and the Son, the identity of the Divine properties: incomprehensibility for man, omnipresence, omnipotence and others, as well as on the basis of complete communion with the Father and the Son both in action and in essence.
Opponents of Saint Basil argued that Scripture nowhere taught about the glorification of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, but carefully avoided the expression: with the Spirit, but always preferred the expression: glorify in the Spirit. Saint Basil objects that the second form of glorification is used in the Holy Scriptures in such a way that it glorifies the Holy Spirit no less than the first, and in no way expresses His official position. But the second formula in its entirety is not found in Holy Scripture; and if it is borrowed from custom, then the Orthodox, not finding both sayings in use among the faithful, use both, being confident that both give equal glory to the Spirit.
But since the opponents are not actually arguing about the word, but have made it an expression of an incorrect thought not contained in the Holy Scriptures, we should prefer the preposition s, which gives a very clear concept of consubstantial. Having posed the question where the preposition “with” got its beginning, what force it has and to what extent he agrees with Tradition, Saint Basil answers it with an enthusiastic defense of the meaning of Tradition in the famous place beginning with the words: “of the dogmas and sermons observed in the Church, some we have in the teaching set forth in Scripture, and others that have come down to us from the Apostolic Tradition, we have received in secret. But both have the same power for piety” (De Spirit. Sanet., 27).
To the objection that the doxology: with the Spirit is not attested and not set forth in Scripture, Saint Basil responds: “I consider it an Apostolic rule to adhere to the Traditions not set forth in Scripture.”
One of these Traditions is the doxology in question, in support of which Saint Basil refers to the bishop from whom he himself received Baptism, and gives examples of the use of this formula in Saint Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Gregory the Wonderworker, Clement and Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, the martyr Athenogenes, Firmilian and Meletius.
In the final chapter, Saint Basil picturesquely depicts the sad state of the Church, like a ship subjected to a terrible storm; it is the result of disrespect for paternal rules, the insidious machinations of heretics, self-interest and rivalry of the clergy, which is worse than open general war.
b) Exegetical works
Cassiodorus (Instit. divin., praef.) says that Saint Basil interpreted all Holy Scripture. But now the conversations on the Sixth Day and on some psalms are known as undoubtedly authentic interpretations of it.
a) “Nine Discourses on the Sixth Day” (Ὁ μιλίαι ἐννέα εἰς τὴν Ἑ ξαήμερον) were delivered by Saint Basil, when he was still a presbyter, during the first week of Great Lent, in the church, before a mixed audience composition, but mainly from the common people. Saint Basil conducted conversations twice daily. Their subject was the account of the book of Genesis about the creation of the world in six days (1, 1–23). The conversations stop on the fifth day of creation, and in the ninth conversation Saint Basil only points out the participation of all the persons of the Holy Trinity in the creation of man, and an explanation of what the image of God consists of and how man can participate in his likeness is promised in another discussion.
This intention was probably not fulfilled, and the well-known three conversations: two about the structure of man and the third about Paradise, which were sometimes offered to the Sixth Day, as its continuation, are not authentic. Later, Gregory of Nyssa supplemented the Six Days of St. Basil with his work “On the Constitution of Man.”
In his conversations, Saint Basil sets himself the task of depicting the creative Divine power, harmonious order and beauty in the world and showing that the teachings of philosophers and Gnostics about the Creation of the World are unreasonable fabrications, and that, on the contrary, the Mosaic narrative alone contains Divine truth, consistent with reason and scientific data. In accordance with the didactic-polemical purpose of his work, he is guided almost exclusively by the literal meaning of Holy Scripture, eliminating allegorism in interpretations and even in passing rebels against its abuse (Homil. 3).
He carefully determines the meaning of the sayings being interpreted, explores, using the data of natural science of that time, the properties and laws of nature and artistically describes them. Along the way, he brings to the subject of his speech the excellent lessons of popular philosophy, when he contrasts the immutability of the Divine word with the contradictory systems of philosophers who mutually destroy each other (Homil. 1), attacks the sophists who recognize the eternity of matter, and the heretics of the Gnostics or Manichaeans, personifying the evil principle in order to contrast it with God (Homil. 2), depicts the absurdities and dangers of astrology and defends against it the freedom and responsibility of man (Homil. b), based on observations of animals, affirms the expediency in the structure of the world and the action of Providence in it (Homil. 7–9), in the infallibility of their instinct shows the image of natural law and moral consciousness (Homil. 9).
Pursuing the goals of edification, Saint Basil teaches from nature to know the Creator, His goodness and wisdom, and constantly offers moral instructions, bringing together the phenomena and laws of nature with human properties.
b) “Discourses on Psalms” (ὁμιλίαι εἰς ψάλμους) were delivered by Saint Basil, probably while still in the rank of presbyter. Thirteen are recognized as authentic: psalms 1, 7, 14, 28, 29, 32, 33, 44, 45, 48, 49, 61 and 114. These conversations probably represent only part of his commentary on the psalms: there are fragments of his interpretations on other psalms, if the fragments published by Cardinal Pitra (Analecta sacra et classica. Paris, 1888. P. l, 76-103) are authentic; in addition, in the conversation on the 1st psalm only the first two verses are explained, and in the 14th - only the last verses, but in both conversations the interpretation of the remaining verses is indicated; Finally, the conversation on the 1st Psalm is preceded by a general Preface, treating in general the merits of the Psalms, which apparently suggests an intention to systematically explain the entire Psalter.
In the surviving conversations, Saint Basil comments on the text of the psalms, verse by verse. Here he is not limited to establishing the literal meaning and indicating the moral application, but also gives room to an allegorical and representative interpretation.
In general, the conversations are popular. Researchers note that in some cases (for example, in the Discourse on Psalm 14) the interpretations of St. Basil completely coincide with the interpretations of the psalms of Eusebius of Caesarea; this is partly due to the fact that both used Origen's commentaries; however, in cases where such coincidences turn the conversation into a compilation from Eusebius, there are serious reasons to doubt its attribution to St. Basil; On this basis, by the way, the Discourses on Psalms: the 37th, 132nd and the second Discourses on the 14th and 28th Psalms are considered inauthentic.
c) Interpretation of the prophet Isaiah (ἐρμηνεία εἰς τòν προφήτην Ἡ σàϊαν) - a detailed and publicly accessible explanation of the first 16 chapters of the book of the prophet Isaiah. The author follows for the most part the literal meaning of the text and then gives a moral application of the words of the prophet. The style of this work is significantly inferior in treatment to other works of St. Basil. Quite a large number of passages are literally borrowed from Eusebius’s interpretation of the book of the prophet Isaiah; even more borrowings from Origen.
Evidence that this interpretation belongs to St. Basil begins only in the 7th century (Maximus the Confessor); Jerome (De vir. ill., 116) does not name him among the works of St. Basil. All this taken together is a strong obstacle to mastering the interpretation of the prophet Isaiah by Saint Basil. Defenders of its authenticity, based on the note in some manuscripts that this interpretation was published only after the death of St. Basil by some presbyter, explain its peculiarities, in comparison with other works of St. Basil, as follows: St. Basil began to prepare an interpretation of the book of the prophet Isaiah according to the guidance of ancient interpreters, especially Origen, but then did not have time to either finish or process what was written. But, even while denying that this commentary belongs to Saint Basil, it is considered beyond doubt that it was written in the second half of the 4th century and, perhaps, by a Cappadocian.
The totality of ascetic creations attributed to Saint Basil includes the following works:
a) “The purpose of asceticism” is, as it were, a general preface to instructions on Christian life,
b) “A word of asceticism and exhortation to renounce the world,”
c) “Words about asceticism”,
f) “Moral rules”,
g) “Rules set out at length”,
h) “Rules, briefly stated.”
a) “Ascetic Destiny” - (οδιαιυπώσις) an exhortation to those seeking Christian perfection to look at themselves as spiritual warriors of Christ, obliged to conduct spiritual warfare with all care and fulfill their service in order to achieve victory and eternal glory.
b) “The ascetic word” (λόγος ἀσκήσεως) and an exhortation to renounce the world - contains a call to renounce the world and moral perfection. The author compares worldly life with monastic life and gives preference to the latter, without condemning the former, but pointing out that unconditional obedience to the Gospel is necessary in it, gives instructions regarding various pious exercises and describes the degrees of Christian perfection that are achieved only through great labor and constant struggle with sinful aspirations.
c) “The word on asceticism, how a monk should be decorated” (λόγος περì ἀσκησεως, πω ς κοσμει σθαι τòν μοναχòν) – in brief provisions gives excellent instructions for the entire behavior of a monk and for spiritual life in general, so that it meets the requirements of ascetic perfection in all respects.
d) “Preface about the Judgment of God” (προοίμιον περì κρίματος θεου). The author says that during his travels he observed endless bickering and discord in the Church; and, what is saddest of all, the primates themselves disagree in beliefs and opinions, allow things contrary to the Commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ, mercilessly tear apart the Church of God, mercilessly disturb His flock.
Having thought about the reason for this sad state, he found that such disagreement and strife between members of the Church occurs as a result of apostasy from God, when everyone deviates from the teachings of the Lord, arbitrarily chooses theoretical and moral rules for himself and wants not to obey the Lord, but rather to dominate Him. After admonishing the observance of like-mindedness, the covenant of peace, meekness in spirit, the author recalls the manifestations of the Divine Judgment in the Old and New Testaments and points out the need for everyone to know the law of God, so that everyone can obey it, with all diligence pleasing God and avoiding everything that is displeasing to Him.
In view of what had been said, Saint Basil considered it proper and at the same time necessary to first expound the sound faith and pious teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to this add moral rules.
e) Saint Basil gives an exposition of sound faith in his essay “On Faith” (περì πίστεως). He says that he will expound only what is taught by the Divinely inspired Scripture, beingware of those names and sayings that are not literally found in the Divine Scripture, although they preserve the thought contained in the Scripture. Then the teaching of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is summarized, exhorting the readers to be faithful to this faith and to beware of heretics.
In conclusion, Saint Basil recalls his promise to set forth the moral teaching, which he now intends to fulfill, collecting in the form of brief rules what is prohibited or approved in the New Testament, indicating the very places of Holy Scripture, so that the reader can find evidence in the Bible for each rule.
f) This characteristic is met by the “Moral Rules” (τà ἠ θικά) compiled by Saint Basil, numbering 80, each further subdivided into chapters; the rules are, indeed, set out in the words of Holy Scripture and determine the entire Christian life and reality, both in general and, in conclusion, specifically in different states (preachers of the Gospel, primates living in marriage, widows, slaves and masters, children and parents, virgins, warriors, sovereigns and subjects).
g) “Rules expounded at length” (ὅ ροι κατ ’ ἐπιτομὴν) in questions and answers actually consist of 55 separate rules, presented in the form of questions from monks and answers from St. Basil, or, better said, his concisely superimposed reasoning regarding the most important issues of religious life. As can be seen from the preface, at the time of compiling this work, Saint Basil was in desert solitude, surrounded by people who assumed the same goal of pious life and expressed a desire to learn what was necessary for Salvation. From the answers of Saint Basil, a complete collection of the laws of monastic life, or a teaching about the highest moral perfection, was compiled, but without a strict plan.
h) “Rules briefly stated” (ὅ ροι κατà πλάτος) numbering 313 - also in questions and answers, contain almost the same thoughts as those revealed in the lengthy rules with the difference that the lengthy rules set out the basic principles of spiritual life, and the short ones contain more special, detailed instructions.
All these works are undoubtedly recognized as the authentic creations of St. Basil. Other ascetic works known with his name:
1) “Two words about monastic deeds,” outlining the most important duties of monastic life and exhortation to fulfill them,
2) “Ascetic Rules” (ἀσκητικαì διατάξεις), consisting of a preface and 34 chapters and setting out in simple speech the rules of monastic life, mainly for hermits and
3) (Ἑ πιτιμία) rules defining punishments for violations of monastic duties by monks (60 rules) and nuns (19 rules) - should be considered either doubtful, like “Two words about the exploits of monks” due to the lack of evidence in favor of their authenticity, or certainly false, like two other works expressing views that disagree with the teachings of St. Basil in his original works.
The ascetic works of Saint Basil provide evidence of the form of monastic life that spread in this era in Cappadocia and throughout Asia Minor and, in turn, had a strong influence on the development of monasticism in the East: little by little they became the generally accepted rule of monastic life.
Saint Basil does not recommend the solitary life of anchorites, which he even considers dangerous; he does not seek to reproduce those huge monastic colonies that he observed in Egypt - he prefers monasteries with a small number of inhabitants, so that everyone can know their boss and be known to him. He considers manual labor obligatory, but it must be interrupted for general prayer at certain hours.
Saint Basil gave instructions full of wisdom and knowledge of life on those cases, frequent in ancient society, when married people insisted on being admitted to the monastery, when slaves sought refuge in them, when parents brought their children to them.
Despite their purpose for monastics, the ascetic instructions of St. Basil for all Christians can serve as a guide to moral improvement and a truly saving life.
d) Liturgical works of St. Basil
The general tradition of the Christian East testifies that Saint Basil compiled the order of the liturgy, that is, he ordered, set out in writing and brought into a uniform, stable form the Liturgy, preserved in churches from Apostolic times. This is evidenced by a number of testimonies, starting with St. Gregory the Theologian, who mentions εὐχω ν διατάξεις among the works of St. Basil, and St. Proclus of Constantinople, who reports a reduction in the duration of the ministry of St. Basil and then St. John Chrysostom, to the Councils of Trullo and the Seventh Vselensky. The text of the Liturgy of St. Basil has been attested since the beginning of the 6th century, and its copies agree with each other in essentials, which proves its origin from the same original. But over the course of centuries, many changes in details undoubtedly occurred in it, so that in the latest scientific publications its oldest and most recent texts are compared.
In addition, Saint Basil introduced in his district the custom, apparently borrowed from Antioch, of singing psalms in two choirs, which, however, was not agreed with, for example, in Neocaesarea, citing the fact that such an order did not exist under Saint Gregory the Wonderworker (for details, see the letter of Saint Basil to the Neocaesarea clergy - Letter 207).
Saint Basil the Great belongs to the outstanding preachers of Christian antiquity. His eloquence is characterized by oriental charm and youthful enthusiasm. “Whoever wants to be a perfect orator,” says Photius (Bibl., cod. 141), “neither Plato nor Demosthenes is needed if he chooses Basil as a model. His language is rich and beautiful, his evidence is strong and convincing."
The conversations of St. Basil are ranked among the best works of preaching literature. In the publication of the Mavrinians, 24 conversations are recognized as more or less authenticated and 8 are forged; however, this opinion cannot be considered final, and an accurate study is necessary here: thus, the 17th conversation, on the day of the Holy Martyr Barlaam, is probably inauthentic, and two of the “false” conversations (“On the Nativity of Christ” and against those who accused St. Basil of tritheism) are defended by new researchers.
According to their content, these conversations can be divided into three groups: dogmatic, moralizing and laudatory.
a) Dogmatic conversations include the “Conversation on Faith” (15th conversation), in which Saint Basil speaks about the nature of the Divinity and proves the Divine dignity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The conversation at the beginning of the Gospel of John explains the first two verses, revealing in detail on the basis of them and proving the Orthodox teaching about the true Divinity of the Son in relation to His Father.
In the conversation against the Sabellians, Arius and Eunomians, the errors of these heretics are refuted, an accurate presentation of the Orthodox Faith is opposed to them and, at the request of the listeners, the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit is especially defended by the authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition. A special conversation is devoted to proving that God is not the author of evil in the world; in it, Saint Basil reveals the inconsistency of the usual identification with evil of any external misfortune, and we explain for what reasons God sends a person or allows such misfortunes for the good of himself and his neighbors, and the source of evil in the true sense of the word is indicated in the sin of man, in the abuse of free will.
Dogmatic conversations also include the conversation at the beginning of the book of Proverbs, in which its first five verses are explained.
b) Conversations of a moralizing nature make up the majority of all conversations of St. Basil. Some of them are directed against the vices that dominated contemporary society. Thus, four conversations were delivered in denunciation of the stinginess and greed of the rich, who not only did not help the poor, but took advantage of public disasters in order to make as much money as possible from the sale of basic necessities.
Saint Basil, with all the power of his eloquence, proved the duty of charity for a Christian, the vanity of wealth and all earthly pleasures, the inconsistency of explanations by which people justify their stinginess, and so on. One of these conversations, delivered during a famine and drought, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, produced a miracle: it prompted the rich to give their supplies to feed the poor.
The conversation against the angry explains how many great troubles and evils anger causes, how unfair and petty the reasons that arouse anger in people are often, in what ways a person can overcome unjust anger in himself, and, however, Saint Basil does not unconditionally prohibit all anger, but recognizes the possibility of just anger.
In a conversation about envy, the speaker depicts the harm of this passion, the most destructive of all that arise in human souls, and offers advice for healing it. In a special conversation, Saint Basil very energetically rebels against drunkenness, pointing out the sad consequences of this vice for the soul and body and convincing those who succumbed to it to repentance.
Another part of the moral discourses is devoted to exhortations to virtue and pious exercises. In one conversation, Saint Basil dwells on the virtue of humility and indicates in it the basis of all other virtues, gives examples of it for imitation in Christ and in the saints, and teaches in what ways a person can acquire this virtue.
In two conversations delivered on the last Sunday before Pentecost, Saint Basil speaks about fasting, urging not only to observe the fast established by the Church and conduct it in a manner pleasing to God, but also to prepare for it gradually in advance, and not to indulge in satiety and immoderate joy in front of it lately. In a conversation on the words of Deuteronomy: “take heed to yourself” (15:9), Saint Basil speaks of the need for a person to constantly be vigilant regarding unclean thoughts, the benefits of careful self-study, and the need to always remember one’s responsibilities.
In a conversation about thanksgiving, instructions are given on how to achieve such a state in order to fulfill the instructions of the Apostle: rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything (1 Thess. 5:16-18). The same theme is revealed in the first half of the conversation in memory of the martyr Julitta.
In the conversation about Baptism, those who put off receiving Baptism under various pretexts are exposed. Saint Basil points out the true reason for the slowness in the desire to live freely and not constrain oneself in life with the vows of Baptism, denounces the unreasonableness and sinfulness of such a course of action, depicts the disastrous consequences of such a postponement of Baptism and convinces one to proceed to Baptism, to enter into the book of the Church, in order to be rewritten in the Book of Heaven.
The well-known conversation with young men on how to benefit from pagan writings (22nd conversation) can also be attributed to this category of moralizing conversations. In it, Saint Basil the Great proves that the Greek pagan classics have not an absolute, but only a relative, propaedeutic significance, since they help the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, make the spirit capable of understanding heavenly truths, and guide in virtue by teaching and examples. Saint Basil, on the one hand, defends the permissibility for Christians to study classical literature and at the same time warns those who study it against excessive enthusiasm and unconditional trust in it. The issue is considered not from a scientific or aesthetic point of view, but exclusively from an ethical point of view.
In the Introduction, the speaker says that the real purpose of man is eternal life, for which earthly life serves only as a preparation. The Holy Scriptures, which instruct through mysterious teachings, lead to this life. But while young men, due to their age, cannot comprehend the depths of their meaning, they can exercise their spiritual eye on other works that are not alien to truth, such as shadows and mirrors: “having devoted ourselves to the preliminary study of these external writers, then we will begin to listen to the sacred and mysterious lessons and, as if accustomed to looking at the sun in the water, finally turning our gaze to the light itself.”
The reading of these works should therefore not be an end in itself, but only a means of learning virtue from their teaching and examples. Young men, like bees, should assimilate from them only what is necessary, related to the truth, and ignore the rest. Then he gives examples of instructive instructions and virtuous actions from classical literature - poetic, historical, oratorical works, and again convinces not to take everything from them, but only what is useful.
c) Five words of praise from Saint Basil have been preserved: in memory of the martyr Julitta, the martyr Gordius, for the forty martyrs, on the day of the holy martyr Mamant, whose shepherd occupations gave reason to talk about the good shepherds of the church and about mercenaries, and in memory of the martyr Barlaam. The latter is the best in its artistry, but its belonging to St. Basil is not indisputable - perhaps its author was St. John Chrysostom. The conversations of Saint Basil in memory of the martyrs aroused the admiration of Saint Gregory the Theologian (Orat. 43, 67).
The Benedictines published 365 letters of St. Basil or his correspondents and divided them into three classes: 1–46 letters written before the bishopric, 47–291 letters dating back to the time of St. Basil's bishopric, and finally those for which there is no dating data (292–365). This chronological distribution of letters is recognized as thorough even today, after former doubts and new research.
Few changes have been made on the issue of the authenticity of the letters: only a few of those recognized by the Mavrinians as genuine are rejected, while some of the dubious ones find defenders. But in general, the critical study of the letters of St. Basil is not yet completed. We can say for now that the 16th letter - against Eunomius - is in fact not a letter, but an excerpt from the work of Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius (Adv. Eunom., 10); The 50th and 81st letters to Bishop Innocent were perhaps written by John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent I.
The correspondence between Saint Basil and Livanius (Err. 335–359) is recognized as forged, although there are defenders of the authenticity. Correspondence with Emperor Julian is forged. The correspondence between Basil and Apollinaris (Err. 361–364) gives rise to ongoing disputes - however, so far most researchers recognize it as fraudulent. Letter 189 is very likely from Gregory of Nyssa. The letters of St. Basil are distinguished by outstanding literary merits and have important historical significance: addressed to very many people of different positions, they reflect the life history of Basil the Great himself and his time, and provide church historians with rich and valuable material, which has not yet been completely exhausted.
They reflect in colorful images the many-sided activities and exceptional virtues of the mind and heart of Saint Basil, his constant concern for the good of all Churches, deep sorrow for the many and such great disasters that befell the Church in his time, zeal for the true faith, desire for peace and harmony, love and benevolence towards everyone, especially towards those in need, prudence in the conduct of affairs, calmness of spirit in the face of the most severe and unfair insults and restraint towards rivals and enemies.
Like a shepherd, he gives advice in times of need and doubt; as a theologian, he takes an active part in dogmatic disputes; as guardian of the faith, he insists on the observance of the Nicene Creed and the recognition of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; as the guardian of church discipline, he strives to eliminate disorder in the life of the clergy and to establish Church legislation; finally, as a church politician, he, with the support of Saint Athanasius, takes care of reviving relations with the Western Church in the interests of supporting Orthodoxy in the Eastern half of the Empire.
According to the content of St. Basil's letters, they can be divided into the following groups:
a) Letters of historical content,
d) Related to church discipline,
e) Offering comfort and encouragement,
f) Petitions for different persons and
g) Letters of a personal nature.
a) In historical letters, the state of the Churches - Eastern and Western - is depicted with vivid features. Saint Basil mourns the disasters of the Church, asks for advice in difficult cases or gives it himself, calms discord, affirms harmony everywhere, stands guard over the true faith, speaks about the heresies of his time and their main representatives and, in connection with this, reports information about his own affairs, defends himself from slander and intrigue, and the like.
b) In his dogmatic Epistles, Saint Basil fights the Sabellians, Eunomians, Apollinarians and Doukhobors and reveals the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the consubstantiality and equality of Divine persons, and explains the mystery of the Incarnation of God the Word.
Between these Epistles, especially noteworthy is the letter to his brother Gregory of Nyssa, in which Saint Basil precisely establishes the difference between the concepts of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. Some of these letters are actual treatises. In all his Epistles, Saint Basil insists on firm adherence to the faithful Church Faith.
c) The Moral Edification Epistles give the most varied and excellent instructions concerning all aspects of moral life. Written on specific, specific occasions, these Messages are distinguished by their vitality and warmth. Letters of ascetic content mostly concern monastic life and contain instructions regarding desert solitude, ascetic deeds, monastic duties, and the like.
d) Among the Epistles relating to church discipline, in the first place should be named the three canonical Epistles (188th, 199th and 217th) to Amphilochius of Iconium, written around the year 375, in which important instructions are given about the discipline and government of the Church. In other Epistles, Saint Basil explains the Church rules and types of church punishments for various crimes.
e) In some letters, Saint Basil consoles those who have fallen into misfortune and encourages them with hope for God's help. He addressed letters of this kind to churches deprived of their shepherds by heretics, to bishops and monks, and to private individuals in the trials that befell them.
f) Many letters were written by Saint Basil to various kinds of authorities with requests for persons who sought his help. These letters clearly show what authority Saint Basil enjoyed among people of various positions and with what readiness he hurried to help everyone who needed his intercession or intercession.
g) Letters written by Saint Basil on personal matters are important for his personal characteristics, his personal relationships and everyday life.
VI. 2. The teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Trinity
Saint Basil the Great in one of his Epistles (8th) writes: “We must confess God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, as the words of God taught and those who understood them sublimely; and let it be said to those who reproach us for tritheism that we confess one God not by number, but by nature.” This condensed Confession expresses both the essence of St. Basil’s teaching about the Holy Trinity, and the peculiarity in the formulation and resolution of the triadological question in comparison with previous theologians and, above all, with St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Saint Basil, like Saint Athanasius, had to fight mainly against Arianism, albeit in new phrases of its development, and therefore naturally his Theological teaching has as its primary subject the disclosure and clarification of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The mystery of the Trinity is the mystery of one God in three Persons, one nature in three Hypostases, truly distinct.
The mystery is the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, for us to understand this unity in this multiplicity, or this multiplicity in this unity. It is inevitable that if the unity of the essence is first assumed, then it is difficult to explain the trinity of Persons, and it even seems that the trinity is sacrificed to unity and, on the contrary, if the trinity of Persons is first assumed, then it is difficult to explain the unity of the essence and in turn it seems that it is sacrificed in favor of the trinity.
In the first case, they seem to be inclined towards Sabellianism, in the second - towards tritheism. If Saint Athanasius, against the Arians, concentrated all the power of evidence on affirming the unity of the Divine being, then Saint Basil, together with other Cappadocians, takes the existence of Hypostases in God as the starting point and directs his thought mainly to drawing a line between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Saint Athanasius was often accused of Sabellianism, and Saint Basil of tritheism.
A new formulation of the triadological question also required new terminology in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The central point of this work in establishing the appropriate terminology is the distinction between the concepts of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, which was initiated by Saint Basil.
Saint Athanasius and the fathers of the Council of Nicaea did not believe there was a difference between them. But the question was not about terms, but about eliminating the ambiguity and misunderstandings that resulted from the confusion of the meaning of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις: Saint Basil says that some of those who used these words without distinction argued that both the essence is one, and so is the Hypostasis, and, on the contrary, those who recognize three Hypostases think that the division of essences into equal number (Er., 38).
Saint Basil made the question of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις the subject of special discussion in his Epistle to his brother Gregory of Nyssa (Er., 38). Οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, according to Saint Basil, differ from each other, like the general and the particular - κοινόν and ἴδιον.
Names are of two kinds, argues Saint Basil, some denote a common nature, for example, man; others have a particular meaning, which does not mean the generality of nature, but the outline of an object according to its distinctive feature, for example, Paul and Timothy. Therefore, essence (ούσία) is a set of common characteristics (τοκοινόν) in individuals of the same species, which they all possess equally, which is why they are all designated by one name, and none stands out in particular: in relation to essence, Paul, and Silouan, and Timothy are one and the same, since no one will see in Paul a different essence than in Silouan or Timothy, and therefore things brought under one concept of essence are consubstantial with each other.
The word man, by the uncertainty of its meaning, evokes some kind of extensive thought in the mind, so that although such a name reveals the nature of the object, it does not yet designate a real thing that actually exists and has its own distinctive name.
But if we add characteristic individual features to οὐσία, we get Hypostasis: “Hypostasis,” says Saint Basil, “is a concept that depicts and outlines the general and indefinite in some object with visible distinctive properties.” Saint Basil calls these distinctive properties: χαρακτήρες μορφαì.
Thus, Hypostasis is a specific individual, existing separately (καθ ’ ἕ καστον), which contains and possesses (οὐσία), but is opposed to it as a particular to the general: “Essence and Hypostasis,” writes Saint Basil, “have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual, for example, between a living being and some man" (Er., 236); “essence has the same relation to the Hypostasis as the general has to the particular” (Er., 214).
The essence of God for human nature is unthinkable and completely ineffable. There is not a single name that, having declared the entire nature of God, would be sufficient to fully express it. But many and different names, taken in their own meaning, constitute a concept, of course, dark and very meager in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Of the names attached to God, some show what is in God, and others, on the contrary, what is not in Him. In these two ways - by denying what is not and confessing what is, a kind of impression of God is formed in us (Adv. Eunom., 1).
Least of all can ἀγέννητος be considered the predicate that designates the Divine Being: ἀγέννητος means the same as ἐξ οὐδενòς: it indicates only ἄναρχον τη ς ζωη ς, without saying anything about φύσις. The concept of unbornness appears to us when we study not what God is, but rather when we study how He is: our mind, seeking about God, Who is above all, whether He has any cause higher than Himself, and then, being unable to come up with any, called the originlessness of God’s life unbornness. Saint Basil agrees to say that the essence of God is ungenerate, but he would not say that ungeneracy is the essence of God (Adv. Eunom., 1).
The distinctive properties of the Hypostases are what gives them a special image - Saint Basil the Great formulates this way: the Father is a certain force that exists unbornly and without beginning, and it is the Cause of the Cause of all things. He alone has that predominant sign of His Hypostasis, that He is the Father, and His existence is not due to any reason. Everything came into being through the Son; He alone shone forth from the unborn Light. A distinctive sign of the Hypostatic property of the Spirit is that He is known through the Son and with the Son and has being from the Father, proceeding from the Father (Er., 38). In the Epistles to Terentius Comitus and Amphilochius (Er. 214 and 236), the properties of the Hypostases are defined as fatherland, sonship and sanctifying power.
It should be noted that Saint Basil quite accurately and definitely names the distinctive features of the Father and the Son: unbornness and birth (ἀγεννησία and γέννησις, τò ἀγέννητον and τò γεννητόν) or patronymic and sonship (πατήρ υἱòς, πατρότης and υἱότης: Adv. Eunom., 1:5; 2:28), at the same time does not find a term that would clearly designate an image or method the origin or procession (τρόπος ὑπάρξεως) of the Holy Spirit: he did not find it in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, he says: “it is natural for a pious mind to be afraid to say about the Holy Spirit, which is silent in the Holy Scriptures, but to believe that experimental knowledge of Him and accurate comprehension is provided to us in the coming age, when, having ceased to see the truth in the mirror and fortune-telling, we will be worthy to contemplate it face to face” (Adv. Eunom., 3). Saint Basil is not ashamed to admit ignorance of the Holy Spirit (ibid.). He is from God, not like everything else from God, but as coming from God, coming not through birth, like the Son, but as the Spirit of the mouth of God; but the image of the procession remains inexplicable (De Spir. Sanet., 18, cf.: hom.24).
Accordingly, in the Trinitarian formula of St. Basil we do not find the γνώρισμα of the Holy Spirit. But this ignorance of the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως of the Holy Spirit in Saint Basil was only a “theological defect” and did not prevent him from “unquestioningly rendering the praise to the Holy Spirit attested in Scripture” and confessing Him as God, consubstantial and equal in honor with the Father and the Son.
But if οὐσία and ὑπόστασις differ from each other only as τò κοινόν and τò ἴδιον, then does it not follow from this that the common thing - τò κοινόν does not have its own separate existence and is realized only in the particular, that the community has a unity, represented only mentally, as a set of essential characteristics of individuals. In this case, Hypostases. Saint Basil strongly objects to this: “I don’t believe,” he says, “that they (the pneumatomachs) would reach such stupidity and begin to assert that the God of all, like some general concept represented only in the mind, did not have any independent existence” (De Spir. Sanet., 16). There is no gap between the Hypostases considered in relation to the essence, there is nothing interstitial or independent between them and different from God’s nature so that this nature could be separated from Itself by the insertion of an extraneous person, nor the emptiness of any unfilled space that would produce breaks in the unity of God’s essence with itself, dividing the continuous with empty intervals (Er., 38).
The essence of God cannot be equated with the essence of man and essence in general: while in the comprehended world the essence manifests itself in separate forms and is, as it were, fragmented between them, in the Divine it at every moment and at the same time belongs to all Hypostases and is not only logically comprehended, but the real basis of their existence. On the other hand, Saint Basil also rejects the idea that οὐσία represents the highest principle from which the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) receive existence; in relation to God the Father and God the Son, no essence is seen that would be more primary and higher than both, because to think and say this is above all wickedness. For what could be more primal than the Unborn? Such blasphemy would destroy faith in the Father and the Son, because those who came from one are already brothers among themselves (Er. 52; cf. Nom. 24).
Contemporaries accused Saint Basil, like other Cappadocians, of tritheism (compare: Ep. 189). Saint Basil reveals the teaching that Each of the Three Persons represents an absolute unity with the Other Persons, a whole in Itself, and therefore cannot be added to one sum with another, and that which unites Them into unity is the same in all. “Either silence is almost inexpressible,” writes Saint Basil, “or piously count the sacred. There is one God and Father, and one Only Begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. Each of the Hypostases is announced separately; but when it becomes necessary to count, then we will not allow ignorant calculation to lead us to the concept of polytheism. We do not count through addition, by incrementing from one to many and saying: one, two, three, or: first, second, third. I am God first, and I am unto this (Isa. 44:6). We have never heard of the second God even until now.
In worshiping God from God, we confess the distinction of the Hypostases and remain under unity of command, without cutting the Theology into fragmented multitudes, because in God the Father and in the only begotten God we contemplate one, as it were, image, imprinted in the immutability of the Divinity. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, because the Son is the same as the Father is, and the Father is the same as the Son, and in this They are one... But the Holy Spirit is also one, and He is proclaimed separately; through the one Son He is united with the one Father, and with Himself completes the revered and blessed Trinity... As there is one Father and one Son, so there is one Holy Spirit... In this way the Hypostases are confessed and the pious dogma of unity of command does not fall.” Those who allow calculation, saying: first, second and third, introduce into Christian Theology the polytheism of the Hellenic error (De Spir. Sanet., 18).
The unity of the Divine is established primarily on the unity of the Divine being and in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. “Although two in number (Father and Son), they are inseparable by nature... There is one God, He is also the Father, one God and the Son. And not two Gods, because the Son has identity with the Father. For I contemplate not another Divinity in the Father, but another in the Son, not another nature of the Father, but another of the Son.
Therefore, in order for the distinctiveness of persons to become clear to you, consider the Father especially and the Son especially, but in order not to fall into polytheism, confess a single essence in both. So Sabellius will fall and Apola will be crushed” (Note 24). “What ever you think about the being of the Father, imagine the same about the Son, and likewise the same about the Holy Spirit. The concept of the uncreated and the incomprehensible is one and the same in the discussion of “Father and Son and Holy Spirit”...
“As for infinity, incomprehensibility, uncreatedness, inextensibility by place and everything like this, there is no difference in the life-giving nature, I mean the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but one sees in them some kind of continuous and indissoluble communication...
It is impossible to mentally imagine any section or division, so that either the Son is imagined without the Father, or the Spirit is separated from the Son, but on the contrary, we find between Them some kind of ineffable and inconceivable communication and division; neither the difference of Hypostases dissolves the continuity of nature, nor the community of essence merges the distinctive features” (Er. 38, cf.: Er. 210).
Saint Basil asks not to be surprised if he says that the same thing is both united and divided, and if he imagines mentally, as if in fortune-telling, some new and extraordinary both a united division and a divided unity. “Take my word,” he says, “as a likeness and shadow of the truth, and not as the actual truth itself, for it is impossible for what is represented in the likeness to be in every way similar to what it is taken to depict” (Ep. 38).
Another basis for affirming the unity of the Divine is the unity of command - (μονάρχια) of the Father. Like Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil confesses that the Father is the beginning and cause of the Son and the Spirit, but the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one and the same and the Divinity is one (Er. 210). The Father, who has a perfect and in no way poor existence, is the root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit (Note 24:4).
The existence of three Hypostases does not introduce any division into the Holy Trinity, since the Son and the Spirit are raised to one beginning and one Author of Their existence.
Recognizing the unity of the Divine essence, Saint Basil definitely declares that he also accepts ὁμοούσιος, explaining that consubstantial means that in essence God is one in essence with God in essence (Er. 8).
From this, as a direct conclusion, it follows that the Son is the only begotten Son of God, the radiance of the glory of the Father, His living image (Hom. IX in Neham.), consubstantial with the Father (Not. 24), always perfect, wise without teaching, God's power (De Spir. Sanet., 8); He is before the ages, always exists and never began to be (Adv. Eunom., 2). The Son has glory in common with the Father (De Spir. Sanet., 8); everything that the Father has belongs to the Son (ibid. 14); He has perfect power, and His will is inseparable from the Father (ibid. 8), united and inseparable from it; Having no difference in essence with the Father, He has no difference in power. The Spirit is numbered in the blessed and Holy Trinity, participates in the Divinity (Adv. Eunom., 3), is united with the Father and the Son in everything: in glory and eternity, in power and kingdom, in dominion and Divinity (Ep. 105), in everything inseparable and inseparable from the Father (De Spir. Sanet., 14).
The content of the concept of ὁμοούσιος, which Saint Basil connects with him in his creations, indisputably shows that in relation to the doctrine of consubstantiality, he was a genuine Nicene, the successor of Saint Athanasius.
Whenever he speaks of the trinity of Persons, he expresses a clear warning against doubting the unity and precisely the numerical unity of the Divine essence (Adv. Eunom., 2; De Spir. Sanet., 18; hom. 24). Therefore, in full agreement with this, he wrote to Saint Epiphanius: “we cannot add anything, even the most brief, to the Nicene Confession of Faith, except the doxology of the Holy Spirit, because our fathers mentioned this member briefly for the reason that the question did not yet arise about this” (Er. 258). Moreover, Saint Basil expresses the requirement that one must adhere not only to the sayings that were proposed by the fathers in Nicaea, but also to the meaning that, according to common understanding, is expressed by these sayings (Er. 125).
The essence of the teaching of Basil the Great about the Holy Trinity can be expressed in the following words of his in the Epistle to Amphilochius: “We confess in the Divinity one essence and do not define the concepts of being differently, but we confess the Hypostasis in particular, so that our thought about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is unified and clear. For if we do not represent the distinctive characteristics of each Person, namely: patronymic, sonship and shrine, but we confess God under the general concept of being, then it is impossible for us to sensibly present the doctrine of faith. Therefore, adding the distinctive to the general, one must confess faith like this: the Divinity is general, the patronymic is special; combining this, we must say: I believe in God the Father.
And again we must act similarly when confessing the Son, combining the particular with the general, and saying: I believe in God the Son. And in the same way, about the Holy Spirit, combining the sentence according to the same pattern, we must say: I believe in God the Holy Spirit, so that I may completely maintain unity by confessing the Divinity, and confess the uniqueness of Persons by distinguishing the properties assigned to each person” (Er. 236). This formulation of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity means that the essence of God and its distinctive properties belong equally to All Three Hypostases: Father, Son and Spirit - Her manifestation in Persons, of which Each possesses the fullness of the absolute essence and is in inseparable unity with Her.
The difference between the Hypostases lies in their internal relationship, since the Father is not born from anyone and does not come from anyone, the Son is born from the Father and the Spirit comes from Him. As possessing all the fullness of the Divine essence and all its inherent properties, each Hypostasis is God, and since She possesses this essence not by itself taken separately, but in an inextricable connection and in an invariable relationship with the other two Hypostases, then all three Hypostases are one God. This precise definition of the relationship between the essence and the Hypostases in God is an important merit of Saint Basil, along with the other Cappadocian fathers.