Часть вторая. Нравственное учение св. Амвросия Медиоланского

Preliminary remarks Exposition of moral teaching 756 ; Dr. I. Pruner, “Die Theologie des heiligen Ambrosius” (passium); P. de Labriolle, “Saint Ambroise”, (209 – 254); also Dr. F. Wöeter, “Die christliche Lehre über das Verhältniss von Grande und Freiheit von den apostolischen Zeiten bis auf Augustinus.” Erster Band. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1856 – 1860 (§ 32, S. 529 – 611), – especially: Dr. I. . Niederhuber, “Die Lehre des hl. Ambrosius,” - finally, in general courses on Patrology (for example, Bardenhewer, Kihn, Rauschen and Ceillier), in the histories of ethics (for example, Luthardt) and the history of dogmas (such as Harnack, Seeberg, Tixeront). The following works are available in Russian concerning the moral teachings of the Milanese saint. Prot. V. Molodensky: “De officiis of Cicero and St. Ambrose of Milan" (Faith and Reason, 1887, No. 17, 18, 19); priest I. Artinsky: “St. Ambrose of Milan (His life and pastoral activity)" "Christian", 1909, January - July; Wed also the preface to the book: “On the duties of the ministers of the Church of Christ” (From the work of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, De officiis ministrorum, published by Peter Pospelov. In the January book of the “Orthodox Interlocutor”, the above-mentioned work of Mr. A. Metrokhin began printing: “The Creation of St. Ambrose of Milan “De officiis” ministrorum" is associated with great difficulties, caused either by the uncertainty and clarity of the saint’s views on one or another point of ethics, or by direct contradictions between judgments on the same issue. The reasons for this phenomenon must be sought both in Ambrose himself and outside him. St. Ambrose was a practitioner, not a theorist: questions of morality attracted his attention not in their theoretical formulation, but in their direct relation to life, hence his views on this or that subject of ethics of St. the father expounds not in abstracto, but ad hoc. Today he is interested in one side of the matter, and he uses all his strength to find out it in as much detail as possible; tomorrow, prompted by circumstances, he pays exclusive attention to the other side, not caring that in his desire to highlight this new side of the issue and illuminate it from a new, exclusive point of view, he comes into conflict with himself, in particular, with what he said yesterday. 757 For example, on the question of the free will of a redeemed person, he is either its ardent defender, or he treats of the complete powerlessness of man and the impossibility for him to even wish for anything good. Another reason for the contradictions in the moral teaching of St. Ambrose was his more or less close dependence on one or another authority recognized by him, closest of all in the field of theology. At one time he is under the influence of one writer and carries out his thoughts and views in his creations; later he becomes dependent on another authority, whose views on one or another point of ethics differed from the views on the same subject of his former teacher; following the new authority, St. Ambrose comes under the influence of new views, from where on the same issue he begins to pursue thoughts that are different from his previous ones. To this we must add that the ethical thoughts and provisions of St. Ambrose borrows not only from his domestic theologians, not only from the Eastern fathers, but also from Philo, and even from pagan philosophy that he did not particularly approve of, not always paying attention to the fact that other positions he accepted not only do not agree with one another, but also stand in contradiction with Christian truth. As for the external reasons for the instability of some of the moral views of St. Ambrose, then it should be pointed out that in the era of St. Ambrose, not all dogmatic and ethical issues have yet been clarified in the church consciousness, and some of these issues, although they have been clarified, have not yet received a definition that fixes them. These circumstances, opening up a more or less wide field for personal opinions and views, determined the instability of theological and ethical teaching (at least in certain points) and interfered, in particular, with the construction of a complete system of Orthodox Christian ethics (as well as theology in general). It is clear that St. Ambrose, as not always an independent thinker, could not be above his time, could not give a consistent and complete system of morality in all parts. Periods of ethical development and moral life of a person in general St. Ambrose recognizes the numeric unity of this world, 758 encompassed by the word saeculum [age], 759 but not saecula [world]. 760 The world period is divided by St. father for eight world days (dies) 761 or eight world years (hora, aetas). 762 The first seven days or years lasted from the creation of the world until the coming of Christ, but after the coming of Christ 763 came the eighth day or eighth summer, in contrast to the past week, called the “octave” or “today”, 764 as well as the “new day”, “day of Christ”, “great day”, which follows the “day of old” or “day of the old” person." 765 The last period (New Testament time) by its nature is a time of grace par excellence, 766 by its significance in the history of salvation it is designated by St. Ambrose, as the day of salvation, 767 the last times, 768 the last days, 769 as the day of the Lord, having at its zenith the sun of righteousness, which disperses shadows and darkness, 770 - as a single and eternal summer. 771 Sometimes St. Ambrose counts not eight, but only seven world years, which will be followed by future times 772 or times of eternal rest. 773 The world period will end with the destruction of this world, 774 which will coincide with the second, judging, 775 coming of Christ, 776 as well as the day of the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of people. 777 The time between the first and second coming of Christ in St. Ambrose is called tempus medium [middle time]. 778 However, this division into periods was not based on St. father on positive data, and he needed seven periods only to preserve the mystical meaning of the number 7: usually (more naturally and with greater justification) the entire world history of St. Ambrose divides from an ethical point of view into three periods. “There are only three mystical years,” he says, “in which the economy of salvation takes place: the first period is the year of the patriarchs..., the second - of Moses and other prophets, the third - the coming of the saving Lord.” 779 But most often these three periods in St. Ambrose differ as follows: the first period is the state under the law, the second is the New Testament state, the third is the future life. “We need to look for that in which there is perfection, in which there is truth. Here is a shadow, here is an image, and there is the truth. The shadow is in the law, the image is in the Gospel, and the truth is in heaven.” 780 These three periods in St. Ambrose, like Origen, correspond to three periods of mystical, grace-filled enlightenment and sanctification of the soul by the Word of God. The soul first cognizes the Word of God only in the canopy, for the light of the Gospel has not yet shone; then she enjoys the fragrance, already free from the canopy; finally, the third period, she, already perfect, prepares rest within herself for the Word, so that It turns to her, bows His head and rests. 781 If we add to the three indicated periods the still short, admittedly, period of the grace-filled state of the first people in paradise, what period does St. Ambrose not only mentions, but also discusses the moral state of the first people, as well as their fall - then there will be only four periods of moral development or, in general, the moral life of mankind: 1. primeval or heavenly state; 2. a state of fall, more closely defined as subordinate; 3. state of redemption or salvation; 4. state of perfection or future life. Accordingly, we divide this study into four chapters, of which the first will deal with the moral state of an innocent person (primitive state), the second - a fallen person (a sub-legal state), the third - a redeemed person (a grace-Christian state) and the fourth - a perfect person (a future glorified state). Chapter I. The Primitive or Paradise State of Man Before expounding the teachings of St. Ambrose about the primitive state of people, it is necessary to clarify the question of how St. imagined. the father of paradise life and paradise itself, that is, whether he accepted the biblical story about the fall of the ancestors as actual history, or as an allegory. The fact is that the samples of St. Ambrose - Philo and Origen leaned more towards the latter understanding of the biblical narrative. Thus, Philo directly and categorically asserts that paradise is not material, 782 that by it we must understand not the earth, but the human soul 783 and that the entire biblical narrative should be understood allegorically: Adam personifies the mind, Eve - feeling, the serpent - pleasure, 784 the animals that the Lord brought to Adam are our passions. 785 Origen argues in the same spirit. By the name Adam he means not so much an individual as an entire race, but by expulsion from paradise a certain mysterious image, which he brings closer to Plato’s story about the fallen soul, more specifically, with its imprisonment in a material shell (body) or its appearance in the real world. 786 However, along with this we find in Origen an ecclesiastical understanding of the history of the first people. 787 The views on this issue of Philo and Origen were also reflected in St. Ambrose, who is more inclined towards an allegorical interpretation of heaven and the heavenly life of the ancestors. He also denies the existence of an earthly paradise. 788 Paradise must be established not on earth, but in the sovereign part of man, which is enlivened by the virtues of the soul and animated by the Holy Spirit. 789 “Paradise,” he writes, “is in our essence, a paradise rich in plants of very many opinions. In him, first of all, God planted the tree of life, that is, the root of piety, for this is the essence of our life, so that we give due reverence to our Lord and God.” 790 Paradise is the image of the human soul, “which multiplies the received seed; in it every virtue is planted and, among other things, the tree of life, that is, wisdom”; 791 the four heavenly arms are the four cardinal (or cardinal) virtues flowing from the main source - Christ, who is Sapientia Dei [the wisdom of God]. 792 Likewise, in the fall of the ancestors of St. Ambrose, following Philo, is ready to see the image of any sin and by the serpent he means pleasure, by Eve - feeling, by Adam - mind or spirit, 793 by beasts - passions. 794 The negative attitude of St. is based on this understanding of the biblical story. Ambrose to a woman as a symbol of human weakness, 795 sensuality 796 and even passion. 797 But besides this allegorical understanding of heaven, St. Ambrose had a different idea about him. According to this latter, heaven has spatial boundaries; 798 as alien to that υλη that is characteristic of terra, 799 it is in contrast to the deep below located earth, 800 representing the sublimis et caelestis locus [sublime and heavenly place], 801 lying in the “intelligible earth.” 802 In this real paradise, God placed not a heavenly (ideal 803) man (“incorporeal things have no place”), but a corporeal one. 804 Sometimes St. Ambrose identifies this paradise with the heavenly Jerusalem, 805 but most often with the “third heaven,” that highest and heavenly place from which Adam was expelled and into which the apostle was raptured. Paul 806: bringing heaven closer to the third heaven, St. the father says that Adam was ejectus [thrown out] from paradise. 807 We find at St. father and the literal understanding of the biblical paradise, 808 as a beautiful garden planted in the East, within the spatial boundaries indicated in the Bible. Of these three ideas about heaven, St. Ambrose most often follows the second (especially in the second half of his theological and literary activity). Let us now turn to the teaching of St. father about the first man. In his anthropology, St. Ambrose also reveals traces of the influences on him of both the Eastern Fathers and Philo, which is why we find it necessary to indicate the main features of anthropology, mainly Philo and Origen. Philo's psychology is distinguished by extreme uncertainty and confusion, 809 resulting both from the then state of psychological science and, in particular, from the duality of the sources of Philo's theology. In general, Philo follows the dualistic view of Plato, with which he (not always happily) also combines Stoic and Peripatetic teaching. 810 God created the world, but not alone, but together with other forces (Plato’s doctrine of the Dimiurge). God Himself creates only the best (from a moral point of view) things, while He leaves the creation of the worst to intermediaries. 811 And God does not create man alone, but together with intermediaries, from which man represents a combination of both good and evil, or, more precisely, imperfect principles. 812 Since this entire visible world was created according to the model of the ideal world, 813 then earthly man is only the image of an ideal or heavenly man (ανθρωπος ουρανιος). 814 First, God created an ideal person, who, according to the biblical legend, 815 was both a man and a woman - ᾶ νθρωπος γενικος, and only later - a sensual person. 816 These two different creations (and at the same time two different mental states of man - pre-temporal and temporary 817 (present 818) Philo also distinguishes terminologically: a heavenly person placed in paradise is designated by him as ποιηθείς, and an earthly one as πλασθείς. 819 From of them only the heavenly man was created in the image of God 820 or, rather, in the image of the Image of God, 821 v. e., the Divine Logos. 822 Philo tries to more accurately distinguish between the concepts of heavenly and earthly man, pointing to the non-involvement of the first with matter, 823 to the νοῦς of the heavenly man, who was perfect and did not need either commandments or convictions, 824 why the heavenly man was placed in paradise, i.e., among the virtues, 825 - however, he does not always succeed in this, and he falls into contradictions with oneself. 826 But Philo is especially contradictory in his delimitation of mental abilities. Very often he follows Plato on this point, distinguishing three powers or abilities in the soul: νοῦς καί λόγος θομος and έπιθουια 827 or: αῖσθησις , φαντασία and ορμή, 828 but along with this he also recognizes Stoic psychology, when, in addition to νοῦς᾿ a, there are seven more physical abilities in the human soul. 829 However, in the end, all these abilities for him, like for Plato and Aristotle, come down to two principles: to λογικον and ᾶ λογον. 830 The essence of the rational soul is πνευμα arising from reason, 831 by which Philo means not air, but a certain image and trait of divine power (τόπον τινά καί χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως 832 ). Thanks to this breath, this part of the Divine, the human soul has both general concepts and, in particular, the concept of the Divine, 833 by itself, without this pneuma, the soul could never rise to the knowledge of the Divine. 834 This breath is the image of God. It is also called mind (νοῦς) and logos. 835 In addition to the ability of thought, the human soul also has the ability of will or free choice. 836 The essence of the irrational soul is blood. 837 The unreasonable soul of a person brings him closer to animals, which is why each of us contains both an animal and a person. 838 What brings man closer to animals is the ability of life (ή ζωτιχή, καθ ̓ ἢ ν ζῶμεν), and what puts him in direct relation to the Divine, Who is ή τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου λόγου πηγή, is the ability of the mind (ή λογική, καθ᾿ ἣ ν λογικοι γεγόναμεν 839). Philo identifies the logical principle in man with νοῦς᾿ ohm, that is, with rationality or the image of God. Just as νοῦς᾿ has a dominant role (ήγεμών) in the body, 840 so λόγος, and actually όρθός λόγος, is the helmsman of the soul, 841 ί τῆς φύσεως όρθος λόγος is νόμος θείος, indicating to each person what is due to him. 842 Apparently, Philo brings together conscience, which is the accuser and judge of a person, with the same reason or λόγος ορθος. 843 The doctrine of man of Clement of Alexandria approaches the teaching of Philo and, like that, is not distinguished by certainty. He oscillates between the two-part and tripartite division of the soul, although he, like Philo, puts forward the actual doctrine of two parts of the soul - rational and unreasonable, of which the latter, in turn, is divided into θυμόν and έπιθυμίαν. 844 Reason (το λογικόν and ό λόγος) is the highest power of the soul, elevating man above animals and bringing him closer to God, 845 it is, like Philo, the “breath of God” that God breathed into man’s face. 846 According to this highest part or mind, man is not the image of God Himself, but only the Image of God - the Logos. 847 Clement clearly distinguishes the image of God from the likeness of God. “What is in the image, a person receives directly by birth, and what is in the likeness, then he has to receive, in accordance with improvement.” 848 The rational soul has the ability of knowledge 849 and will – όρυη. 850 Philonian tendencies are also found in Origen's doctrine of human nature. And he first of all distinguishes between the higher, internal, invisible and incorporeal man, on the one hand, and the visible and corporeal man, who was plasmatus, but not factus, 851 on the other. Saying that man is created in the image and likeness of God, 852 Origen by the image of God means the ability of spiritual and moral perfection originally given to the human spirit, the ability to actually manifest that “sum of virtues that are inherent in God substantially, and in man can exist through work and imitation of God” 853: with the name of likeness he associates the perfection of the human spirit, which is the result of his moral activity in the image God's 854 The image of God cannot be erased or completely destroyed. 855 This is why people, being born under sin, bring into this world, although not everyone to the same extent, those saving and holy seeds that, with attention and work, can grow into the beautiful fruit of moral perfection. 856 “The likeness,” argues Origen, “cannot be attributed to people living on earth; it is promised to us only in the future life.” 857 Sometimes Origen confuses the image and likeness of God. 858 Further, like Philo, Origen considers man not the image of God, but only the Image of God, that is, the Son of God, 859 from where the Son of God is a mediator for people in the matter of knowledge of God. 860 As for the parts of the soul, Origen speaks differently on this issue, leaving everyone to choose the opinion that seems more thorough to him. 861 Most often, Origen asserts that man consists of body and spirit. 862 To the latter Origen assigns the general name ήγεμονικον. 863 The spirit, also known as mens and ratio, has its origin from the Word of God, 864 it is the highest rational soul: the lower (bodily) soul is the vital spirit, which is also characteristic of animals; 865 this soul is the substance of φανταστική and όρμητική, 866 its seat is blood, since the blood of all animals is their soul. 867 However, the (bodily) soul of man seems to Origen to be somewhat different from the soul of animals, namely: it is more intellectual and more spiritual. Moreover: the soul and νοῦς are not thought of as different by Origen: the soul is νοῦς sent to the body as punishment, and νοῦς is the soul that has been cleansed from sin or has not fallen under sin. 868 From here it becomes clear that Origen was not a trichotomist: 869 he actually speaks of two parts in man: soul and body. The latter has five senses: as the lowest part of man, the body must obey the soul. 870 Origen looks at bodies as something negative, and therefore considers putting the soul on a body as a punishment from God - the soul, in his opinion, would never have received a body if it had not previously sinned. 871 Origen expresses himself vaguely about conscience, 872 but there is no doubt that he identified it with ratio, 873 with the spirit, with the breath of God, 874 with that law, which, according to the Apostle, is written in the hearts of all people, not excluding pagans, and, moreover, in indelible letters 875: Origen assimilates to it the role of a teacher or manager of the soul, who encourages the latter to better and cleanses by exposing the worst. 876 Origen assigns a very significant place in his teaching about the soul to free will. He recognizes freedom as the first and essential part of the human being 877: freedom of will is a constant quality of the soul, which it retains even after separation from the body. 878 Origen also knows grace-filled freedom of will, when a person is so strengthened in goodness that the habit of sin is cut off from him, and he becomes free from every sinful thought. This freedom was given to man from the very beginning, but through the Fall man lost it. However, through grace a person can again be brought to some natural perfection. 879 St. Basil the Great divides the human being into two parts: soul or spirit and body. “Other,” he writes, “we ourselves; some are things that belong to us, and others are things that are around us. We are soul and mind, since we are created in the image of the Creator: ours is the body and the sensations acquired through it; near us are property, art and other amenities of life.” 880 Like Origen St. Basil affirms a strict unity between soul and spirit, although in a different train of thought from Origen. “Like bodily vision in the eye, so the eye of the soul is in its innate mind, but not as one in the other, but one and the same soul and mind, which is a certain natural force, and not ascended into the rational part of the soul.” 881 However, the affirmation of the close connection between spirit and soul does not interfere with St. Basil, like Origen, pursued trichotomous views, distinguishing spirit and soul as two independent parts of man. 882 We find at St. Basil also mentions the sovereignty (ήγεμονικόν) of the soul, with which he honors the heart, and έπιθυμία, which he identifies with the womb. 883 Sometimes, however, he calls the leader of life (ήγεμών) not the heart, but όρθόν λόγον. 884 He also says that a person has a certain innate desire (λόγος σπερματικός), which itself contains incentives for communication in love. 885 The teaching of St. Ambrose about man and, in particular, about the soul is also not distinguished by stability and certainty. Apparently, St. The father is not entirely clear about this issue. By the way, one fact is interesting in this regard. When the disciple of St. Ambrose Gorontian in writing proposed the question of whether the soul is a heavenly substance, then Ambrose, instead of giving a positive teaching about the soul, limited himself to presenting Platonic and Aristotelian views on this subject, at the same time denying naturalistic ideas about the soul as a harmony of nerves, and affirming its heavenly substance. 886 In the anthropology of St. Ambrose recognizes Philo's distinction between heavenly and earthly man. 887 “Man,” teaches St. Ambrose, “has a twofold origin: one in the image of God, the other according to creation from the dust of the earth 888: first man was created in the image of God, and then created from dust.” 889 Corresponding to this dual origin, man has a double substance: one - created (factus - Philonian ποιηθείς) and the other - formed (figuratus - Philonian πλασθείς); the first is from the Holy Spirit, the second is from dust, 890 the first refers to the inner man, and the second to the outer. 891 However, the doctrine of the heavenly origin of man is not yet given by St. Ambrose to the theory of the pre-existence of souls, although he knows about it. 892 True, one can quite often find in him such expressions that apparently speak of the pre-existence of souls, for example, the expression that souls descend from heaven into the body, as if into some kind of prison, 893 however, his doctrine of the temporary creation of soul and body is carried out very definitely. Creation in the image of God or heavenly origin elevates man infinitely above all other creation. 894 “Man is a kind of heavenly creature on earth... for in his spirit he is numbered among the heavenly” 895: he is the crown of creation, for the sake of which everything was created, 896 he is quasi totius summa operis, quasi causa mundi, proper quem facta sunt omnia. 897 On this side, man is higher than even the sky (visible, of course). “The beginning of the world’s affairs is heaven, and its end is man. Heaven is from the world, man is above the world: this is part of the world, this is a resident of paradise, the property of Christ. The sky is considered immutable, and passes by; man is considered perishable, and puts on incorruptibility.” 898 In short: man is “God’s most precious creation.” 899 On the composition of the human being and, in particular, on the spiritual side of man, St. Ambrose teaches differently. First of all, in accordance with 1 Thess. 5:23, he recognizes three parts in a person: spirit, soul and body. “Where these three are blameless, there is Christ in the midst of them. He inwardly governs these three, dominates them and unites them in unshakable peace.” 900 Actually, in the spiritual beginning of man, St. the father thus distinguishes two parts: spirit and soul. But, besides this two-part division of the spiritual side in man, St. Ambrose also knows another - a three-part division, approaching the Aristotelian one, namely: into rationabile animae, the substance of which is divinus spiritus, into something vitally nourishing (nutrimentum quoddam vitale), which is the body, and something delightful (delectabile). 901 Receives St. Ambrose and Plato's division of the faculties of the soul into λογιστικον, επιθ ῡ μητικόν and θορικον, which, however, is consistent with the two-part division, since λογιστικον St. Ambrose refers to the rational soul. And επιθυμητικον and θορικον - to the unreasonable. 902 Sometimes to the indicated three Platonic parts is added (only twice, and then in De virginitat and De Abraham) a fourth διορατικον, 903 which part was needed by St. father only to indicate the foundations for all four cardinal virtues. 904 However, the just mentioned divisions of the soul, as well as another one (Stoic), distinguishing eight parts in a person, with reason given first place, 905 appear in St. Ambrose are random and are found only in his early works. Usually he has a division into spirit and soul, and sometimes spirit and soul are distinguished quite sharply, 906 and sometimes they come closer to each other. Since anima and spiritus, whose synonyms are νους, mens, vigor mentis, principale animae, virtus animae, rationale, are thought of as two different mental forces, as two different qualities of one and the same soul. Unde sequenti capitulo Legis non duas animus, sed diversas qualitates unius animae comprehensas esse arbitor. 907 In the latter case, St. the father obviously takes the side of the ancient philosophical (Platonic) teaching, which in a single soul distinguished two principles: higher and lower, or: rational and unreasonable. And, indeed, in De Abraham St. Ambrose speaks clearly and definitely in this sense. Our soul, he writes, is διμερις or two-part (bipertita), since it has (in itself something) rational and unreasonable. 908 Of these two principles, an exclusive place is given to the rational part or rational principle, the substance of which is spirit (spiritus). Holy Spirit Ambrose usually brings together (sometimes to the point of identification) with νοῦς, mens, animus, ratio, but he does not indicate the differences or differences between them, although St. the father always puts forward his mind - mens. The last St. Ambrose recognizes “the purest,” “the most precious,” 909 “the highest,” 910 “the most sublime and deep,” 911 of all God’s gifts to man, this mind is the “inner man,” “which the ap. Peter, when he said that the hidden man who is precious before God consists in the integrity of a meek and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4).” 912 Mens is pricipale animae: 913 God, having created man and endowed him with certain properties, gave him mens so that the latter would control all his movements and feelings: 914 “the power of the mind is in the soul, and the soul in the body is the same as the father of a family in his house: both the mind is in the soul, and the soul is in the body; if the mind is cautious, then the soul is safe; if the soul is unharmed, then the body is unharmed” 915: therefore, just as gold prevails over all metals, so does the mind over other parts of the human substance. 916 It was said above that St. Ambrose brings together mens, spiritus and ratio to the point of identification; however, this does not always happen: sometimes he differentiates them, usually subordinating the latter to the former. This is the case, for example, with ratio. “Ratio refines,” he says, “the vision of mentis and purifies the gaze of the spirit (animi).” 917 Elsewhere he argues that the mind (mens) is good when it is devoted to reason (rationi), and, conversely, less than perfect if it does not have Christ, 918 or that the mind is good when it uses reason (ratio) and adheres to the teachings of wisdom. 919 Carefully analyzing these last sayings of St. father, it is impossible not to notice that in them by ratio he no longer means the highest part of the human being (spiritus, mens), but only a certain ability of the human spirit, namely cognitive, that rationality of it, which, together with free will, is the distinctive property of the human being. “God has provided the mind with commandments and the teaching of wisdom, so that it knows exactly what it should choose for itself and what it should beware of,” and this is possible only when it “rekta ratione contains disciplinam sapientiae.” 920 As for the unreasonable part of the human soul or simply the unreasonable soul, the teaching of St. her father is also not very clear about her. To the foolish soul of St. Ambrose sometimes includes only the five senses, then the logos and the ability to generate, 921 sometimes, in addition to the feelings and logos, also the body, 922 arguing that passions flow from these three and that therefore there is no good in them. The same vital spirit (spiritus vitalis), which is the substance of the rational soul, in connection with blood serves as the substance of the irrational soul, “for,” says St. Ambrose, “the so-called arteries are, so to speak, the successors of the spirit, and they contain not only pure air, but also blood.” 923 Due to the fact that there is a close connection between the rational and unreasonable parts of the human soul, St. Ambrose, following Philo 925, calls the feelings between which he distinguishes meek and wild 924 relatives of the soul. 926 This, in general, is the idea of ​​St. father about the soul and its parts. However, to say that St. Ambrose was stable in him, it is impossible. Most often, especially in the later period, St. Ambrose seems to forget about the division of the soul into rational and unreasonable parts and distinguishes only two principles in a person: animus, mens or anima, on the one hand, and caro, on the other. “The nature of God,” he says, “is simple, but man consists of a rational soul and body.” 927 “Other,” writes St. Ambrose, repeating St. Vasily, - we (bos), other - ours (nostra), other - around us (circa nos)", and by “we” he means the soul, by “our” - the body and sensory life, by “around us” - material wealth. 928 “What is a person? - he asks in his creation. – Is it the soul, the body or a combination of both? The other is us, the other is ours, the other is the one who dresses and the other is the one who dresses.” 929 Hence St. Ambrose refers to the soul and refers to all those properties with which he characterizes the highest, rational principle in a person - his mens. The soul is the highest substance, 930 created by the divine breath 931; only she is created in the image and likeness of God. 932 God, argues St. father, is immaterial and invisible, hence His likeness can only lie in the immaterial and invisible, that is, not in the body, but in the soul, 933 this simple and spiritual essence. 934 The soul is above everything material and earthly, 935 it cannot be seen or touched, 936 it is neither blood, nor harmony, nor air, nor fire, nor entelechy, but a living soul, for Adam was created into a living soul. 937 With its spiritual principle the soul embraces the whole person, 938 from where the word “soul” is synonymous with the word “man”, 939 “for in the soul,” says St. father, “you are, in fact, the whole person.” 940 Due to its God-likeness, the soul is not only immaterial, but also immortal. “Soul,” says St. father - does not die with the body, for it received its beginning not from the body, but from God. 941 But there is an eternal, 942 true and immortal 943 substance, the powers of which, after separation from the body, are not only preserved, but become even more perfect: for example, after the bodily death of a person, the soul gets the opportunity to contemplate such mysteries that were inaccessible to it during its stay in the body, although it was possible for it to partially contemplate these mysteries during the sleep of the body. 944 Human immortality, however, cannot be equated with the immortality of God, for people are immortal in a different sense than God: only the divine substance does not know death, why ap. Paul only calls God immortal. (1 Tim. 6; 16) 945; people, as creatures, are characterized by transience; if they have immortality, it is only by the will of God, and their immortality is a divine gift to man. 946 In contrast to the immaterial substance of the soul, the human body is material 947 ; like any material creature, the human body consists of four elements, 948 into which it disintegrates after death. 949 Despite its material substance, the human body in its beauty surpasses the bodies of all other living beings, 950 it reflects the beauty and image of the cosmos or universe 951 and all its glory. 952 Not only that. The human body was initially not subject to death: death appeared after the Fall as one of the punishments for sin, 953 and from that time on became a common lot. 954 As for the ethical value of the body, in its definition St. Ambrose is characterized by instability: he either considers it opposite to the spirit and pure from shortcomings (in a primitive state), or speaks of the absolute sinfulness of the body. The first opinion is confirmed by all those passages from the works of St. father, in which he writes about the innocence of the body and the free will of man as the author of sin. 955 We find confirmation of the second opinion, for example, in De Noe: “Just as clean and unclean animals were introduced into Noah’s ark, so God did not leave the bodily substance free from passions, like unclean animals.” 956 Later St. Ambrose began to more decisively pursue thoughts about the sinfulness of the body and its opposition to the spirit. “Man,” he wrote in a letter to Constantius, “consists of soul and body (it is enough to say about the soul and keep silent about the spirit) ... what is characteristic of the nature of the soul is contrary to the nature of the body.” 957 However, from other places in the works of St. Ambrose can also draw the conclusion that this opposition of soul and body did not exist among the first people 958 and that it, like death, appeared only after the Fall. So, of the two parts into which the human being is divided, only the soul is created in the image of God. However, only the Son of God, born of God, can be called the image of God, He only is Imago Dei, 959 it is natural for a person to be only in the image of God - ad imaginem Dei. 960 If there were no image in the face of Christ, humanity would not have the likeness of God. 961 Creation in the image of God St. Ambrose considers it a great gift to man. 962 What exactly is the image of God? In the invisible 963 substance there are 964 people, answers St. Ambrose. When he has to answer this question more precisely, he relates the image of God to the rational part and will of man, as well as his dominion over animals. 965 In the rationality of man, St. Ambrose primarily notes the cognitive ability of man. The latter, heading both towards God and man, takes on a religious and moral character. “God did,” says St. Ambrose, - man is a partaker of the Divine nature, as we read in the Epistle of Peter (2 Peter 1:4). Where does someone unjustly say: “Whose race we are” (Acts 17:28). He gave us from the knowledge of His and, namely, rational nature, so that we would seek that Divine that is not far from each of us, in which we live, are and move.” 966 “What does it mean to know yourself,” writes St. Ambrose in his interpretation of Psalm 118, “How can one not recognize oneself as created in the image and likeness of God, a participant in reason..., one who must govern his lower part by the power of the spirit.” 967 As a god-like property, rationality is an exclusive feature 968 of man and also of angels. 969 Another property of the image of God in man is his freedom, understood by St. Ambrose, sometimes in the sense of the unlimited intellect by space and time, 970 sometimes in the sense of free will, 971 i.e., the ability for the soul to desire good or evil, to strive for virtue or vice. 972 The very will of St. Ambrose also presents it vaguely, meaning by it either a desire that is simply characteristic of all people, or an energetic direction of spiritual forces towards a goal set by a person (in agreement in the latter case with the current definition of the will. 973 But, in any case, a person has the freedom to choose good or evil. Every person commits one or another act, without being forced in this case by any necessity. 974 The devil does not own anyone and does not control anyone imposes the yoke of slavery, unless he himself sells himself at the cost of his sins 975 Man himself is the cause of the fall of sin 976 and in the place of the consequences of sin is closest to death. 977 If Adam violated the commandment given to him by God, if Judas, chosen by the Lord to be an apostle, then betrayed Him, then the blame does not fall on God in this case, since neither he was forced to break the commandment, nor this one to betray his Teacher. 978 That man was created with free will is evident from the fact that it was not lost even in the fallen. “I have laid before you good and evil” (Deut. 30:15) If you choose evil, then it is not nature that sins, but the will of the one who chooses.” 979 There is one more property of the image of God, which, although it does not appear in St. Ambrose is clear along with the rationality and freedom of man, but he clearly notes: this is the power of man, as gifted with rationality, over all animals and irrational creatures in general, 980 from which this property is only the result of rationality, which is why it is put in St. father in direct relation to vigor mentis. 981 This power of man extends not only to animals, not only to the material world, but also to himself, since νοῦς is called to rule over the sensual and unreasonable soul. 982 St. Ambrose speaks not only about the image, but also the likeness of God in man, and most often confuses the image with the likeness of God, meaning by them the holiness that Adam had before the Fall. “The Lord, who from His soul created you in His image and likeness, that is, rational, righteous, pure...” 983 Very often, under the image of God, St. Ambrose does not mean the exceptional properties of the human being, but the growth of virtues, i.e., what is now commonly called in dogmatism the likeness of God. 984 “The image of God is virtue, not weakness, it is wisdom, justice” 985: he bears within himself the image of God who lives without sin, for God does not know sin, 986 only in a pious soul splendor gloriae et paternae imago substantiae. 987 “Let us avoid evil,” convinces St. bishop - and elevate our soul to the image and likeness of God; in this flight from evil lies the likeness of God, and the image of God is acquired by our virtues.” 988 Less often do we find in our father a correct idea of ​​the image and likeness of God. 989 At St. Ambrose, we also encounter the doctrine of conscience, although also insufficiently clarified and outlined. Often in the name of the conscience of St. the father calls the internal, innate moral law of man, identifying it with the law mentioned by St. Paul to Rome. 2, 14 – 15, 990 or, in other words, with lex naturalis. “A completely sufficient witness (in the sense of a criterion) of good and evil is conscience.” 991 With God the witness is the conscience, which is true enough for this even in an unfaithful breast. 992 “Conscience is the inner eye. If your conscience is clear, your body is also pure; if it is dark, then your body, due to the night of your conscience, is dark.” 993 “What is sin,” argues the Milanese saint in another place, “if not a violation of the divine law and failure to fulfill heavenly instructions?” We do not perceive these commandments with our bodily ears, but, according to the word of God, certain natural ideas grow in our soul of what is good and what is evil, what we should strive for and what to avoid: in these ideas we hear the voice of God, and these commandments are not written in ink on stone tablets, but by the spirit of the living God in our hearts. 994 “There are people,” says St. Ambrose in his interpretation of Psalm 39, “who by nature do lawful works, like pagans, who do not hear the law and are a law to themselves, who keep the commandments of God that they have learned.” 995 This internal law, or conscience, of St. Ambrose, following Philo, also calls it “the right word” (sermo rectus). 996 But more often St. the bishop distinguishes conscience from the innate moral law, assigning it the role of a witness to the moral law, or denouncing the dishonest, or protecting innocence, 997 in other words, putting it forward as an infallible judge of human actions, with its character convicting and punishing a person for the sin he has committed comes to the fore. 998 “What punishment could be heavier than torment of conscience? Can another sentence be as severe as his own, with which each one blames and blames himself for having wronged his brother unjustly?” 999 However, due to what was admitted by St. Ambrose of confusion of conscience with mind (mens), St. The father sometimes attributes to the latter (relatively rarely, and only in earlier works) the qualities of conscience to judge and punish for the sin committed. “Everyone has himself and his own spirit as his strict judge, the avenger of sin and the punisher of evil deeds.” 1000 Just as the image of God, due to man’s sinfulness, can be destroyed in him, so conscience, for the same reason, can be darkened and become bad. 1001 This is, in general, how St. imagined himself. Ambrose properties and qualities of human nature. Having created man outside paradise, 1002 having breathed into him the breath of life, God then transferred him to a better place, to paradise. For what purpose did God create man and why did he place him in paradise? To this question St. Ambrose answers: God created man so that he would become like Him, so that he would think according to God and respond to God’s love for him, as his reflection, 1003 with love. 1004 And both and the third are achieved by a person when he leads a virtuous life. If God rested from the works of creation in man, then man should strive to ensure that God rested precisely in his good morals. 1005 In the image of God, man was given ethical perfections: only they did not appear in man, as in the absolute and eternal God, as a property of nature, but were only a matter of grace. 1006 A great task was entrusted to man: to assimilate the image of God through virtue and strengthen it in himself as an indelible personal quality. 1007 From the formal side, virtue is the exercise of the mind, why should the earth supply food to irrational creatures at the command of God, and only man is destined to spend his life in labor, that is, to exercise what is reasonable that he has received. 1008 Man was commanded to cultivate and maintain paradise; this means that a person was obliged to cultivate and preserve his mind (νοῦς), and as an assistant he was given α ῐ σθησις [sense], which alone our men could find similar to themselves, since animals and birds personified human irrational movements 1009; to process means to succeed in virtue, and to protect means to preserve the perfection received during creation. 1010 Having by grace the image of God, man, however, only potentially possessed immortality, the guarantee of which he had the breath of God: man was not yet a sinner, but did not have an incorruptible and sinless nature, 1011 for he lived not in the life that is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3)), but “in the shadow of life.” 1012 Has God given man the means to achieve the goals He has set? Yes, I did. These means consisted, first of all, in the direct and closest relationship of God to the first man, 1013 in His love and direct help 1014 to His image created by Him. 1015 Closely connected with such close communication between man and the Divine was the gracious consortium supernae cognitionis, which gave man the knowledge of the human and the divine, taught him to subordinate the first to the second and connected the infirmitas mentis. 1016 As a result of this, the soul and body of the first man were in complete harmony, for the nature of the human mind and heart, before it oxidizes due to the admixture of vices, is pure, beautiful and transparent. 1017 Among the grace-filled means given by God to the first man was the fact that man could eat the fruits of the tree of life, the eating of which, according to St. father, had the same beneficial meaning for a person as the breath of God, 1018 and inhaling the ethereal air 1019: both spiritual food made him like angels, for it left no room in him for the need for bodily nutrition. 1020 Moreover, Adam also possessed immortality (aeternitatis gratia), - although potential, since after the Fall he lost this grace, 1021 - and experienced real and highest bliss not only in the soul, but also in the body. 1022 These are the “advantages of nature” (praerogativa naturae 1023), based on the mystical relationship of man to the Divine, 1024 such is the gratia caelestis, 1025 which the first man enjoyed in paradise and which helped him to realize the purpose for which God created him. Here the question should be raised: was the moral state of the first man only innocent, or was it distinguished by some positive virtues? Philo answered this question in his first formulation, pointing out that the mind of the first man was naked, that is, not involved in either virtue or sin, 1026 was ό μεσος νοῦς, and Philo characterized the most primitive state of people as status integritatis [state of integrity]. 1027 St. Ambrose, on the contrary, answers this question in its second formulation. True, he speaks of Adam’s innate innocence (innocentia), 1028 however, at the same time he directly states that Adam in paradise was not devoid of virtues. 1029 Interpreting the biblical saying that Adam and Eve were naked, he writes: “they were naked due to the simplicity of their morals and because they did not know the clothing of unrighteousness, although they were not without the veils of virtues.” 1030 In letter 58, he directly says that, although Adam was naked before sin, he did not feel naked, since he was clothed with virtues. 1031 Chapter II. The moral state of fallen man, more closely defined as subordinate The bliss of the first people did not last long. Having listened to the devil and violated the commandment given to them by the Creator, the first parents sinned and, as punishment, were deprived of heavenly bliss by God. The question arises: how could the first people, who were apparently placed in exceptional conditions for a virtuous life, sin? Where did sin come from? Philo answered this question in the sense that “the beginning of a sinful life is the wife,” 1032 i.e., sensuality (αῖσθησις), by which he means everything bodily, earthly and external 1033; when a person was born to sensuality, then sin was born. 1034 So, the beginning of sin and sinfulness is in sensuality. However, a reservation must be made here. The fact is that Philo’s view of αῖσθησις is not distinguished by definiteness: Philo either looks at αῖσθησις as something indifferent from the moral side, 1035 and even more than that: he reveres αί τοῦ αλόγου δύναμεις ( αῖσθησις belongs to the irrational part of the soul 1036) necessary for νοῦς᾿ a, since only thanks to them νοῦς acquires knowledge of the sensory world, 1037 - then, on the contrary (and this is much more often), it asserts that αῖσθησις is evil in itself, 1038 so the connection of νοῦς᾿ with αῖσθησις brings nothing but harm, for for the sake of αῖσθησις νοῦς leaves father (God) and mother (wisdom), which is why the wise man was ordered to leave the body (γη) and feelings ( αῖσθησις – σνγγένεια ) 1039 ; let the senses provide the mind with data about the upper world, let there be a necessary connection between the body and soul (symbolized by Philo in the name Hebron 1040), however, from a moral point of view this connection is evil, 1041 for in it the “clear mind” is necessarily subject to “blind sensuality” 1042: the first man until then remained pure and immaculate while he was alone, and fell as soon as the wife was created - sensuality. 1043 This sinful connection of the mind (Adam) with the feeling (Eve) gives rise to ήδονή [pleasure] (serpent); the latter, as a negative principle, - it destroys virtue and gives rise to vice, 1044 - and is, in fact, the basis of sin. 1045 But since the seat of pleasures and desires (ήδονῶν γάρ καί έπιθυμιῶν χῶρα τό σῶμα 1046) and in general sensuality 1047 is the body, which, according to conviction Philo, there is something that is in itself dead and deathly, 1048 is a certain harmful thing in itself, 1049 is a shadow 1050 and dust (χοῦς 1051), then in it Philo, like a true Pythagorean, sees the source of all evil. 1052 Hence, although the Alexandrian philosopher, together with the Stoics, recognizes many affects, however, they begin not in ήγεμονικόν, like the Stoics, but in the sensory part of man and, namely, in the body. 1053 “Evil,” he says, “appeared on earth 1054 when souls, hitherto alien to any corporeality, took on real bodies and thereby lost the purity of their nature 1055 and the contemplation of the Divine associated with it 1056; sin is thus hidden in the very act of a person’s birth and appearance in this material world.” 1057 It is clear that in this case Philo is influenced by the teachings of Plato, 1058 who recognized real existence only in ideas, but not in changeable and unstable matter (το μη ὄν). True, Plato’s distinction between true and non-true being was more metaphysical than ethical in nature, however, in his teaching there was enough data for his (especially later) students to identify “existent” with good, and “non-existent” with evil; at least Plato saw in matter πρῶτον κακόν, “in comparison with which everything else can be considered only as a derivative evil - secondary or even tertiary. 1059 Along with this explanation of the origin of sin, we find in Philo another, consistent with the biblical account of the fall of the first people, according to which the beginning of sin was believed to be in the free will of man. The flesh, Philo argues, does not irresistibly attract a person to evil, a person himself deigns to it, 1060 putting his mind and even sensuality in the place of God 1061 and, in general, in the place of heavenly things - earthly and transitory things, 1062 from which, from the point of view of inner life, sin is closely associated with selfishness 1063 or pride. 1064 Summarizing all of the above, we must say that Philo’s concept of sin bears a Neoplatonic imprint: the root of sin is in pleasure: the general is in sensuality, and even more general is in the body, in matter. At this point, Philo broke away from the Stoics, who strictly followed the Socratic principle of sin as ignorance or false knowledge, and ήγεμονικόν as the source of passions. On the contrary, Clement of Alexandria, with all his dependence on Philo, brings to the fore the Stoic concept in his doctrine of sin. True, he says that passions arise from the unreasonable part of man, from the carnal spirit, 1065 however, sin is characterized by him, following the Stoics, as something contrary to reason, 1066 as disobedience to reason 1067 or, closer, to the Logos that controls it, 1068 and the beginning of all sin is indicated in ignorance and moral weakness (ἄγνοια καί άσθενεια 1069 ). Origen explained the fall of rational beings simply (but far from thoroughly) by cooling in the spirit of love for God and satiety with heavenly bliss. 1070 When he speaks out in more detail on this issue, he usually does not show consistency and vacillates between the Philonian and Clementine (Stoic) understanding of sin. Thus, sometimes he is ready to see something negative in the body 1071 and argues that some sins do not occur from contrary forces, but originate in the natural inclinations of the body, 1072 sometimes he says that the desires and aspirations of the soul in themselves do not represent anything evil, that only excessive attention to them is the cause of sin. “The source and beginning of all sin in the wicked is the “sovereign” ἡγεμονικόν 1073) and, namely, bad thoughts (malae cogitationes) of the latter. 1074 The same thoughts are given by St. Basil the Great. He often speaks of the body and matter as something negative, and sees the beginning of sin in the fact that Adam, who was under the protection of God and enjoyed His blessings, having had enough of everything, preferred what seemed pleasant to the eyes of the flesh over intelligent beauty and placed the filling of the belly above spiritual pleasures. 1075 However, in the first place St. the father puts forward the idea that sin is not in the flesh itself, or materiality, or sensuality (as was the case with Philo), but in the free will of man, more specifically, in his conceit or pride; only having become arrogant, 1076 he preferred what was pleasant to the eyes of the flesh over intelligent beauty, and not just what was pleasant, but what seemed 1077 pleasant, that is, in this case, leaning towards that false, unreasonable opinion that placed man in an abnormal relationship with the Creator and severed his natural connection with the Divine. 1078 Hence the evil under which St. Vasily understands sin, and is considered by him as a false opinion or recklessness 1079 and as a “mental illness.” 1080 At St. Ambrose, in the doctrine of the origin of sin, just like in Origen, duality is noticed: on the one hand, we find in him a Stoic-Ciceronian view, supplemented by a Tertullian idea of ​​radical evil, 1081 on the other hand, Philonian and generally Eastern ascetic. Theoretically, St. Ambrose maintains, one might say, a stoic concept of the origin of vices and passions, but he almost constantly warns against the body as the culprit of sin. “Since all intentions,” teaches St. father, “all deeds and thoughts stem from animus and mens, 1082 then be attentive to your soul and your mind, for not only do all intentions come from here, but the fruits of your deeds also return here.” 1083 “Just as a woman’s womb produces fruit, so our soul, having received the seeds of our thoughts, gives birth to either female fruits - anger, seeking, luxury, intemperance, shamelessness, etc. vices, or male fruits - purity, patience, prudence, moderation, courage, justice.” 1084 But the soul can give birth to the male sex only when the mind abides in God; if the soul does not remain in God, then it gives birth to the female sex and through this is the author of evil. 1085 “So,” concludes St. Father, you see that the spirit is the author of sin.” 1086 As for the body, it is the instrument or matter of sin. 1087 In other cases, St. Ambrose directly states that the reason for the fall of the first man, regardless of temptation from outside, from the devil, was precisely the flesh, the desires of the flesh, which overthrows the domination of the spirit and itself takes its place. 1088 This look of St. Ambrose sometimes acts so decisively that his flesh (as in Scripture) is synonymous with the sinner, and the soul with the righteous. 1089 It is impossible not to note that St. the father has a negative attitude not only towards the desires of the body and its desires, but, like Philo, towards corporeality itself and materiality in general. The perfect soul, according to him, denies matter, avoids and rejects everything immoderate, unstable and evil, does not see and does not approach the corruption of earthly filth, it divina intendit, terrenam autem materiem fugit. 1090 However, very often both views on the origin of sin in St. Ambrose merge together, and he considers both the soul and the body to be the culprits of the fall, or rather, the unreasonable soul, which, on the one hand, has the body as its component part, and on the other, is itself part of the soul. “The body (in itself) is innocent, but for the most part it is an accomplice of sin.” 1091 “The affects, not the flesh, are the source of sin; the flesh is only a servant of the will.” 1092 On the other hand, the soul is by nature beautiful (aniia secundum sui naturam optima est) and only because of its unreasonable part does it adhere to the flesh, incline towards the pleasures of the body and become involved in corruption. 1093 Thus, the cause of the fall of the first man was his unreasonable soul or sensuality 1094: if man had not been seduced by feeling, he would never have lost the “immortality of virtue” (virtutis immortalitas). 1095 But it is not the feeling itself that incites a person to crime, but what does not allow the feelings to remain calm - passion 1096 and, most closely, greed (avaritia 1097), the mother of which is luxury (excess) (luxuria 1098) or intemperance (intemperantia), which, in fact, ignites passion. 1099 In Eve, this intemperantia or concupiscentia (lust) 1100 was directed towards food 1101 and was associated directly with that bodily pleasure, 1102 with that delectatio (pleasure), which, in fact, is the beginning of all sin 1103 and which directly leads to self-satisfaction (gratulatio 1104). Hence St. Ambrose, following Philo, says that the beginning of sin is the delectatio (serpent), 1105 which affects the sensus (wife), and the latter transmits to the mens (husband) the passion that arose in him. “So,” continues St. father, “delectatio is the first beginning of sin, and therefore do not be surprised that according to divine judgment, first the serpent is punished, then the wife, and finally the husband.” 1106 Thus, the beginning of the sin of St. Ambrose, like Philo, believes in delectatio, which has a direct relation to the body; delectatio acts on the senses, which in turn affect the mind. How could passion arise in the first man? Through deception on the part of the devil, who sprinkled Adam’s flesh with the poison of the serpent. 1107 “Temptation, I say, is from the beginning the cause of universal sin.” 1108 And not just a temptation, but a deception, 1109 for the devil, with his lying 1110 word, attracted to himself the first man, created in the image and likeness of God, 1111 and through pleasure subjected him to death. 1112 However, the temptation of the devil did not have an irresistible effect on man, for man was created as a free person. If he listened not to God, but to the devil, then this was reflected in his free will, 1113 which is responsible for the fall of his ancestors. God created the first man and endowed him with free will so that he, having freely chosen to follow the Creator, would gradually and constantly improve himself, in this way approaching his all-perfect Image, from which obedience to the will of God St. Ambrose considers the primary duty of the primordial man in relation to the Creator. Refuting in De paradiso the heretics' objections to the biblical story of heavenly life and the fall of our ancestors, St. Ambrose, to the question: how could the first man know that failure to fulfill the will of God is evil, if he did not yet know what good is and what evil is, answers: man knew what God had given him, who breathed into him the breath of life and placed him in paradise; from here he could know about the need to be obedient to God: even if he did not know the difference between good and evil, but what was required of him was not experience, but faith: he knew that he should prefer God to everything; although he did not understand the power and quality of commands, he knew that he must honor God. 1114 Hence the knowledge of good and evil in St. Ambrose is actually the knowledge that it is necessary to follow the will of God and obey His commandments. 1115 But man did not want to follow the path shown to him by God, but followed his own, thus proudly putting his personal “I” in the place of God and his personal will in the place of God’s will. That is why the sin of the first people of St. the father qualifies, first of all, as a sin of pride. “Pride,” says St. Ambrose, “first of all led man to his fall.” 1116 Pride is the greatest sin, since the beginning of unrighteousness flowed from here; It was with this spear that the devil wounded and overthrew a man, 1117 who himself fell through pride. 1118 The deplorable legacy of sin (haereditas feralis culpae) would never have befallen man if he had not desired more, not been content with the limits allotted to him. 1119 This is a person’s exaltation of his “I” 1120 St. Ambrose puts it in close connection with the pride of the flesh, arguing that the mind becomes puffed up when the pride of the flesh is exalted. 1121 This is the teaching of St. Ambrose on the origin of sin. It is impossible not to see that, despite the desire to consider ancestral sin as a completely free act of the first people, which may or may not have happened, St. the father, in fact, is not far from that (Philonov’s) view, according to which the beginning of sin lies in the flesh itself, corporeality and materiality in general. 1122 Closely connected with the question of ancestral sin is the metaphysical question of the origin of evil in general, its nature and essence. What is evil in its essence and where did it come from? Is it an independent substance along with the positive one - God, or does it not have self-sufficiency? And if it does not exist independently, God is the cause of everything that exists, then shouldn’t the beginning of evil be posited in God? Philo answered the last question negatively, categorically asserting that the source of all evil is in ourselves, 1123 and not in God, Who is only the source of good, Who does not even punish personally, but through others, through His powers; To punish, for example, the Sodomites, He sent two angels, but He Himself did not go with them. 1124 For his part, Origen was not inclined to recognize the substantiality of evil 1125 on the basis that only virtue is one, while evil is plural, 1126 from which evil, according to Origen, is only the deprivation of good. 1127 But he developed his theory about the evil of St. in detail. Basil the Great. 1128 He first of all distinguished between evil in its own sense, 1129 in itself, 1130 which is such from an objective point of view, and imaginary evil, 1131 which does not actually exist, although to the subjective consciousness it seems to really exist. The first kind of evil is found only in the moral sphere and it is identified with St. Vasily with sin. 1132 The second type of evil includes physical suffering and disasters, for example: old age, infirmity, etc. 1133 Neither imaginary, nor even more so moral evil has substance. 1134 Evil appeared as a result of man’s abuse of free will, 1135 and is “a state of the soul that is opposite to virtue and occurs in the careless through a falling away from goodness.” 1136 It appears only when goodness and reason disappear, 1137 and is actually the deprivation of goodness. 1138 These thoughts of St. Basil is repeated by St. Ambrose. And he clearly distinguishes moral evil from physical evil. “There is nothing evil except that which entangles the mind in sin and binds the conscience: poverty, dishonor, illness and death, none of the wise men would call it evil or classify it as evil, just as they would not consider the opposite of this to be the greatest good, of which one seems so to us by nature, and the other because of its benefit.” 1139 Evil (moral) has no substance, 1140 and did not come from God 1141: the culprit of evil is man himself, his free will and mind. “Evil has no living substance; it is a delusion of the mind and spirit, a deviation from the path of virtue, which often befalls carefree souls.” 1142 Hence for St. father, there was already a direct transition to the statement that evil came from good, for evil is nothing more than the deprivation of good (ex bonis igitur mala orta sunt, non enim mala sunt nisi quae privantur bonis), in short: evil is a lack of good (boni indigentia 1143), a position repeated later by Blessed Augustine. 1144 St. Basil the Great taught that imaginary evil has providential significance. 1145 Following him, St. Ambrose not only asserts that “death and other things of the same kind are imposed for the sake of correcting the guilty,” 1146 but also says that evil is such only in isolation, but in general it is useful, 1147 and, most importantly, St. the father extends the force of this provision to moral evil. “Thanks to evil, goodness shines.” 1148 “There would be no sin,” he writes in another creation, “if there were no prohibition, and if there were no sin, then there would not be not only evil, but even, perhaps, virtue, which, if some seeds of evil did not exist, could neither resist nor overcome.” 1149 Thus, St. Ambrose recognizes the usefulness and even to some extent the necessity of evil for the strengthening and even the emergence of virtue. Although such a thought is consistent, as we will see below, with his general view of the relationship between sin and grace, it also seems to him somewhat bold, which is why he softens it with the expression “maybe.” 1150 The sin of the first people entailed terrible consequences both for the first parents themselves and for their offspring. St. Ambrose does not specifically speak about the consequences of ancestral sin for the forefathers themselves, however, in his works one can find some data that clarifies this issue. First of all, through sin, Adam lost the direct grace-filled divine protection (infulas divinae protectionis 1151), then he weakened, darkened and even lost the image of God, which was later renewed and strengthened by the true Image of God - Christ. 1152 This loss of the image of God was reflected in the darkening of those qualities in which the image of God is primarily manifested, namely: the darkening of the mind, which is now “covered with many veils of deception,” 1153 and the weakening and even enslavement of the will. And since reason is closely related to the knowledge of God, then St. Ambrose, together with Philo and Origen, argues that after the Fall, man lost the true knowledge of God, plunging at the same time into “the darkness of this world” and “the night of this earthly life.” 1154 Together with reason, man lost freedom and fell into a state of slavery to sin 1155; He still retained the ability to distinguish between good and evil, but was no longer able to freely follow the first and avoid the second. 1156 “By bodily pleasures the soul is nailed, as it were, by certain nails, so that without the help of God it cannot rise upward from whence it descended.” 1157 However, under the image of God, which the first man lost as a result of his fall, St. Ambrose most often means not the very image of God in man, but that state of grace, that innocence and those virtues that the first people had in paradise. 1158 If man had not lost, he says, the grace given to him by God, he would never have experienced the suffering to which he has now undergone. “After the Fall, the forefathers saw that they had lost the purity and simplicity of an immaculate and undamaged nature.” 1159 “Before Adam sinned, he was covered with the robe of virtues, but by sinning, as if undressed, he sees himself naked, for he has lost the covering with which he was clothed.” 1160 It must be said that since St. Ambrose distinguishes in the image of God rationality and free will from the grace-filled and virtuous state; he speaks of the complete loss of this latter and only the darkening of the first two. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that in the first people there remained both rationality (rationabile), which is a distinctive property of man and makes him the master of animals, 1161 and his free will, 1162 which, however, has lost its former, so to speak, volume. Along with the image of God in man, his conscience also became darkened. 1163 The grave consequences of the sin of our ancestors were not limited only to the soul of man, but also affected his body, which has now become the flesh of sin. 1164 This sinful flesh waged in man a constant and endless struggle 1165 with his spiritual beginning, it also created in man a division 1166 or mediastinum, 1167 which was subsequently destroyed by Christ and, most importantly, it subordinated the spirit 1168 or mind 1169 of man to its dominion. Having lost his former beauty and even the very name “man”, 1170 deprived of heavenly bliss, 1171 Adam is expelled from the highest heavenly place to earth, where he is subjected to severe suffering and disasters, 1172 and, most importantly, he is subject to death, which appeared only after the Fall 1173 and which would not have existed (for God did not create death 1174) if it had not been sin. 1175 Adam's sin, as an ancestor, had its grave consequences not only for himself, but also for all his offspring. We encounter this idea already in Philo, who treats of universal sinfulness, which is not excluded in infants. 1176 However, Philo’s teaching about sinfulness stems from his view of bodies as something bad in themselves, and therefore its reason is indicated most closely in the connection of the body with the soul and in the latter’s removal from the supersensible world, 1177 the biblical narrative about the fall of the first people stands to this teaching of Philo in a purely external relationship. 1178 Speaking about universal sinfulness, Philo, however, does not clarify the question of its relationship to the free will of man and either treats it as radical evil or asserts that man is morally indifferent and that evil is a matter of his free choice. 1179 The Eastern fathers and teachers of the church, without generally denying the consequences of Adam's sin for humanity, generally did not devote much space to sinful heredity, leaning more towards the assertion that personal, and not hereditary, sin makes a person guilty before God. 1180 Thus, Clement of Alexandria, recognizing the perfection of the first man as only possible, says that people did not lose what they did not have: as for passions, they are characteristic of human nature not only after his fall, but also before it. 1181 Origen, trying to merge the doctrine of original sin with his theory of the pre-existence of souls, attributed the heredity of ancestral sin not to the soul, but (in the same way as Philo) to the body, to the very act of birth and acceptance of a grossly material and sin-corrupted body 1182; in this sense, he taught about the sinfulness of even infants and the need for baptism for them. 1183 True, this sin also affects the human soul, however, not so much that it loses the seeds of virtue 1184 and does not retain freedom of choice, and not only here on earth, but also in the future life. 1185 Even at St. Athanasius, we come across the opinion that many Christians live sinlessly and that even before Christ there were many saints and pure from all sin (people) ἁ μαρτίας 1186 ). In the West, on the contrary, they were more inclined towards the actual universal sinfulness inherited from Adam. Tertulian already spoke of corruption (corruptio), which stems in all people from the sinfulness of birth (ex originis vitio 1187), St. Cyprian insisted on the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, not only for adults, but also for children, arguing that in baptism not one’s own, but someone else’s (i.e., original) sin is remitted. 1188 St. Ambrose all the time 1189 oscillates between the Eastern and Western concepts of original sin, but still there is a significant inclination towards the West 1190 and, specifically, in the direction of Augustine. The classic passage in this case is the following tirade of St. father, repeated later by Blessed Augustine 1191: “There was Adam and in him were all. Adam perished and everyone in him perished.” 1192 The possibility of such a transfer of sin from one to another is based on the fact that Adam was the head of the race. “Through one sin was passed on to all (Rom. 5:18). And just as we cannot avoid the leader of the clan, so we cannot avoid the primary culprit of death; and just as through one death came to us, so through one also the resurrection.” 1193 By his disobedience, this “contagion of ancient sin,” 1194 Adam took off the robe of faith and inflicted a “mortal wound” on the entire human race, 1195 which thus fell in the sin of its ancestor. 1196 Hence all people are born in sin, 1197 since each of them is in the sin of Adam. 1198 No one is without sin, 1199 for to be without sin is characteristic of God alone, 1200 only of Christ, 1201 even the Blessed Virgin - and she was not without faults. 1202 St. speaks somewhat vaguely. Ambrose about the sinfulness of children: then he claims that a child has no sin and guilt, and therefore it is pure before the righteous Judge (parvuli apud iustum iudicem nulla est culpa..., quia parvulus sine ullo est crimine praevaricationis et culpae 1203), that the childhood of people is innocent, 1204 then, on the contrary, he says that people become involved in defilement even before their birth (antequam nascimur 1205), that in each of us first Cain is born, exalting himself, then Abel, a worshiper of God, 1206 that no one can be justified in the eyes of God, since even a one-day-old baby is not free from sin, 1207 and that because of this it is necessary to baptize not only adults, but also children. 1208 In this contradiction, St. Ambrose was most clearly affected by his hesitation between the Eastern and Western views, not original sin. 1210 What about St. What does Ambrose mean by original sin and what does this name refer to? Under the ancestral sin of St. the father sometimes, apparently in the same way as Origen, understands the very acceptance of a weak and infirm body at birth, 1211 but more often he refers the name original sin to the actual sinfulness of both the parents and the person being born. “The mother gives birth to everyone in sins. But here (Ps. 50:7) he (David) did not explain whether the mother gives birth in her own sins, or whether the one who is born has some sins. But look, shouldn’t we mean both here and there... So, we are conceived in the iniquity of our parents and are born in their sins. But the very fruit of the womb has its own ulcers; and it is not only the nature of the (born) who has defilement.” 1212 The closest thing to the concept of hereditary sin is St. Ambrose sums up the hereditary impurity that appeared after the Fall 1213 - iniquitas or the sinful disposition of the unrighteous (habitudo mentis injustae 1214) and corrupt (improbitas mentis) mind, 1215 which is the root of every individual and personal sin - peccatum. 1216 These two terms - iniquitas and peccatum - are usually used by St. Ambrose in a certain sense: the first - to designate original or hereditary sin, and the second - personal sin. Iniquitas, this great and ancient ulcer (vulnus grande et vetus 1217), which in St. Ambrose is also called “the uncleanness of the heel” (iniquitas calcanei 1218), released to a person in baptism, while peccatum is covered with good deeds. 1219 However, St. Ambrose does not always adhere to this terminology and sometimes speaks of personal not peccata, but iniquitates. So, man receives sinfulness as an inheritance from his forefather. The question is, is this sinfulness imputed to us as our personal guilt, or does the guilt remain with its original culprit? Origen resolved this issue in the second sense. “Let no one,” he says, “be afraid of the crime of Adam, since no one is condemned for the crimes of another.” 1220 Following him and St. Ambrose wrote: “It (Adam’s crime) cannot be terrible for me, for on the day of judgment it is our own guilt that is punished, and not the guilt of others. And therefore, by the unrighteousness of the heel, I mean rather the ease of sin, rather than anyone’s guilt for sin.” 1221 However, in his other creation he affirms not only the sinfulness, but also the guilt of man for hereditary sin. “I fell in Adam, was expelled from paradise in Adam, died in Adam. How will He (Christ) call, if He does not find me in Adam, both a participant in guilt, a debtor of death, and justified in Christ? 1222 In view of the fact that the second quotation was taken by us from an earlier work of St. father, while the first is from a later one, it is difficult to say categorically what exactly the opinion of St. Ambrose, however, with great right it can be said that St. the father attributed to man not only the ancestral sin, but also the guilt for it. 1223 This conclusion can be confirmed by the teaching of St. Ambrose about the transfer to the descendants of Adam not only of sin itself, but also of the punishments that Adam suffered for his sin. “If guilt is attributed,” St. notes regarding Adam’s sin. father, then punishment for sin follows, for he who could not avoid guilt is worthy of punishment.” 1224 But all the punishments and consequences for sin that the first parents suffered passed on to their offspring 1225; and the latter, as having fallen through hereditary slavery (haereditarium vinculum) under the dominion of “this world,” under the power of Satan, as well as its own sins and passions, brought upon itself both curse and death. 1226 Listing the consequences of Adam's sin to which his offspring were subjected, St. Ambrose treats in more detail about slavery to Satan, and develops the theory of the rights of the demon, which is also spoken of by Hilary, Ambrosiastes, 1227 and later by St. Augustine. 1228 The devil, according to this theory, is a usurer; from him Eve borrowed sin, the interest for which all of her descendants pay with their sins, 1229 forever enslaved to the devil 1230 not only by the sin of their ancestors, but also by their own, for “sin is from the devil, since from his wealth (patrimonio) the wicked receives his means,” 1231 and “we, hitherto free, have acquired large sums through our sins and became debtors." 1232 This is the teaching of St. Ambrose on original sin. Due to historical circumstances (the doctrine of hereditary sin was brought to the fore somewhat later, in the time of Augustine), it could not be received from St. the father of full development and completeness, 1233 but still it clearly outlines those provisions that Blessed Augustine placed at the head of the doctrine of fallen man. And first of all, the Milanese saint, more decisively than any father before him, affirms the sinfulness of the human race, and he places this sinfulness in the closest connection with the sin of Adam. 1234 Thus the first man fell and was punished for his sin. It goes without saying that after the fall of our ancestors, the moral life of people had to take place under significantly different conditions. But the new conditions did not change the goals of man’s creation: he had the same goal of life that God showed him in paradise. Only achieving this goal has become significantly more difficult. If previously a person had all the means necessary for its implementation, had the grace of God, as well as a healthy spiritual and physical nature, now he had to first restore the health of both natures, again become a partaker of grace, and only then go towards the goal set for him. Meanwhile, his spiritual strength was damaged quite significantly. This must be said first of all regarding his religious feeling and ability to know God. “Fallen man,” writes St. Ambrose, based on his concept of the image of God, lost the true knowledge of God, his internal innate 1235 natural law (lex naturalis 1236) and through this became ignorant of good and evil.” 1237 In view of this, and also because pride and disobedience began to reign everywhere, 1238 God gave through Moses the Law, “which would teach me obedience and would resolve the knot of Adam’s betrayal that entangled all his descendants,” 1239 “which would again make man submissive and obedient to God (Rom. 7:8)” 1240 and which would finally return to man at least a piece of the whole that he had lost. 1241 This Law of Moses possessed, by the way, the truth and was valuable not in itself, but only insofar as it related to Christ, being only a shadow or image of the 1242 coming truth - the New Testament Revelation and Christ Himself. 1243 Between the synagogue and the church, in which truth, life and remission of sins were revealed, 1244 there is the same difference as between night and day. 1245 The Old Testament Law is only the beginning of that grace-filled knowledge that is given in the Gospel and reaches its fullness and perfection in the future life 1246: The Law only warned the Gospel with some fraternal foreshadowing. 1247 If the entire meaning of the Mosaic Law lies in its relation to the New Testament and Christ, then all its institutions and rituals in themselves, apart from the New Testament sacraments, have no value, for they are not the truth itself, but only a sign of the truth. 1248 The Law itself was powerless to free man from slavery to sin, 1249 it was powerless to defeat the wisdom of the flesh, 1250 to destroy in man the slavish attraction to the earth, 1251 i.e., it was powerless to make man free. Meanwhile, “where there is no freedom, there is no grace, and where there is no grace, there is no participation in sonship, and where there is no sonship, there is no inheritance.” 1252 From here St. Ambrose argues that in the Old Testament there was no true baptism and forgiveness, 1253 no true priest, altar and church, 1254 no true justification. 1255 The latter was impossible in the Old Testament already on a formal basis: one who is under the letter of the law cannot be justified, 1256 but mainly because justification is possible only in Christ, 1257 for only Christ gives (under the condition of true repentance 1258) that grace, without which there is neither complete forgiveness, 1259 nor perfect justification. 1260 Due to all this, there could be no talk of moral perfection in the Old Testament. 1261 But if the Old Testament Law does not lead a person to the realization of the goal set for people, if it did not lead either to justification or to perfection, then for what purpose, one might ask, was it given by God? The meaning of the Law, answers St. Ambrose, - lies, first of all, in the fact that a person began to confess what he had previously denied, began to recognize his sin and not to cover up his untruth, but to open it to God. 1262 Man's awareness of his sinfulness led not only to humility and, through it, to the resolution of those bonds with which Adam and Eve bound their offspring, 1263 not only to repentance, but also to desire and the search for grace-filled help. 1264 The Law thus foreshadowed grace (which is why St. Ambrose calls him “the author of good” 1265), and the Jewish people even “saints”, 1266 just as the Law itself was already the beginning of God’s mercy and His gracious help to man. 1267 However, the Law could produce such good fruits only when it was accepted in its true spirit, i.e. that is, when they understood him spiritually 1268 and saw in him not the absolute truth, but only its shadow, 1269 when, further, following his instructions as a teacher, they came to Christ, 1270 the only true Teacher, who brought to earth the key of knowledge 1271 and revealed the riddles of the prophets and the secrets of the Law. 1272 What is the relation of the supernatural Law to the natural, of Revelation to reason? We already know about the significant role that St. Ambrose refers to reason in its relationship to the mind. This reason, he says, leads a person to the knowledge of “the Creator, in whose power both life and death are ours, who governs this world according to His will, to whom, we know, we will have to give an account of all our affairs.” 1273 Humanity was guided, as far as possible, by this reason in its religious quests and justifications for moral life after the expulsion from paradise and before Moses. But after the Sinai Law was given to people, reason did not lose its significance, since the word of external law must still be aided by the consideration of right reason (rationis rectae consideratio 1274). Sometimes St. Ambrose, understanding by ratio the natural moral law, asserts, like St. Irenaeus, 1275 that the Mosaic and natural laws essentially constitute one law, written in one case in the heart, in the other on tablets 1276; the written law was only supposed to renew the natural one, since not everyone has the ability to “be a law unto themselves.” 1277 But, generally treating the human mind favorably, St. Ambrose has a far different attitude towards the product of this mind, towards philosophy. Philo, who set out to reconcile religion and philosophy, saw in the latter the path to wisdom, which is the knowledge of divine and human things and their causes, 1278 and, although he was not averse to reproaching philosophy for its irreligion, however, in general he treated not only it, but even astrology, with the highest degree of sympathy. 1279 Clement of Alexandria and Origen also had a generally favorable attitude toward it, although the latter sometimes denied pagan wisdom, arguing that “the deceitful pagan sages thought and taught more or less under the influence of unclean spirits.” 1280 By the end of the 4th century, the positive attitude of the Eastern fathers towards pagan philosophy began to give way to a negative one. 1281 This is the general attitude of St. Basil the Great 1282 and Gregory of Nyssa. 1283 As for the West, there, as we know, they were far from friendly towards philosophy. Like other Latin writers even of the 4th century (for example, St. Hilary), who did not want philosophy to be mixed into matters of faith, and St. Ambrose also spoke out against philosophy. He is her, like St. Vasily, 1284 denies, first of all, because she deals with empty questions that have no use for the future life, 1285 for example, geometry, astronomy, etc. 1286; but, apart from this, philosophy cannot give true knowledge for the simple reason that it does not know God. 1287 She does not know God because she is the wisdom of this century under the domination of the devil (sapientia saecularia, mundana, carnalis 1289) and, as such, she, according to the teachings of St. Ambrose, stands in direct contradiction to the divine wisdom revealed in both the Old and New Testaments 1290 and, in particular, in the church. 1291 Hence the positive instruction of St. father to keep himself away from philosophy, “so that no one through the elements of this world distracts our faith from the true, so that no one destroys our affirmation through philosophy; we know that in this way the Arians fell into unbelief when they wanted to prove the birth of Christ from the experience of this world; they leave the apostle and follow Aristotle.” 1292 Without true knowledge, philosophy could not have true merit, 1293 could not have true moral life, which is possible only in Christianity, for only Christians care about the cleansing of their body, only they carry in their body the mortification of Jesus Christ in order to reveal His life in their lives, 1294 and in this way they actually achieve the heights of abstinence and virtue. 1295 But, along with such a complete denial of philosophy, we find in St. father and a different attitude towards her. Thus, he says that not everything in philosophy is false, that it also has truth, borrowed, however, by philosophers from revealed teaching. 1296 Here we can also point out that St. Ambrose does not recognize as something impossible the harmony produced by the movement of the earth around its axis, 1297 as the philosophers taught. Moreover, he does not condemn the natural virtues of the pagans, although he considers them empty, likening the virtuous pagans to trees covered with leaves but without fruit. 1298 Finally, it is interesting that, having decided to write a doctrine of duties or Christian ethics, St. Ambrose took the book of a pagan philosopher as a model. Among the philosophers and, more precisely, among the Stoics, although not directly, St. Ambrose also borrowed the principle of moral life, defined as “following nature” or “life in harmony with nature.” 1299 Chapter III. State of redemption or salvation (grace-Christian) The redemption of people accomplished by Christ and the fruits of this redemption. The Old Testament Law led man to the consciousness of his sinfulness, to repentance, to the desire for justification and salvation. However, at the same time, man saw that by his own strength he could not free himself from sinfulness, could not be justified and saved. From here the idea arose and grew stronger in him about the need for divine help and a heavenly Savior. We encounter this kind of thoughts already in Philo, who argued, among other things, that man, by his own strength, without divine help, cannot purify himself and prepare himself for union with the Divine, 1300 that redemption, which consists in granting the highest part of man victory over the lower, is a work of God’s mercy, 1301 which is why God is called by Philo the savior of the soul 1302 or Σωτήρ from πάθος. 1303 According to the teachings of Origen, the salvation accomplished by Christ consists of: communicating to people the true light of knowledge 1304; in Christ's outline of the most perfect example of moral life 1305; in the healing of our inner man 1306 and, 1307 in the proper sense, the redemption of humanity. The suffering and death of Christ, on the one hand, justified man before God, and on the other hand, defeated the prince of this world, for with His Blood Christ redeemed people sold to sin, 1308 being a New Testament sacrifice that made all other sacrifices unnecessary. 1309 It was possible only for Christ alone to take upon himself the burden of the sins of all, to lift them up on the cross and to redeem everyone through the cross. 1310 Christ accomplished universal redemption, but it is assimilated by each believer to varying degrees. As one participates in the salvation of Christ, the mind of an individual person gradually returns the image of God lost through sin, although the image of God in a person will finally be restored only in a future life. 1311 The teaching of St. Ambrose on the atonement is not distinguished by either the depth of theoretical justification or subtle dogmatic formulation, but it, having a more practical character in comparison with the teaching of the Eastern fathers, 1312 with greater expression and clarity transfers the center of gravity of this teaching to the spiritual and moral sphere. 1313 First of all, St. Ambrose strongly emphasizes the impossibility for a person, through personal efforts, to free himself from a false sinful life and take the true path. “If a person without a guide has lost the indicated (acceptum) path in paradise, then how,” asks St. father, - without a guide, could he find the lost path in the desert, where there are a lot of temptations? 1314 Neither man himself, 1315 nor an angel or an archangel could indicate this lost path and give strength to walk along it and in general redeem a person, since he could not resist sin and preserve what he received from God, 1316 - only He who is above all, who is greater than the world, who is everything and in all - Christ, could redeem. 1317 Redemption of people by Christ St. Ambrose considers it an act of the greatest mercy 1318 and love 1319 of God for people, which is why Christ Himself, who loved the world and wanted to be loved by this world, 1320 is called by St. father, the Son of love or Love itself. 1321 On the question of the essence of redemption in the time of St. Ambrose there were two views: one, coming from St. Irenaeus and Athanasius, saw the essence of redemption in the fact that Christ, through his carnal birth, sanctified the flesh of all humanity, from which it followed that all people achieve divine life precisely thanks to the incarnation of the Savior 1322; the second, which gradually replaced the first, placed the center of gravity in the question of redemption in the suffering and death on the cross of Christ. St. Ambrose is a zealous champion of the second view, however, in some places in his works, especially of the earlier period, one can find traces of the Athanasian understanding of the atonement carried out in the West by St. Hilary. Thus, in De virginibus St. Ambrose writes: “After the Lord, having come into this body, combined the communion of divinity and physicality without any stain of external confusion, He, spreading throughout the whole world, communicated to human bodies the image of heavenly life. This is the very future generation that the angels serving on earth announced (Matt. 7:11) (and) who will render service to the Lord through the obedience of blameless flesh." 1323 But, as already said, St. Ambrose was a zealous champion of the view that attributed exceptional importance in the doctrine of atonement to the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross. The essence of the redemption of St. Ambrose believed that Christ, having become the second Adam and taking upon Himself the sins and curse of humanity, took them to the cross: having washed humanity in His Blood, Christ, on the one hand, justified it before God, and on the other hand, in the proper sense, redeemed it from the power of the devil. To redeem people, Christ first had to become the second Adam, 1324 the new leader of a new kind of people. And for this He needed to take on human flesh 1325 (only sinless 1326), to become a perfect man, 1327 or rather, a perfect God-man. 1328 But accepting sinless flesh was not enough for the second Adam: He needed to be tempted and overcome Adam’s sin in the flesh He assumed, which actually happened. “What benefit would it be to us,” St. notes on this occasion. father, - if God, by His Divinity, destroyed the sinfulness of man? Or why did He take on flesh, if not so that He Himself could be tempted in the position of our weak nature? He needed to be tempted, but not fall into suffering, so that I would know how I, the tempted one, could overcome and avoid suffering. He conquered through abstinence, He conquered through His contempt of wealth, He trampled down pride, He avoided intemperance, He rejected temptation.” 1329 Christ, although he was placed in the conditions of human life, 1330 although he accepted our flesh, yet alone of all people 1331 did not have its sins, 1332 did not know its weaknesses, 1333 for in Himself He conquered sin. 1334 Due to such personal sinlessness, the opportunity opened up for Christ, the second Adam, for the sake of the redemption of people to take upon himself both human sin and the punishment for it: and this latter was necessary because “whoever strives to correct the vices of human weakness must take it upon his shoulders and in some way atone for this weakness, and not reject it.” 1335 Christ truly took upon us not only our flesh, this “dirty garment,” 1336 but also our infirmities, 1337 our slavery, 1338 wounds and suffering, 1339 death 1340 and curse. 1341 “All things come from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ. We were dead, and therefore He, one for all, became a slave (Phil. 2:7). What am I saying as a slave? He became a sin, a reproach, a curse.” 1342 But the point is not only that Christ defeated sin in His flesh and took upon Himself the sins and punishment of the whole world, but, mainly, that He nailed sins to the cross, 1343 that with His Blood He washed humanity from all sinful filth, 1344 as well as the consequences of sin, that by His death He put to death sin and through this resurrected 1345 and justified the people. 1346 As stated above, St. Ambrose, speaking about the redemption accomplished by Christ, especially sharply emphasizes the exceptional significance in this matter of the death on the cross of the Son of God, arguing that this was the only way of saving people. “Weakened human nature could not be reborn except through the sacrament of the Lord’s passion and the Blood of Christ, whose authority is upon His frame (Isa. 9:6). He carried our infirmities to the cross, so that there he could forgive the sins of all.” 1347 “I don’t know,” writes St. father in De bono mortis - does not the death (of Christ) mean more than life itself? For how many peoples did the death of the One make life possible? 1348 Such a gracious effect of Christ’s saving passion was possible only because He Himself was not involved in any sin, any defilement. Hence His death on the cross receives the character of a sacrifice, similar to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, 1349 but infinitely superior and even replacing them, 1350 since Christ is the fulfillment of the representative sacrifices of the Old Testament, 1351 and His Blood has the character of an atoning price for the sins of the whole world. 1352 The distinctive property of this sacrifice was, on the one hand, that in it Christ appeared both as a sacrifice and sacrifice-bearer (priest 1353), prayer book, mediator, 1354 and on the other hand, that not everything in it was brought from humanity: “What was lacking in us, He, the Son chosen from the Father (Filius a Patre electus 1355, filled in His own way) divine mercy from His...; from us He made a sacrifice, from Himself.” 1356 In another place, St. Ambrose directly says that it was not necessary for any of the people to offer himself and die, but for Him who is above all, that is, God. 1357 That is why St. the father claims that, although Christ had to take on human nature in order for man to assimilate the fruits of redemption, Christ granted forgiveness of sins and redemption of the world from guilt not according to humanity, but according to Divinity. 1358 So in the teaching about the Redeemer by St. Ambrose brings to the fore the element not of humanity, but of the Divinity of Christ, and His death is attributed such exceptional significance because it was the death of not just a person, but, namely, the God-Man. 1359 However, at the same time St. The father does not lose sight of the human element. The first man fell away from God through his pride and disobedience to the will of God: Christ, the New Adam, on the contrary, showed complete humility, complete obedience throughout His entire life, in all His labors and sufferings, and most importantly, in His death on the cross. “Since we are under sin in this world, Christ is with us, so that by the obedience of one many may become righteous (Rom. 5:9).” 1360 “Just as guilt entered through disobedience, when the commandments of the Lord were despised, so first of all it was necessary to revive obedience and thereby destroy the breeding ground of sin.” 1361 “Christ Himself (Christ) humbled Himself because of you to death, the death of the cross, in order to destroy the fall of your pride, so that what we lost through the disobedience of Adam alone, we would regain through the obedience of the One Lord Jesus.” 1362 Although the whole life of Christ, all His sufferings and sorrows are signs of His great obedience, 1363 however, the pinnacle of this obedience was His death on the cross, which, in fact, redeems and justifies people. “The crown of the great feat, the glorious betrothal gift of Christ, is His Blood and suffering. For what more could He give, Who did not even spare Himself and gave His soul to death for us? 1364 Christ, on the one hand, justified people, and on the other, freed them from the power of the devil. The concept of the liberation of humanity from the power of the devil in patristic literature consisted of three points: outwitting the devil, victory over him and, in fact, liberation from the rights acquired by the devil over people after the Fall. 1365 These three points are also distinguished by St. Ambrose, although he often merges them all together. Of these, the first point - the theory of pious deception (pia fraus) - does not appear in St. father as clearly as in Origen, 1366 but still repeated more than once, and very decisively. Christ allowed deception in relation to the devil, 1367 and the weak and corruptible flesh of man, which the Savior accepted, served as bait for the devil, as if on a fishing rod. 1368 This deception was necessary in order to force the devil to enter into a fight with Christ, since, otherwise, he could have abandoned it. 1369 Having entered into a struggle with the devil, the Lord won with His humility and “threw to the ground the true Goliath, who had now lost his head, which was practicing tricks and deceptions.” 1370 Thanks to this victory, the Lord stopped those wars that spiritual malice was bringing upon us. He “broke the bow from which the enemy’s arrows were shot, and burned with fire the shield of unbelief, so that the shield of faith would remain indestructible.” 1371 As for liberation from the power of the devil, it is closely associated with St. Ambrose with the idea of ​​the devil as a usurer. Man had to be redeemed from the devil, to whom people were sold through the sin of their forefathers. Christ, seeing people burdened with an enormous debt, which no one could cover “from the inheritance of innocence,” showed people a means of liberation, 1372 which consisted in changing this evil creditor to a good one, 1373 and He Himself also gave people a ransom, namely His Blood, “rich for a ransom and abundant for the washing away of sins.” 1374 About the consequences and fruits of the atoning sacrifice of Christ for the people of St. Ambrose does not speak specifically, but mentions them, for the most part, by chance. Sometimes the totality of these saving fruits of St. the father thinks under the general concept of enriching people with Christ. “Christ, being rich, became poor, that through His poverty He might make us rich.” 1375 This poverty of the people of St. enriched by Christ. Ambrose characterizes it this way: “We have become too poor, because we have lost the precious garments of virtues through the deception of the devil, we are deprived of paradise, expelled from the fatherland, sent into exile, deprived of even the very covering of the body, which was previously protected by the fence of virtues, and then we exposed our sins.” 1376 But, since the heavenly state in the view of St. father was closely associated with the image of the “heavenly man,” then the fruit of redemption, according to St. Ambrose, was that we became partakers of the heavenly nature (naturae caelestis). 1377 Thanks to redemption, a new creation appears, supra mundum, 1378 a heavenly man, who already here on earth resembles the angels, 1379 a heavenly inhabitant, 1380 revealing heaven in himself. 1381 And since the heavenly nature of man is most closely manifested in his spiritual nature, created in the image and likeness of God, then the revelation of a new, heavenly man marks, first of all, the restoration of the image of God 1382 with its characteristic properties - reason and, especially, freedom, understood by St. Ambrose in the sense of grace-filled 1383 freedom both from slavery to sin, 1384 and from slavery to the world. 1385 Christ, says St. Ambrose - having sacrificed His flesh, freed the whole world 1386 and granted freedom to the entire universe (universis libertatem daret 1387), sometimes identified with St. father with heavenly freedom (restituit libertatem paradisi 1388). In direct connection with the restoration of the image of God in man is communion with His divine nature and the grace of sonship, when people, thanks to the influence of the Holy Trinity and especially the Holy Spirit, 1389 become as if gods, as if sons of God (quasi Dei, quasi filii Dei 1390), spiritual sons (filii spiritales 1391), whence Christ, who honored people with His communion Majesty, calls them brothers, saying: “I will proclaim Your name to My brothers” (Is. 21:23). 1392 Now people, like the first man, who, as a partaker of divine love and heir of glory (charitatis divinae patriceps et haeres gloriae), was a friend of God, 1393 also from servants became friends of God. 1394 The dignity of the friends of God, according to St. Ambrose, is determined by the comprehension of heavenly mysteries and the improvement of religious knowledge. Christ called the apostles friends because he revealed to them what He heard from the Father. 1395 God Himself sent Christ to earth for the purpose that He, having removed the veil 1396 and earthly darkness from the spiritual eyes of people, 1397 would give them the opportunity to see the eternal and heavenly, 1398 so that He would show people the paths of prudence (vias prudentiae) and open to the little ones the paths of wisdom (semitas sahientae) 1399 or, in other words, so that He would show humanity those the eternal ways by which he was to return to God. 1400 If Christ had not revealed knowledge to people, they would have remained in complete ignorance, 1401 for only Christ is the truth 1402 and the source from which the church, that is, the soul of everyone, draws wisdom. 1403 But not knowledge alone, teaches St. Ambrose, the Redeemer brought to the people. He also gives them grace, without which salvation is impossible, 1404 for only this grace delivers the spirit of a person from the dominion of the flesh over him, 1405 only it calls a person to life, 1406 only it accomplishes his complete correction. 1407 At the same time, St. Ambrose distinguishes between two types of grace: on the one hand, God renewed ancient grace in man, 1408 and on the other, he increased it with “new grace” 1409: “Christ suffered,” says St. Ambrose,” and everything began to abound with the seeds of new grace.” 1410 This grace, which was unknown in the Old Testament, 1411 is most closely manifested in the forgiveness of sins, in the renewal of man and the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit on him. 1412 But, since the saint has sin. Ambrose is often thought of in the image of weakness or illness, then his concept of salvation necessarily includes the idea of ​​Christ’s healing of the spiritual infirmities and diseases of humanity fallen in Adam, 1413 from which the grace of Christ is seen primarily as a healing grace. And in general, forgiveness of sins from St. Ambrose is one of the most important fruits of the redemptive work of Christ. “What is the will of the Father if not for Jesus to come into this world and cleanse us from our sins?” 1414 And almost everywhere where St. Ambrose has to talk about the purpose of the Savior’s coming to earth; he puts remission and forgiveness of sins in the first place. 1415 This is why the redeemed, according to the instructions of St. father, should rejoice not in the fact that he is justified, but in the fact that he is redeemed, not in the fact that he is freed from sin, but in the fact that his sins are forgiven. 1416 But, since a person is forgiven of his sins, he is thereby freed from sinful death and eternal condemnation. 1417 And, indeed, Christ, teaches St. father, - accepted our clothes (sins) in order to clothe us with the splendor of immortality, 1418 for His death, having destroyed our death, 1419 gave life to everyone. 1420 Under death, from which Christ freed people, St. Ambrose primarily means spiritual death, but sometimes also physical death, 1421 just as he does not limit redemption itself only to the soul, but extends it to the body. Redemption and salvation, he teaches, apply to the whole person: both soul and body. 1422 In another place he writes that Christ, who created man, wanted to preserve him, wanted to save and, precisely, the whole man. 1423 How does the body participate in redemption? The Holy Father answers this question: “The Lord Jesus came and in the flesh, involved in sin, prepared a militia of virtue. For where there were passions, there is now a dwelling place of purity." 1424 The Lord Jesus, having crucified in His flesh the sins of the whole world, (thereby) destroyed them, and not only the sins of deeds (delicta factorum), but also spiritual passions (cupiditates animorum). 1425 From here the flesh, which was hitherto the vessel of the devil, becomes a chosen vessel, 1426 which was previously the body of a harlot becomes the body Christ, 1427 no longer reflects the shadow of death, but the grace of God, and 1428 therefore, as freed from the former curse, it is blessed. 1429 Thanks to the cleansing or redemption of the flesh, the division between body and soul that occurred in man as a result of Adam’s sin was destroyed. 1430 Previously, the soul and body were separated by a wall, and the body could not be subordinate to the soul, 1431 since the law of the flesh opposed the law of the mind. 1432 But then the World came, which destroyed the mediastinum, stopped the struggle 1433 between the inner and outer man, 1434 subordinated the body to the dominance of the spirit 1435 and united them “in the unity of will,” 1436 in a joint pursuit of what is saving. 1437 And with the removal of this hostility in the flesh, the old and the new man were reconciled, 1438 and people became “children of peace and love,” 1439 rejoicing with the joy of a cleansed conscience. 1440 Previously, the conscience groaned from its reproaches, but now it rejoices, being freed from fear, thanks to the mercy of Christ and the remission of all sins, 1441 and not only sins, but also the guilt itself inherited from Adam. 1442 Thanks to all this, the door of heaven opens before man again, through which he returns to his fatherland. 1443 Christ frees the person thus redeemed from the power of the devil, expels him from his kingdom and makes him a member of the new, alien sin, 1444 kingdom of God. Christ founded this kingdom when He delivered people from death and gave them life and freedom, when He, like the second Adam, became the chief (head) of all the people whom He had to lead to the Father. 1445 This kingdom or church 1446 cannot, in fact, be called new, since already from the beginning of time there has been a kingdom of truth and justice on earth, imperfect, it is true, but resting on the hope of future perfection 1447 and relating to the church of the New Testament, as a handmaiden to the free 1448 and as a shadow to the image. 1449 The kingdom founded by Christ, in contrast to the kingdom of the devil, is an eternal and permanent kingdom (regnum perpetuum atque aeternum 1450). A distinctive property of this kingdom is its universality, explained both by the fact that it is open to all people without exception, 1451 and by the fact that it embraces not only this world, 1452 but also the other world. The connecting principle of this kingdom of God is the grace of Christ. 1453 The redemption accomplished by Christ is not limited, however, to one person, it extends to all creation - for “the mystery of the incarnation of God is the salvation of all creation,” 1454 - and even to the whole world. “Before, this whole world emitted a stench from the filth of various deeds, but now attractive chastity, the ointment of faith, the color of innocence wafts everywhere.” 1455 Both as the Redeemer and as the Founder of the kingdom, Christ has exceptional significance for the Christian and, in particular, for his moral life. He is first of all the beginning of salvation (initium salutis 1456), and even salvation itself (salus 1457). He is the only physician of human infirmities, 1458 He is the life of each person individually 1459 and at the same time the source of universal life, 1460 for “He is the tree of life, the tree of wisdom, planted in the womb of the Virgin according to the will of the Father.” 1461 Christ is the power of God, life, light, resurrection of the dead. 1462 He is the door: he only will inherit eternal life who enters through this door, 1463 for every work is in vain that is not based on the foundation of Christ, 1464 - on the contrary, he who has begun to be with Christ cannot fall. 1465 From here Christ is conceived as the source, as the saving seed of all Christians, starting with the apostles, 1466 as the head of every husband, 1467 which, if someone has lost, he can no longer live. 1468 Christ gives life, but He also supports it. 1469 To put it briefly: “Every soul is in the power of God, and Christ is everything for us.” 1470 “All things are given to us in Christ, through whom are all things and in whom are all things. Having everything in Him, I do not ask for any reward, for He Himself is the reward of all.” 1471 From here St. Ambrose quite consistently gives the following instruction: “Whether we eat or drink, let us proclaim Christ, ask Christ, think about Christ, talk about Christ: let Christ always be in our heart, always in our mouth.” 1472 Christ is Wisdom, who showed people the paths of prudence, 1473 those eternal paths by which man was to return to God. 1474 How did He show these paths? “He gave,” answers St. Ambrose, “His Gospel, which is not only the teaching of faith, but also a school of morals, and a mirror of righteous conversion.” 1475 Comparing the New Testament with the Old, St. Ambrose says that the high instructions of the Gospel take precedence over the instructions of the prophets (and apostles 1476). The Gospel, in comparison with the Old Testament teaching, is a new law, built on a different principle - the principle of love, 1477 the principle of mercy. 1478 Since this new principle is manifested in the relations of God to man, it is reflected as the infinite mercy of God, 1479 as the complete remission of sins 1480; since it is relied on as the basis of mutual relations between people, instead of the Old Testament vengeance towards enemies, it prescribes love for them. 1481 The question is: what is the relationship of the Gospel law to the Old Testament law, does the latter have any meaning for a Christian or not? Origen answered this question almost negatively, arguing that the Old Testament law, with the bringing of a new, perfect law by Christ, lost its meaning and became dead to us, which is why we accept it only when Christ reads it to us. 1482 St. Ambrose distinguishes two elements in the Old Testament: the religious-ceremonial element and the moral element. The first element, despite the fact that the Old and New Testaments were given by the same God, 1483 that in both Testaments the same Christ acted, 1484 with the coming of the law - Christ, 1485 with the coming of “perfect grace” and “fullness of measure”, 1486 one might say, lost its meaning and gave way to a new one, just as shadow and darkness give way to the image and light 1487 ; in other words: the Old Testament law has become obsolete for us, 1488 which is why the apostles freed Christians from the burden of the Jewish law. 1489 If the latter still retains any significance for Christians, it is only insofar as the Savior is proclaimed in it. “Confess,” says St. Ambrose, “His (Savior) is in the Law, so that you may know Him in the Gospel.” 1490 Otherwise St. father refers to the moral element of the Old Testament Law. The moral law of Moses has not lost its meaning for Christians, so whoever denies it also denies Christ, in whom was the fulfillment of every law. 1491 The fact is that the Old Testament moral law is a necessary preparation for the moral law of the Gospel, for only he can undertake the fulfillment of the Gospel commandments who has fulfilled the requirements of the law. “First ascend to the first step of the law,” teaches St. Ambrose of the Christian, “so that you can then reach the heavenly pinnacle of the Gospel.” 1492 Subjective assimilation by man of the fruits of Christ's redemption. Faith. Baptism There is not a single person without sin, all people have sinned, not excluding the Mother of God, 1493 therefore they all need Christ’s redemption. Depending on this, the redemption or salvation accomplished by Christ is distinguished, firstly, by its eternity, for it is salus perpetua, salus aeterna, 1494 and secondly, by its universality, for Christ redeemed not individual individuals, but the whole world, 1495 all people 1496 - both righteous and sinners 1497 and even children. 1498 This universality of Christ's redemption is characteristic, among other things, in that it extends not only to those who directly receive it, but also has the opposite effect, saving those who died in faith in this redemption, and of them, first of all, the forefathers. 1499 But if redemption extends to everyone, then why is not everyone saved and not even everyone accepts Christ’s atonement? In other words: what is the relationship between the grace of God and the will of man? Does God save the one He wants, or, conversely, the one who wants to be saved? This question is one of those most complex issues of salvation that were developed in detail and resolved at a council later than the time of St. Ambrose, the era, although they arose much earlier - at least Origen already posed and resolved the question of the relationship of grace to the will of man. At the same time, Origen sometimes, apparently, was inclined to attribute the entire matter of human salvation exclusively to the grace of God. “Everything we have,” he says, “is an undeserved gift of ineffable grace; everything that we can think and say is all a gift of the same grace.” 1500 The very first thing that begins our salvation is faith in God, which the Apostle portrays as a free gift of God’s grace. 1501 Moreover: the very initial conversion of a sinner from the path of destruction, the beginning of his spiritual rebirth, 1502 his prayer for salvation, 1503 all this is the work of God’s grace. Sometimes, on the contrary, Origen, in the question of salvation, brings to the fore a person’s own strengths and, in particular, his free will. “The grace of God,” he writes, “does not act unconditionally on a person: a person must first earn it through his own deeds. Grace is not given indifferently, but precisely in accordance with the personal merits of each. It is said in Scripture: “To everyone who has, more will be given and he will have an abundance, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away (Matthew 25:29),” this means that whoever, for example, has faith, will be given the grace of faith, which will abound in him, and in general: what gift each of us receives from nature, if he increases and develops this gift himself, he will receive the same gift and from the grace of God, which will strengthen this talent and elevate it to the highest level of perfection.” 1504 Thus, it turns out that the action of grace in Origen is actually reduced to the development and strengthening of man’s free undertakings: it is only an assistant to his free will, which itself is able to both want and do good. The indicated contradiction in Origen’s views on the relationship between the grace of God and human freedom finds its reconciliation in the assumption that Origen, who apparently already distinguished calling grace from promoting and strengthening grace, 1505 recognized the salvation of man as a matter of joint action, on the one hand, of the grace of God, on the other, of the will of man. In any case, we find in him an assertion that neither what is accomplished by our will can be accomplished by it alone without grace, nor what is accomplished by grace is accomplished by it alone without any participation of our will, 1506 although he is inclined to highlight the will of man rather than the grace of God. “The beginning must come from us,” he writes, “but God is (always) ready to extend (us) a hand (of help).” 1507 The teaching of St. Ambrose on grace is not distinguished by consistency and clarity. First of all, St. Ambrose categorically states that Christ calls all nations to reject error, follow the truth and join the church, 1508 that He calls everyone to follow Him and inherit the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. 1509 Hence, if someone is not saved, then the blame for this falls on himself, on his negligence, 1510 for he himself deprives himself of the saving light, he himself, as it were, closes his windows so that the rays of the sun do not penetrate into them, 1511 - in particular, the heretics themselves are to blame for the fact that Christ, born for everyone, is not born for everyone. 1512 However, along with this statement, we find in St. father and completely the opposite. “God calls those whom he deigns to honor, and those whom he desires he makes believers,” 1513, he says. Then comparing a person’s faith with the door on which Christ knocks, St. Ambrose calls the one on whose door Christ knocks blessed, from which it follows that there are also unblessed ones, on whose doors Christ does not knock. “The healing of Christ,” writes St. the father is in another place - there is a correction. The Lord corrects the one whom he wants to convert.” 1515 And not only corrects, but also justifies and sanctifies only those whom he wants. 1516 But this is not enough. Whomever God attracts will not be separated by persecution, will not be turned away by luxury, will not be deceived by philosophy, will not be desecrated by the Manichaeans, will not be seduced by Arius, will not be infected by Sabellius. 1517 This is a contradiction in the teaching about the calling grace of St. Ambrose reconciles as follows. “Although God,” he argues, “calls all people to salvation, He does not address His word to everyone, not because of any partiality, but on the basis of His omniscience, for He knows that by famous people His appeal will not be received with sincerity and goodwill.” 1518 Having explained the words of the Savior to the leper: “I want you to be cleansed,” St. the father writes: “The goodwill (pietas) of the will precedes, the authority of power follows. He says to everyone “I want” Jesus, who does not want there to be sin. The desire of Christ is directed equally towards everyone, but purification is a matter of faith, confessing Christ. And touched him. He touches those who themselves touch Him with their faith.” 1519 Thus, grace, which is not a matter of merit, but only of the free will and mercy of God, 1520 is directed by Christ to all, but only a few receive it; it is accepted only by those who desire it, who have a disposition towards it and who, thanks to this, seem to deserve it. 1521 Divine mercy does not exclude anyone from grace: on the contrary, those who do not want to confess their sins themselves depart from the Lord. 1522 It is not salvation that leaves people, but people who move away from salvation. Christ came to the Jews, but they did not want to accept salvation. 1523 “If a person,” says St. father, does not heed the divine call, then he becomes more responsible and even more distant from God.” 1524 But if God converts, as St. Ambrose, His word and bestows grace only on those who, so to speak, have deserved such grace, does this not mean that in the matter of appropriating Christ’s redemption, primacy belongs not to grace, but to the will of man? No, answers St. Ambrose, - salvation begins with the grace of God, but not the will of man, which is so weak that it cannot even desire anything good unless God prepares it 1525 and strengthens it with His grace. 1526 “Who,” asks St. father, - with a human foot, without divine guidance, can rise from the earthly to the heavenly, from the canopy to clarity, from the image to the essence of truth? 1527 God Himself is the Author of good will (bonae voluntatis auctor), He Himself kindles and enlightens the heart, and most importantly, He Himself arouses jealousy so that man deserves His grace (adpromerendam sui gratiam). 1528 However, here too St. Ambrose does not remain consistent, since he often asserts that the work of salvation begins with the free will of man, while grace only ends it. 1529 Interpreting the expression of St. Scripture “draw us in” (Song of Songs 1; 3), 1530 he writes: “Draw us in. We have a strong desire to follow... But since we cannot keep up with Your running, draw us so that with Your help we can follow in Your footsteps.” 1531 No matter how contradictory the reasoning of St. Ambrose on the question of the relationship between grace and the will of man, yet from them one can draw the conclusion that on the question of man’s assimilation of the atonement of St. Ambrose, like Origen, adhered to the doctrine of the joint action of 1532 divine grace and human will, and, contrary to Origen, he attributed predominant importance, however, to the grace of God. So, Christ, having redeemed people, calls everyone to participate in the salvation He accomplished. But not everyone responds to this call of the Savior, but only a few, and then with the direct assistance of divine grace. This response of people to the call of Christ is expressed in their faith. For Philo, faith is, in fact, not the beginning, but the end or goal of a person’s religious and moral life. 1533 It is only a true and true good before God (μόνον δές καί βεβαίον άγαθόν προς θεόν 1534), and therefore is qualified in the same way as a reward from God to a righteous person, 1535 vol. that is, a virtuous person. 1536 True, Philo sometimes calls faith the most perfect virtue 1537 and even the basis of virtue, 1538 understood not only in the sense of active good deeds, but primarily in the sense of humility, self-abasement and awareness of one’s weakness, 1539 however, in essence, faith is for him a theoretical-intellectual force, “a subordinate and transitory moment in the process of mastering all the riches of wisdom,” 1540 and its meaning for the moral activity of man remained unclear from Philo. 1541 Clement of Alexandria taught that the Lord accomplished salvation for all people and brought His gospel to everyone. 1542 For a person, salvation is possible only through faith. 1543 Calling faith grace, 1544 Clement at the same time says that it is up to us to believe or not, 1545 that faith is a “voluntary agreement,” 1546 having the character of obedience to God, 1547 and that it is the first act of conversion, which is immediately followed by the second - repentance. 1548 Origen develops the same thoughts. To receive salvation, a person must first demonstrate faith. 1549 In faith itself, Origen distinguishes several stages: simple faith, gnosis and wisdom or direct knowledge of God. 1550 True and perfect faith, according to Origen, is unthinkable without virtue and, in particular, without love. 1551 Sometimes Origen calls faith grace and the action of the Holy Spirit, 1552 but at the same time claims that a person prepares himself for it with his own strength. 1553 St. Hippolytus in the concept of faith embraces the entire sum of the right relationship to God, affirming at the same time that in faith there is also forgiveness of sins. 1554 St. Basil the Great in faith notes first of all the element of obedience to God. “In considering what the Lord has said, one should not hesitate and doubt, but undoubtedly accept that every word of God is true and omnipotent, even if nature has withered otherwise. For this is the feat of faith.” 1555 St. Ambrose, for his part, considers faith a necessary condition for salvation. “No one can be healthy who does not believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Dead and lifeless is he who denies the Holy Spirit, who does not believe in the power of the almighty Trinity,” 1556 especially Christ and every truth revealed by Him 1557 and offered by the Church. 1558 However, both the conversion of man and the very faith of St. Ambrose considers it a work or gift of God's grace. “This,” says St. father, - the apostle also confirms in his division of grace: “To another is given faith by the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:9) 1559 or: “Because it has been given to you for the sake of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him” (Phil. 1:29), 1560 and the disciples ask the Lord: “Increase faith in us” (Luke 17:5). 1561 Based on the above position, the Holy Father says that Christ came to earth for the purpose of establishing faith and giving forgiveness of sins, 1562 and that by this coming of Christ a person is obliged to prepare himself for the acceptance of spiritual grace, that is, faith 1563. God communicates the saving truths that a Christian must accept to man in Holy Scripture, which contains the apostolic and Lord’s testimonies (apostolica et dominica testimonia 1564) and is an infallible teacher of true knowledge, 1565 however, not directly, but through the church and church dogmas: faith cannot abide without the dogmas of truth (nec potest sine regula veritatis fides stare). 1566 Church dogmas and, in general, faith do not exclude human reason; on the contrary, it is necessary that “Revelation is combined with reason,” 1567 it is necessary that in order to understand the truths of faith, the judgment of right reason comes to the rescue (rationis rectae consideratio 1568). However, the simple trusting faith of St. Ambrose, like St. Vasily, gives preference over reason, over conviction, constantly repeating that Abraham was credited with righteousness for the fact that he simply, without any reasoning, believed God. “Abraham was counted as righteousness... because he did not ask for proof, but believed with complete confidence. It is good for faith to convince reason, so that it does not seem that, just like from a person, we demand proof from the Lord our God. For how unworthy it is for us to believe human testimonies about others and not believe divine revelations about us.” 1569 Urging to imitate the example of Abraham, St. Ambrose points out, on the one hand, that in Holy Scripture there is much that we cannot understand with our limited minds and that we must accept as revelation and the word of the Highest Divinity, 1570 and on the other hand, that God was pleased to lead the people to salvation not by dialectics, but by faith, that the kingdom of God is not in contentione sermonis, but in the simplicity of faith (in simplicitate fidei 1571 ), that, finally, a person is ordered to believe, and not to reason. 1572 Hence the faith of St. Ambrose is thought of as a victory over reason, as a victory over unbelief, 1573 - in short: he has faith, like St. Basil the Great, there is trust and obedience to God, there is his feat, based on a living and ardent religious feeling. “To those who do not have the fervor of faith,” writes St. Ambrose, - it would be better not to accept faith at all... A warm one is worse than a cold one, like a Jew who thinks he has faith, although in reality he does not.” 1574 Faith must be zealous (perfunctoria), for it is written: “Zeal for Your house consumes me” (Ps. 68:10) 1575: it must be zealous, 1576 firm, abounding in mercy, free from greed and full of mercy. 1577 Thus, in the concept of faith in St. Ambrose brings to the fore her moral character, which is reflected in her trust in God. Faith in St. Ambrose is not a cold, rational recognition of religious truth, but a living religious feeling of unconditional devotion to God and the readiness of the soul to fulfill the will of God and suffer for Christ. 1578 This is why the faith of St. Ambrose is the beginning and foundation of all virtues, just as she herself, however, is already a virtue. 1579 The solid foundation 1580 and the root 1581 of all virtues, says St. father, there is faith. “And Paul made Christ the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), on which we build upon the works of justice. This is how it should be, because faith is the basis.” 1582 Faith always precedes piety, for only one who has acquired the knowledge of the Divine can offer a worthy sacrifice to God. 1583 On the contrary, where there is no faith, atheism reigns there, 1584 and, just as faith is the beginning of virtues, so atheism, being in itself the gravest sin, is the mother of all iniquities, for “how can one who has desecrated the divine restrain himself from humanity, and be kind to people who has offended God?” 1585 That is why, where there is no faith, as, for example, among heretics, there is no true piety, there is no fruit of eternal life, 1586 there is no true merit, 1587 for virtues without faith are short-lived, 1588 - they are leaves that live in appearance, but do not bring benefit. “How many nations show mercy and self-control, but have no fruit, because they have no faith... These (the virtues of heretics and pagans) are the leaves that the Savior found on the fig tree, but did not find fruit (Matthew 21:19).” 1589 So, where there is faith, there is virtue. Faith cannot but manifest itself in the observance of saving instructions and the divine word, 1590 in the veneration of God, in general, in virtue and, most of all, in love. 1591 “Faith is, as it were, the predecessor of love; it takes possession of the soul and prepares the paths for future love.” 1592 Perfect love has all the fullness of faith, just as all faith has perfect love, for whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ does not sin. 1593 Thus, the faith and love of St. Ambrose connects one to the other so closely that he almost merges them. 1594 Like any virtue, faith is not given to a person right away. Like a seed or sprout, it develops and grows in a Christian gradually. 1595 On the other hand, just as virtue is wisdom, 1596 so faith is distinguished not only by its readiness to suffer and make any sacrifice for the truth, 1597 but also by enlightenment in divine things or wisdom. 1598 This wisdom, like faith itself, is not given immediately as a person believes, but is communicated as the latter’s personal moral improvement. “Not everyone, like Solomon, can perceive perfect wisdom, not everyone, like David. The spirit of wisdom is communicated to everyone (only) according to the degree of their receptivity, but only to believers. If you believe, then you have the spirit of wisdom, which is why Scripture says: “I believed, and therefore I spoke” (Ps. 115: 1). When you believe, then you receive the grace of speaking.” 1599 Interpreting the words of the psalm: “The beginning of Your words is truth; all the judgments of Your righteousness endure to eternity,” St. Ambrose writes: “Since the beginning of the words of God is truth, then truth is, of course, the foundation of faith. First of all, we must believe that the revelations of the Supreme God that we read in the divine scriptures are true. Then we must study their power with fuller knowledge. For just as the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Ps. 61:10), and the fullness of wisdom is love, for the law is wisdom, and the fullness of the law is love, so the fullness of the words of God is wisdom and knowledge of righteousness.” 1600 Perfect wisdom, complete knowledge of the truths of faith are available only to the perfect. 1601 Understood in this way, the faith of St. Ambrose ascribes very important significance, since only it gives a person the opportunity to be a partaker of the redemption and justification of people accomplished by Christ. “Redemption of the soul,” says St. Father, there is faith.” 1602 The latter is equal to St. Ambrose to the price with which a person, as it were, buys the grace of Christ's redemption, buys the divine sacraments of 1603 and takes part in that abundant meal that Christ prepared for the peoples by His death on the cross. 1604 It is a great loss, therefore, for the soul if it loses faith or grace attracted at the price of faith, 1605 for “there is nothing in man that is dearer than his faith, there is no inheritance that can be compared with the price of our salvation and soul.” 1606 Due to such a great significance of faith, St. Ambrose transfers to her those grace-filled properties that he attributes to Christ's redemption. “Faith,” he says, “remits sin, and therefore the Lord, forgiving sins, said: “According to your faith, be it done to you” (Matthew 7:13). 1607 Faith expels evil kings from the human mind and makes them captives, 1608 it brings freedom to man, 1609 it cleanses him from all sin, 1610 frees him from eternal death, 1611 delivers him from the wrath of God and makes him a partaker of eternal life, 1612 “for whoever believes in Him (Christ) will not be condemned” 1613: from states of sinfulness, faith transfers a person to a state of justification and holiness, 1614 it returns the lost paradise and heavenly citizenship, 1615 - for “faith is the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of heaven is faith” 1616 - it, like a grapevine, bears fruit (this fruit is the resurrection 1617), it gives a person sweetness 1618 and joy 1619 and makes him blessed. 1620 Just as faith justifies a person, unbelief, on the contrary, makes him guilty and condemned. “Whoever does not believe in Christ is already condemned, but whoever believes will not be judged.” 1622 He who rejects faith exposes himself to death. He who has completely rejected God from his heart is dead, but he who does not completely reject God is half-dead. 1623 “Whoever does not believe in Christ is always dead. The pagans, when they believe, are quickened through grace, and whoever falls is quickened again through repentance.” 1624 In accordance with what he said about faith in dogmas, St. Ambrose, however, argues that it is not enough to believe, but one must “believe truly.” “Not everyone will enter the doors of the kingdom of heaven, but only those who believe faithfully (fideliter credit). 1625 “Where there is faith,” writes St. the father is in another place - there we have a beginning and an end. And where there is heresy (perfidia), there is neither beginning nor end. The Church has a beginning and an end, for it has Christ who is the beginning and the end.” 1626 Only faith puts us before God, but unbelief makes the wicked exiles. 1627 An unbeliever, that is, one who has rejected faith in Jesus Christ, 1628 is not indifferent to a Christian, since every unbeliever is an enemy of God. “His (the prophet’s) enemies,” argues St. father, - the same as your enemies, these are those who did not have the opportunity to receive the Lord coming into their own. The prophet testifies that these are grave enemies and that they are his enemies not because they are his personal enemies, but because they are opponents of Christ.” 1629 “The enemies of man,” he says in another place, “are those who are the enemies of God.” These are primarily heretics, 1630 of whom St. father calls them antichrists. 1631 However, both unbelievers and heretics must be treated Christianly. “A fig tree,” says St. father, - growing only with the wild, teaches us not to turn away from unbelievers, since from them we can learn something good, and, on the other hand, who knows, maybe we will be able to lead them to the true faith, 1632 the people, which faith can cleanse from all filth, should not be considered unclean.” 1633 But no matter how highly St. Ambrose's faith, no matter how much importance he ascribes to it, still cannot save a person on its own, cannot directly make him a participant in the redemptive fruits of Christ: it achieves all this only if it finds its natural and direct expression in the sacrament of baptism. Clement of Alexandria considered baptism “perfect” 1634; it, according to him, washes away a person’s sins and removes punishment from him, 1635 restores his spiritual strength, 1636 enlightens, adopts, perfects and makes him immortal. 1637 According to Origen's definition, baptism is the beginning and source of divine gifts (χαρισμάτων θειων αρχή καί πηγή 1638). In it, Origen distinguishes two moments: the remission of sins 1639 and the outpouring of grace. Baptism makes a person a son of God, 1640 a partaker of the Holy Spirit, a church of God, 1641 and also an heir to the kingdom of heaven. 1642 Origen considered baptism necessary not only for adults, but also for infants (albeit with some contradiction to his basic provisions 1643). According to the definition of St. Basil the Great, a person through baptism changes in mind, word and deed and, according to the power given to him, becomes the same as the one who gave birth to him, 1644 - in particular, baptism washes a Christian from sins, frees him from the old man and makes him the abode of the Holy Spirit. 1645 In general, the same thoughts regarding baptism are expressed by St. Ambrose. From the fact that faith itself, without baptism and the Blood of Christ, does not give either perfection, 1646 or the kingdom of heaven, 1647 the need for baptism is revealed to a person, which is essentially one. 1648 Mandatory conditions for the validity and effectiveness of the baptism of St. Ambrose recognizes first of all faith, 1649 and then repentance. 1650 As for the inner side of the sacrament of baptism, St. Ambrose says the following. Just as in the redemptive work of Christ the main point and central point is the Savior’s death on the cross, so in baptism the main thing is the communion of Christ’s death and burial with Him. In baptism, a person “dies with Christ,” “dies with Him,” “is buried with Christ,” from where every Christian carries the mortificatio Christi in his soul and body. 1651 In this death with Christ, the believer dies to the world, dies to the old man and, thanks to this, is cleansed from sins. “In baptism,” writes St. Ambrose, “we are nailed to the cross of the Son of God in us, and through Him the world is crucified in us.” 1652 “Whoever is baptized, in him is the Son of God crucified, for our flesh could not destroy sin unless it was crucified in Christ Jesus, which is why it is written: “As many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3) and below: “If we are united with Him in the likeness of death, we must also be (united) in the likeness of the resurrection, knowing that our old man was crucified.” with Him "(Ibid. 5 – 6 1653). “Doesn’t it seem to you,” asks the holy bishop, “that you too are caught when the old man dies in the sacrament of baptism?” 1654 The mystical death of a person in baptism is not, in fact, death, but life, 1655 but resurrection. 1656 Man needs to die to the world, die to sin, in order to then be resurrected in Christ for a new eternal and holy life. “We cannot live to God,” notes St. father, “unless we die to sin first.” 1657 “We must die to the age in order for Christ to rise.” 1658 “You died for the world and rose again for God. And, as if buried in this element of the world, you died to sin, but were restored to the future life.” 1659 This resurrection of man in baptism is closely connected with the resurrection of Christ. 1660 Thus, if in baptism a person, on the one hand, dies with Christ in His death, then, on the other hand, in the same baptism, he, receiving “sanctification to immortality,” 1661 is resurrected in the resurrection of the same Christ, is already resurrected, as it is said, “to the life of Christ,” 1662 to life “for Christ and with Christ.” 1663 The immediate fruits of the sacrament of baptism are, on the one hand, the forgiveness of sins, and on the other, the sending down of the “gift of spiritual grace” (spiritualis gratiae munus 1664). “Christ gave us baptism for the atonement of our sins,” writes the holy father. “Our soul was black, ugly from the terrible darkness of sins: but when it was washed in baptism and received the forgiveness of sins, then the white one ascends to Christ.” 1665 Hence, always, when St. Ambrose speaks about baptism, he means first of all the forgiveness of sins. “The one who begins baptism is seeks forgiveness of his sins.” 1666 What sins are forgiven to a person in baptism? St. Ambrose answers this question that in baptism a person receives forgiveness not only of his personal sins, but also of hereditary or original sin. iniquitate, which is greater, and is cleared of delicto, which is less. 1668 “We must strive,” writes the holy bishop, “to ensure that evil (malitia) does not pass on to our descendants. And Christ carries this out in the sacrament of baptism; In baptism, everyone puts off from himself that in which he was born, and puts on that in which he was reborn, so that he may be an heir not of race, but of grace, and so that he may acquire a permanent dwelling place of eternal habitation.” 1669 Since children are also subject to this hereditary malitia, they also need a rebirth of baptism (a militia reformantur), and they need cleansing from hereditary sin. 1670 Baptism washes and cleanses not only the soul, but also the body, for in the sacrament of baptism our mortal flesh receives the light of eternal life. 1671 Man consists of soul and body: one in him is visible, the other is invisible; the visible is sanctified by the visible, and the invisible by the invisible. The body is washed with water, but the sins of the soul are cleansed with the spirit. 1672 In short, in the sacrament of baptism the whole person is redeemed. 1673 The second effect of Christian baptism (contrary to John's baptism of repentance) 1674 is the outpouring of the grace of God on the baptized person, 1675 both destroying guilt itself, 1676 and renewing and regenerating a person. 1677 Interpreting the words of the psalm: “I will tell you on the harp, my God,” St. Ambrose writes: “The harp is our flesh when it dies to sin so that God may live. She becomes a harp when she receives the seven-formed spirit (sepiformem spiritum 1678) in the sacrament of baptism.” This grace of baptism is given to the believer by the Holy Trinity, 1679, but in this case the third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, acts predominantly. “The creator of the new man in the image of God is the Holy Spirit,” 1680 since only after redemption and renewal by the Holy Spirit does every trace of sin disappear (vestigium offensionis 1681). The outward sign of this divine grace of the Holy Spirit and the guarantee of the new life of the baptized is the anointing with myrrh, which anointing at the same time marks the entry of all those baptized into the kingdom of God and their elevation to the dignity of priests. 1682 “We are sealed with the Spirit from God. And just as in Christ we die in order to be reborn, so we are marked by the Spirit so that we can preserve His light, image and grace, and this is, of course, a spiritual seal. For, although visibly we are marked in the body, yet in truth we are marked in the heart, so that the Holy Spirit may mark in us the seal of the heavenly image.” 1683 “Isn’t the Spirit good,” asks St. Father, “Who makes good out of the bad, Who pours out a good gift, Who makes apostles out of persecutors, priests out of sinners?” 1684 Inebriari Spiritu Sancto – this is how St. Ambrose is the blessed state of a person blessed in the unity of the Holy Spirit. 1685 But since the Holy Trinity is inseparable, 1686 then all three Persons of the Holy Trinity dwell in the redeemed person, 1687 and the soul of the redeemed becomes the home and church not of a separate Hypostasis, but of the entire Holy Trinity. 1688 Due to this meaning of the baptism of St. Ambrose attributes to him the same actions that he previously associated with faith. Thus, baptism, according to him, justifies a person, 1689 adopts him to God 1690 and makes him an heir to the kingdom of God, 1691 and the grace of the Holy Spirit pours joy into him, 1692 sends peace of mind and gives peace of mind. 1693 Baptism itself, as a sacrament, is composed of two elements: washing with water and communion of the grace of the Holy Spirit: where there is no grace of the Holy Spirit, the water of baptism itself is ineffective. 1694 Relationship between water and the Holy Spirit. Ambrose explains it this way: “We are buried in that element of water so that we may rise with a renewed Spirit. In water is the image of death, in the Spirit is the guarantee of life; just as a sinful body dies through water - water, which encloses it as if by some kind of grave - so by the power of the Spirit, having been reborn in God, we are renewed from sinful death.” 1695 Sometimes, in relation to the Gospel story about blood and water from the pierced side of Christ, St. Ambrose speaks of the water of baptism and the blood of atonement, 1696 as necessary elements of baptism 1697 along with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and these three elements are called witnesses of baptism. 1698 And therefore, if there is any grace in water, it is not due to the properties of water, but due to the presence of the Holy Spirit. 1699 More precisely, the mutual relationship of these witnesses to St. the father defines it this way: “Listen to how the witnesses. The spirit renews the mind, water promotes washing (lavacrum), blood is a price. The Spirit through adoption makes us sons of God, holy water. the fountain washes us, the Blood of the Lord redeems us.” 1700 As we have already seen above, St. Ambrose recognizes only one baptism by water, however, as it turns out, not exclusively 1701: in addition to the baptism of water and the Spirit, he also allows the baptism of suffering, “when everyone is cleansed with his own blood” 1702 - then the baptism of fire on the threshold of heaven and, finally, the baptism of desire. The doctrine of fire baptism on the threshold of heaven, borrowed by St. Ambrose in Origen, 1703, although perhaps not without the influence of Basil the Great, is closely associated with the biblical tale of an angel with a fiery sword, who was placed by God at the doors of heaven. “There is baptism on the threshold of heaven. This baptism had not happened before. But after the sinner was expelled, a sword of fire appeared, which God laid down (Gen. 3:24) and which did not exist before until there was sin. Guilt appeared, and baptism also appeared, so that those who wanted to return to paradise could be cleansed, so that those who returned could say: “We have passed through fire and water” (Ps. 65: 12). Here - through water, there - through fire. Through water, so that sins are washed away, and through fire, so that they are burned." 1704 In those cases when a person, having a firm and strong desire to be baptized, still for some reason does not have time to be baptized, he cannot be considered deprived of redemption, “for he was baptized by his own faith and sanctified by the search for the sacrament,” 1705 as was the case, for example, with Emperor Valentinian II. 1706 Looking around at all the grace-filled gifts brought by Christ to humanity and assimilated by the latter through baptism, St. Ambrose concludes that God has given us more in redemption than in creation, 1707 that “sin has done us more good than harm,” 1708 and that “wine is more fruitful than innocence.” 1709 After all, the redemption of Christ not only restored what was lost, that is, the original grace, 1710 but also increased it. 1711 It multiplied by imparting to people the grace of sonship, and this latter is higher than inheriting the earth and receiving consolation (quam possidere terram et consolationem habee), that is, higher than the heavenly stay of the first person. 1712 This is why even the fall of the first man, St. Ambrose calls him “blessed.” “Blessed is the fall, for which even better things are prepared (Felix ruina, quae reparatur in melis 1713).” Not only that. The mercy of God shown to people in the redemptive feat of the God-man, as well as the gracious fruits of this redemption, give us more than the angels have. “We have something that perhaps the angels do not have, for where sin abounded, there grace abounded... For our sake, Christ took on flesh, or, better yet, accepted us in that flesh, for He seated the Son of Man on the throne of God. I don’t read anything about angels except that they only stand at the throne of God, unless they minister (Heb. 1:14; Apoc. 8:2; Dan. 7:10); I also read that it is not angels, but men who are buried in Christ and resurrected in Christ.” 1714 Depending on this view of the meaning of the atonement, St. Ambrose asserts that the entire Christian era is grace in the absolute sense of the word. 1715 Moral Development of the Redeemed Man; its negative and positive improvement (St. Ambrose's view of the flesh and the world. The kingdom of the devil) Each person in baptism is cleansed from his sins, washed from hereditary filth and becomes blameless. However, this integrity must be understood not in the sense of actual integrity, but in the sense of only potential, which only over time, through the grace of God and man’s own virtue, becomes real. “It is impossible for human nature to be immaculate (immaculata) from the very beginning.” 1716 “People cannot be perfect (pertecti) from the very beginning, but they are improved through success in virtue.” 1717 In other words: in baptism a person acquires only innocence, which he undertakes not only to preserve, but also to strengthen, and to raise it through the path of truth, through a virtuous life to the degree of real personal moral perfection, “to the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ.” “Let us preserve,” exhorts St. father, the garment with which the Lord clothed us when we came out of the water. (This garment is quickly torn), unless (our) deeds are consistent (with the purity received in baptism), it is quickly spoiled by the corruption of the flesh and polluted by the error of the old man.” 1718 “Baptism restores the image of God only in the heart,” writes St. the father in another of his creations, man is called upon to restore him in his affairs.” 1719 Baptism only places the Christian on the path of innocence and truth, and the faith which a person manifests in baptism is only the first stage of virtue or perfection. “Faith is the beginning of a Christian, but the fullness of a Christian is truth. Faith is in the confession of peoples, truth is in the suffering of martyrs.” 1720 However, confession, as a confirmation of faith, is already subsequent, but faith is the initial one. 1721 A Christian reborn in baptism is called to make a complete and perfect sacrifice during his subsequent life, consisting not only of our faith, but also of good deeds, 1722 which is why every Christian is obliged not only to believe, but also to do good deeds. 1723 On the other hand, only that faith in Christ is true faith, which is confirmed by good deeds. After all, if anyone listens and does not act, he denies Christ; such a person acknowledges the Savior in words and rejects him in deeds. 1724 This is why it is necessary that our actions agree with our faith and thereby “justify God.” “Whoever fulfills the commandments of God,” says St. father, - whoever does what he believes is pleasing to God, not only recognizes God, but also justifies (justificat) Him, for he does His righteousness (justitiam).” 1725 On the contrary, whoever does not fulfill the commandments of God is subject to a curse. “Cursed indeed are those who turn away from Your commandments.” 1726 So, a Christian should not only remember the law, but also act in accordance with its instructions. 1727 “What we have understood must not only be embraced by feeling, but also carried out in action itself.” 1728 It is clear that such an active virtue requires intense labor and exercise from the Christian both to preserve the state of grace already received, 1729 and to achieve moral perfection. 1730 “Without labor there cannot be virtue, for labor is success in virtue.” 1731 “Just as a warrior cannot be without weapons, so virtue cannot be without exercise, which is why the Lord in the Gospel says: “From the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of heaven has been taken by force, and those who use force take it away” (Matthew 11:12), and in another place: “Seek the kingdom of God, and all this will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). 1732 The whole life of a Christian, hence, it should be devoted to the deeds of piety: “there should be neither a free day nor a free night, no time should be free from the duties of piety,” 1733 especially since virtue or “the creation of the will of the Heavenly Father” (John. 4; 34) is also necessary for man, like food, for it is the bread of life, it is spiritual food. 1734 Both Adam and Eve (even in paradise) could have true life only through fulfilling and observing the commandments of God. 1735 If in baptism a Christian is placed on the first level of perfection, then only thanks to his own work and exercise, on the one hand, and the assisting grace of God, on the other, he rises to the next. "St. Scripture, says St. Ambrose teaches us (Gen. 28; 12) that the ascent of piety is like a ladder... 1736 Gradually we must climb the steps of virtue. So we can reach from the lowest to the highest... Let these steps always be before your eyes. Do not be afraid, O man, to ascend these steps of the school (disciplinae) (of virtue). The first step is close to the earth, the second is similar to it. Do not neglect, man, the first step as insignificant - (after all) it separates you from the earth... (After all) you leave the earth if you shirk from sin. So, the beginning of the ascent to virtue is abstinence from sin.” 1737 The perfection of a Christian or his virtue is, in fact, the fulfillment of God’s commandments, but since some of God’s commandments prohibit him from following sin, while others prescribe positive goodness, then the perfection of a person is composed of a two kind of virtue: negative virtue (renunciation of sin and the world) and positive virtue (following good). Both positive and negative virtues are directly related to the redemptive work of the Savior: negative - to the death and burial of Christ Who died to the world and the flesh, and positive - to His resurrection, who rose for new life and gave this new life to believers. “We are dead for the ages,” writes St. Father, what do we expect from the age? We died with Christ - what are we looking for for this life? We bear the death of Christ in our body, so that the life of Christ may be manifested in us. We live not our life, but the life of Christ, the life of innocence, the life of purity, the life of purity and all the virtues.” 1738 “What do we who have died in Christ have in common,” asks St. Ambrose in De Iacob - with the elements of the world, with passions, with intemperance and lust? After all, if we died in Christ, then in Christ we were resurrected. Let us abide with Christ and, together with Him, strive for things above, and not for earthly and corruptible things. Christ, having risen from the dead, left the old man nailed to the cross, (and) aroused a new one. Christ then died so that we too might die to sin and be resurrected to God.” 1739 In his moral teaching, St. Ambrose devotes especially much space to negative virtue - the struggle of a person with the flesh and the world. Under the direct influence of the ascetic East (especially Philo and Origen), St. father, in connection with the statement of St. John the Theologian about the world as lying in evil, develops a view of matter as evil, considering the body, the world, and, in general, everything visible as a ghost, a lie, and downright evil. True, this view is softened in him by the introduction of the Christian teaching about the devil, as the culprit of evil and sin of the flesh, 1740 and about the world, as the kingdom of the devil, however, this teaching, on the one hand, is not always maintained, and, on the other, even with its consistent implementation, a remnant is still obtained, which to some extent crosses out everything that St. Ambrose spoke about the redemption of man and not only man, but all creation and the whole world. In view of the importance of this point in the moral system of St. father, we will dwell on it a little longer, starting with an exposition of the teachings of St. Ambrose about the devil and his kingdom. St. Ambrose explains the reason for the fall of demons in two ways: sometimes he says that they fell through intemperance, “having loved the daughters of men” (Gen. 4:2), 1741 but more often he points to pride, 1742 as the reason for their falling away from God. The latter opinion prevails with him. 1743 For their sin, the fallen angels were cast down, and this “down” is sometimes designated as hell, sometimes as air, and sometimes as earth. “The place of the devil,” writes St. father, - in hell, moreover, in its lower part, in the lower part of that burning lake, 1744 where “fire and brimstone, where the fire does not go out and the punishment at the same time never stops.” 1745 In other places in his works St. Ambrose speaks of demons as powers of the air, 1746 or even as being in heaven (spiritalis nequitia in caelo 1747). It should be noted that St. the father distinguishes between two heavens: in the proper and improper sense - caelum verum and coelum appellativum, and by the second he means the air space (locus aerius), which is located between the earth and the true sky, 1748 or the cloudy sky above us. 1749 Just as the starry sky serves as the habitat of good angels, contemplating, among other things, what is spread out before their eyes (on earth), 1750 as well as watching the gates of heaven and testing those who strive to enter it, 1751 so the airy sky is the habitat of evil spirits who try to hinder people in their good intentions and direct them to sin. 1752 Sometimes, finally, St. Ambrose speaks of the overthrow of sinned angels from heaven to earth, into the world, 1753 claiming, among other things, that sin began to develop on earth precisely from the time of this overthrow of the devil there. 1754 The indicated contradiction in the teaching of St. Ambrose about demons is reconciled by that statement of St. father, that at the present time the devil has not yet undergone final punishment and therefore is not yet in a certain place, 1755 that only before the end of the world he will be taken from the earth 1756 and cast into hell, 1757 into the very depths of the earth. 1758 Be that as it may, the devil has established his own kingdom on earth, and he himself is the head of it, as his “king,” 1759 as the “ruler of this world,” 1760 and the rest of the angels are members of this kingdom and servants of the devil. 1761 There are extremely many evil spirits, 1762 and each of them has a certain role, a certain specialty in the kingdom of the devil; for example, there is the spirit of adultery, the spirit of covetousness, the spirit of pride 1763, etc. In addition to evil spirits, sinners are also members of the devilish kingdom. The devil is the “spiritual Pharaoh”, this is “Amalek”, that is, the king of the unrighteous, and the unrighteous are the pagans, for he orders them to do his will. The wicked are the seed of the devil, which is why the Lord said: “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). 1764 Just as the saints are members of Christ, so the wicked are members of the devil 1765 or the dragon 1766, and just as the former feed on the Body of Christ, so the latter feed on the body of the dragon. “We, who strive for union with Christ, feed daily remission and forgiveness of sins; those who add new sins feed on incessant vices and crimes.” The devil is depicted in St. Ambrose the most ferocious king. 1768 Man has no other more harmful enemy than the devil. 1769 In this regard, neither the flesh and blood within a person, 1770 nor external persecutors can compare with him, for many saints, who deserved a crown for their torment, then fell, unable to withstand the devil’s attacks. 1771 The devil is “the true enemy of the human race” and “the common enemy of all.” 1772 The devil becomes the enemy of people out of envy. Envying everyone who strives for the best, 1773 he is especially angry against the righteous, since their heavenly glory is for him the subject of special painful envy. 1774 So, out of envy of the supernatural state in which the first people were and which he himself had lost, the devil seduced the first parents. 1775 But the devil is not only jealous of people, not only malicious, but also tries to harm them and harm them. 1776 The efforts of demons in this case are directed towards removing a person from salvation. They achieve the latter in two ways: either by distracting the Christian from the thought of repentance, 1777 or by increasing their number around him so that he does not see the angels of God. 1778 Turning people away from repentance and removing them from virtue, the devil wants to see people like himself, 1779 wants to make them sinners, 1780 and at the same time partakers of the punishment (consortium supplicii) that befell him. 1781 “The devil wants to see more of his own kind and has the glory of making many perish. He is the instigator and the accuser; he himself entered into Judas, he himself pushed him into tradition, and he himself pushed him into the noose.” 1782 In his wicked plans against people, the devil, seducing their feelings, 1783 ignites passions in them, 1784 such as, for example, intemperance and greed, 1785 fornication, 1786 i.e., turns his attention not only to the soul, but also to the body of a person. 1787 Many different types of temptation come from the devil, 1788 but he does not always act directly and openly. Thus, he often interweaves lies with truth in order to cover up the obvious deception 1789 with the guise of truth and pass off an insignificant thing as valuable and a lie as the truth, 1790 sometimes maliciously turns into an angel of light. 1791 The devil can be called a sinner in the proper sense of the word, 1792 for he is the father of sin throughout the world 1793 and, above all, the ancestral one. 1794 He, by the way, pours out the poison of philosophy 1795 and the poison of heresy. 1796 In general, every sin is from the devil, 1797 which binds us with the shackles of crimes. 1798 However, the temptations of the devil do not yet exclude freedom of choice, and God will say to sinners at judgment: “You listened to the devil, who inclined you to harm, and did not listen to Me, who proclaimed to you the things of life.” 1799 For its part, St. the father urges not to be afraid of the devil: after all, he is so powerless that he himself has the power to fall to earth - after all, he received only the opportunity to tempt, but did not receive the freedom to destroy, why, if a cowardly person falls, he falls through his own fault, he falls because he was unable to gain (divine) help. 1800 The devil always plots 1801 and against everyone 1802; no one, especially the righteous, 1803 can be free from the devil’s temptation. The devil tempts people and incites people to evil not only himself, but also through his servants - first of all demons, then pagans and, in general, wicked people. In the Old Testament, demons waged war against God’s chosen tribe, inciting pagan nations against them, and in the New Testament they wage war against every Christian. 1804 “The princes of the world and the rulers of darkness,” writes St. Ambrose, “they are trying to oppress you in your chest.” 1805 Often the devil, as already said, tries to draw a Christian into sin through his allies 1806 - godless and sinful people who are his instrument, 1807 and weapon. 1808 “If someone obstructs you, who wants to preserve justice, do not doubt that these are the servants of that obscene sinner who is the culprit of all dishonorable deeds.” 1809 “We must also beware of the enemy who can be seen... For it is the sinner who provokes us (to irritation), it is he who offends us, wanting to see in us like himself.” 1810 Like the devil, the sinner is both comforted and rejoices at the fall of others. 1811 Along with such biblical teaching from St. Ambrose speaks especially sharply, as we have already said, of another view, borrowed from the East and essentially Platonic, of the visible world as a weak reflection of the ideal world, and of matter and the body as something in itself dead, evil and, in any case, hostile to God. Depending on such a view, the source of St.’s evil. Ambrose no longer points to the devil and not to the free will of man, but to matter, to physicality and, even more particularly, to the flesh of man. Let's talk about the flesh first. The Holy Father sharply distinguishes, as we already know, the soul from the body. If the soul has God as its source, then matter is earth (terra) 1812; if the soul is eternal, then the body is temporary 1813: “all flesh is like hay.” 1814 The body is only a temporary “shell” of the soul, with which the latter is connected during life by “a certain law of our nature” 1815; the body is only the garment or clothing of the soul, 1816 which prevents the mind or soul from seeing the Lord, for “the Lord deigns to show himself to those who have laid aside the veil of the flesh” 1817; Only during sleep the soul, unburdened by the flesh, can contemplate the highest and most perfect. 1818 Hence the body is the shackles of the soul 1819 and its prison. 1820 The shackles of the soul are terrible because they are the shackles of temptations that bind a person “to a certain law of sin” and make him a captive of the flesh. 1821 The four kings who took Lot captive are physical and worldly seductions, for both the human body and the world consist of four elements. 1822 The human body is evil, for it is the cause of the corruption of the soul within it; the body is a country or place of pleasure, from which, as from a source, flow overflowing rivers of strong sinful passions 1823; it fetters the human soul with the temptations of pleasures 1824 and envelops it in the darkness of sins. 1825 “Well the apostle wanted (Rom. 7:24) to free himself from this body of death, for we are imprisoned in some prison and some house of luxury and are shrouded in the darkness of sin.” 1826 The body is a prison, terrible for its dark dirt (tenebroso suti), 1827 which stains the soul. “There are many worries,” writes St. father, - gives birth and gives us a connection with this body and the use of it: with these concerns mental strength is retained and tension is eased. Therefore, Job said beautifully: “Remember that You made me dust” (Job 10:9). So, if the body is dust, then it, of course, pollutes us, and does not wash us, and defiles the soul with the filth of intemperance.” 1828 Flesh of St. Ambrose also calls the body of death, the coffin, 1829 something deathly, the touch of which makes every person unclean, just as in the Old Testament anyone who touched a corpse became unclean. 1830 The forced connection of the soul with the body, this stay in a sinful, dirty and dark prison, is for her a source of suffering and groaning all the time “while she fulfills the duties of the administration entrusted to her.” 1831 Following Origen, St. Ambrose claims that the soul, burdened by its connection with the body, grieves and constantly strives to free itself or move from this body in order to be with God (2 Cor. 5; 7). 1832 The sinful nature of the flesh, more specifically, “carnal lust,” stronger than the soul itself, 1833 St. Ambrose is usually called the mind 1834 or the law, 1835 or the wisdom 1836 of the flesh, or even simply the flesh, 1837 and is contrasted with the law or the wisdom of the mind, or simply the mind. 1838 Between this and that mind, this and that law and wisdom, or between the spirit and the flesh, the inner and outer man, there is a continuous struggle. 1839 “The law of our flesh opposes in us the law of the mind and draws us captives to sin, so that we do what we do not want” (Rom. 7:23). 1840 If reason or mind is conquered by the flesh, then it itself becomes the mind of the flesh. 1841 Hence sin is defined as “walking in the flesh, for he who lives in accordance with the wisdom of the flesh lives by the luxury, pleasures, caresses and passions of the flesh,” 1842 and the one who sins himself becomes flesh. 1843 And since, further, only the wisdom of the mind is subordinate to God, but the wisdom of the flesh is not only not subordinate to Him, 1844 but is also directly hostile, 1845 then everyone who acts according to the wisdom of the flesh sins against God and cannot be pleasing to Him. 1846 Hence, by the way, the law of the mind of St. Ambrose identifies with the law of God, and the law of the flesh with sinful desire. 1847 Sometimes, (apparently under the influence of the Stoic teaching on the passions) St. Ambrose softens and almost abandons the view of the flesh as the source of evil, while developing (mainly in De officiis ministrirum and then in De Iacob) the Stoic doctrine of passions and affects. “It is not the body at all, but the affects,” he writes, “that are the culprits of sin, while the body is only a listener of the will.” 1848 It is not the flesh or nature in sin, but that which made nature corruptible. 1849 “Why blame the flesh,” says St. father in De Iacob - as something weak? Our members are both weapons of untruth and weapons of truth.” 1850 It all depends on how a Christian uses them. If he uses them for the good of his neighbor, they become weapons of truth, but if not for good, then the members of the body become weapons of unrighteousness.” 1851 “We learn,” he wrote in his first theological work, “not to despise the weakness of the body, so that, despising it, we will not be tempted.” 1852 Accordingly, St. Ambrose, following Cicero most closely, transfers the source of sin, vice and passions to the soul itself, and looks at passions as unbalanced volitional impulses that gain strength where the control of the mind weakens or is completely absent, and where calm reflections and logical reasoning give way to desire. 1853 “The power of spirit and nature,” writes St. Ambrose, - of two kinds: one is manifested in desire, and the other is expressed in reason. Reason curbs desire, subjugates it to itself and then leads it wherever it wants: it teaches, as if through careful instruction, what to do and what to avoid in order to be subordinate to a good tamer.” 1854 “When the mind is disordered, desire acquires greater strength and, as if in wild impetuosity, bites the bit of the mind and no longer feels the reins of the driver that could restrain it.” 1855 This is how fiery passion arises (fever of the soul 1856), which is the enemy of man. 1857 Reasonable and unreasonable movements of the soul, virtues and vices of St. the father figuratively represents in the form of good and bad horses, and the soul itself in the form of a driver. Good horses include: prudence, moderation, courage, justice (prudentia, temperantia, fortitudo, iustitia), bad horses: irritation, lust, fear and untruth (iracundia, concusiscentia, timor, iniquitas 1858); however, the vices of St. the father sometimes classifies differently, namely: anger, lust, pleasure, fear (ira, cupiditas, voluptas, timor 1859). The most important of the passions of St. Ambrose, following Μακκαβαίων δ᾿ (or De rationis imperio) recognizes pleasure (delectatio), which is preceded by lust (concupiscentia), and followed by self-satisfaction (gratulatio) and sadness (dolor), which is preceded by fear (timor), and followed by despondency (tristitia). 1860 These passions are characteristic of the soul and body. 1861 There are also secondary passions: some of them relate to the soul: pride, stinginess, ambition, disputes, envy; others - to the body: insatiable passion of gluttony, intemperance. 1862 Based on the view of passion as a disordered mental movement, 1863 St. Father recommends that Christians pay more attention to their hearts, 1864 because greater danger threatens us from ourselves than from outside. “Inside is the enemy, inside is the culprit of error, inside, I say, he is imprisoned in ourselves. Pay attention to your intention, examine the mood of your mind, guard the thoughts of your mind and the desires of your spirit.” 1865 However, this is what St. teaches. Ambrose was only under the direct influence of one or another Stoic writer (i.e., the eclecticist Cicero and the author of the so-called fourth book of Maccabees) or generally Stoic thoughts, of which he finds many in his Eastern models (for example, in Philo and Origen). Usually, he sees the source of sin in the body and not only, but calls all passions in general the passions of the body. “The trap of our mind is the flesh, and its passions are our wounds.” 1866 Bodies are ships carried by the deceptive excitement of various passions; they soon sink if they do not have a pilot. 1867 “Vices,” says St. father, “are bodily, for they relate to the flesh, but the virtues are spiritual, for they relate to the mind.” 1868 From here, although St. Ambrose admits that ignorance and desire are illnesses of the soul, but he does not believe that the source of sin lies in them. Ignorance and will, he argues, are form, and matter is the body. Form cannot exist without matter; the form of an axe, for example, cannot do anything without matter. “What would lust be,” asks St. father, “if it weren’t for the flesh that set her on fire?” 1869 No, it is not the mind, but the special swiftness of the flesh towards sin that drags the weak human mind onto the same path, entangling it with insoluble vices. 1870 The soul in itself is perfect, but it becomes involved in sin through, for the most part, an unreasonable principle. 1871 Hence, a person’s efforts should be aimed primarily at taming the strong movements of the flesh and curbing them through the mind. 1872 Sometimes St. Ambrose, as we have seen before, asserts that all sin comes from the devil; however, this statement is not carried out consistently by him, and the flesh, as the sinful principle, retains its dominant significance next to the devil, as the culprit of sin. 1873 If St. Ambrose sometimes tries to delimit the sphere of their activities, but, it must be said, he has little success. 1874 So, in the end, the sinful principle, according to the teachings of St. father lies in human nature. “The passions of man,” writes St. Ambrose, are so ingrained in him that they cannot be eradicated by any efforts of reason.” 1875 Human nature is corrupted; all people are easy and easily susceptible to sin. 1876 ​​Individual personalities can be corrected, but the universal nature cannot be changed; whoever tries to destroy evil in the hearts of people draws water with a thin net. 1877 No one can cut off the lust of the spirit, no one except Christ can free himself from the desires of the flesh. 1878 Our heart and thoughts, which attract the mind and spirit to the temporary, worldly, to pleasures, are not in our power. 1879 With the view just stated of St. Ambrose's attitude towards the flesh is quite consistent with the negative attitude of St. father to the earth and the entire visible world, which seems to him, as we will see below, nothing more than the kingdom of evil or the devil. The visible world is a sign of the invisible world and proof of invisible things. 1880 So the visible sky points to that highest place, 1881 which is located above the sun 1882 and, in general, above the material world 1883 - to the invisible sky. The invisible world is better than the visible, for everything visible is temporary, but everything invisible is eternal. 1884 The last position, found both in the Holy Scriptures (2 Cor. 4:18) and in Philo, 1885 belongs to St. Ambrose is one of his favorites, which he repeats, one might say, at every step. Temporary,” St. further teaches. father, - which is contemplated with bodily eyes, 1886 is subject to corruption, and therefore the real world is called corruptible; 1887 invisible, which is seen by feeling and mind, 1888 of course, is alien to this corruption. Just as the body, further, is the shackles and prison of the spirit, so the earth is “like a certain place of temptation” (velut quiddam temptationum locus 1889): just as the body itself appears to St. to his father something hostile to God, so he calls the earth a place of evil. 1890 The very essence of this world is evil. 1891 “The world lies in evil, as John said (1 John 5:19). So, every age is in evil, and the world is full of sin.” 1892 This world, identified by St. father with a century, 1893 is not only full of sin, but also of death, for it is the “kingdom of death.” 1894 But, since darkness is synonymous with sin, and darkness is synonymous with injustice, and light is equally synonymous with innocence, 1895 then the whole world, its entire life, not only before the resurrection of Christ, 1896 but also after it, St. the father is depicted under the image of the night. “You are in the night of the century: let the church show you the way, let the sun of truth shine on you, so that you cannot be afraid of falling.” 1897 The day of this life is a night that needs a lamp, 1898 for the lamp of the godless has gone out. 1899 Very often also St. Ambrose depicts this life either as a shadow or as a dream. “The Gospel,” says St. father, shines in the shadows, that is, in the century.” 1900 Everyone, even the saints, while they live in the body, in this life, is found in the shadows. 1901 “We are here in the shadows, we live in the shadows, we praise in the shadows; We cannot fully praise (God) while being in the shadows. We are “in a foreign land,” and have you heard those saying: “How can we sing a song to the Lord in a foreign land?” (Ps. 136; 4). 1902 The shadow is this life, and therefore a Christian must hasten to the sun so that it will protect him from the cold of this shadow and pour out warming warmth onto him. 1903 All real life, then, is a dream. 1904 Everyone living in this world is sleepy and all objects are ghostly. 1905 Everything earthly is a dream; Only those who are awake at heart do not sleep in this sleep of the century, but all who are devoted to pleasures and passions sleep through it. 1907 This is not enough. Whoever, having heard the voice: “Awake, you who sleep” (Eph. 5:41), rises from the sleep of this age, will understand that everything here is false, 1908 for dust, vanity 1909 and insignificance 1910 is all that is found in this world. “Doesn’t all this (earthly) pass away like a shadow? Isn't this your house ashes and rubbish? Isn't this all a lie? Is not the treasure of this world vanity?” 1911 And this is because the real world is the kingdom of Satan, 1912 the prince of this age. Hence the name of St. the father of this world by the “century” of 1913 and the assertion that God has nothing to do with the century. 1914 But since the visible members of the kingdom of the devil on earth are the wicked or godless, it is their lives that St. primarily refers to. Ambrose, when he speaks of the century or the world. All the wicked, as deprived of the sun of truth and the brilliance of virtues, remain in darkness and are like sleepers. 1915 The life of the wicked is like a dream. 1916 Their life is the peace of hell, for they go down to hell alive. 1917 Although they seem to be alive, they are actually the most unhappy of all the dead, since they carry their bodies as if they were some kind of grave in which they buried their unfortunate soul. 1918 From here the entire kingdom of this world is depicted as St. Ambrose, as the kingdom of the dead, 1919 and its members - as the dead 1920 and corpses. 1921 In this kingdom of the devil there is nothing permanent, 1922 there is no true life, there is no joy: this world is full of crying and tears. 1923 Reviewing a person’s entire life and focusing his deliberate attention on the sorrows and suffering that befall him, either due to the weakness of the body, or due to external unfavorable conditions, 1924 St. Ambrose comes to the conclusion that death is gain, and life is punishment, 1925 that the dead are more free from misfortunes than deprived of blessings, 1926 that the dead are happier than the living and the unborn are happier than the dead, 1927 why St. father and approves of those who mourn the day of birth and celebrate the day of death. 1928 This is the view of St. Ambrose on the world and the body. It is impossible not to notice that it is based on a view of the real world and our body as a place of exile (an alien land), as a prison of the spirit, that is, as something in itself negative and evil. This is the basis for the more than negative attitude of St. father to everything material and, especially, the body. 1929 At the same time, St. Ambrose seems to forget that he himself spoke about the fruits of Christ’s redemption both for man and his flesh, and for all creation and the whole world. Previously, he argued that as a result of the suffering of Christ, the flesh itself was changed for a different life, 1930 that the flesh in Christ is blessed, that the whole world is fragrant with the grace of Christ. Now, apparently, he is close to the idea that Christ came to redeem the soul of man, without extending His grace to his body and the world around him. “Christ came from heaven,” he says in his interpretation of Psalm 39, “to forgive us our sins, to cleanse us from the dirt of this world: to tear us out of our mortal body.” 1931 This is a contradiction in the teaching of St. Ambrose about the spiritual powers and moral state of fallen and redeemed man, as well as in the views of St. father on the flesh and the visible world, is explained by the fact that the question of original sin and the more specific points of Christian dogma associated with it in the time of St. Ambrose had not yet received final church permission, and as a result did not exclude the possibility of disagreement in theological opinions about him. Let us now return to the interrupted presentation of the teachings of St. Ambrose about positive and negative virtues or about the positive and negative nature of the perfection of a person who has been baptized. We have already seen that negative virtue consists in dying to the world and the flesh. Now we know how St. Ambrose imagined this world and our flesh, and therefore it does not seem at all surprising to us that negative virtue in St. father takes on a purely ascetic character of denial of the world and the flesh. “Sacrament, desert and fasting,” says St. Ambrose, “here are three things that contribute to human salvation.” 1932 “Perfect purification,” he writes in another place, “consists in separation from three: from the body, from bodily feelings, from the voice: in them are all the passions of the body and the deceptions of the senses by which we are deceived and seduced; there is no good in any of these three.” 1933 Since the entire visible world is in St. Ambrose seems to be the kingdom of Satan, to the extent that the denial or flight of the world and the flesh, not only figuratively, but also in the literal sense of the word, comes down to the denial and flight of the kingdom of the devil, which from the chronological side has already been overthrown, but from the religious-ethical side and from the point of view of subjective salvation is far from weakened. 1934 If the negative improvement of man is thus reduced to sweeping away the kingdom of the devil, then the positive, on the contrary, is the search, entry and life in the kingdom of Christ. These two kingdoms are completely opposite to one another. In relation to Matt. 13; 27 words., St. Ambrose writes: “There is another seed of the devil and another seed of Christ, which is sown for justice. The Son of Man sowed some things, and others the devil. And the nature of the one and the other seed is as different as the sowers are opposite. What Christ sows is the kingdom of God, and what the devil sows is sin.” 1935 These two kingdoms are two ways: the way of God and the way of the flesh. “If anyone wants to walk in the ways of God, let him know that first he must leave the ways of the flesh and body and worldly wisdom.” 1936 The Last Paths of St. the father also calls the ways of the century and the world, 1937 the ways of men, 1938 the ways of sinners, 1939 and the first - the ways of the righteous, 1940 the right ways, 1941 the ways of Christ, 1942 the ways of virtue 1943 and, in particular, justice. 1944 The two kingdoms mentioned are so opposed to each other that it is impossible to simultaneously be a member of both kingdoms. “The servant of the Lord cannot be at the same time a slave of sin.” 1945 Entry into the kingdom is possible only when a person rejects the kingdom of the devil. A person begins to do good only after he has rejected evil. 1946 And this is because vices are a kind of poison for virtue. 1947 “We must avoid evil and do good. Good and evil should not be mixed. You must first be freed from sin and only then bear the fruit of innocence.” 1948 “Christ does not enter except by excluding vices, for He does not dwell with sins.” 1949 The denial of the devil and sin is at the same time the acceptance of Christ and the beginning of virtue. 1950 As soon as wickedness is rejected, virtue is immediately acquired. Avoiding evil is entering the path of virtue: with the same effort that eliminates guilt, one also acquires innocence, 1951 although, however, the bliss that is the result of virtue is not given to a person immediately as he abstained from vice, but only after a very long, throughout life, abstinence from sin. 1952 Grace-filled assistance to the redeemed person in the matter of moral progress The struggle with the devil, with the world and the flesh (“the passions of the body and the temptations of the age”), 1953 on the one hand, and walking in the ways of the Lord or virtues, on the other, even for a seasoned and baptized person is too difficult, and sometimes even unbearable (“those who are saved are fewer than those who perish”). 1954 This is because, although, thanks to baptism, sin is erased from a person, some natural weakness, some natural deficiency remains in him, which can only be filled by the grace of God. 1955 “Where the human mind becomes confused, where the heaviness and severity of the struggle tires us, there the Lord’s help must be sought,” 1956 for only spiritual grace gives those escaping the dryness of this age and the heat of the world that shade that David asked of God, so that he would not be burned by the sun during the day and the moon at night (Ps. 120: 6). 1957 The indicated weakness of an already experienced spirit is characteristic not only of sinners, but even of the righteous, since a mind full of prudence and truth cannot govern itself without the support of God 1958 and even the Apostle Paul cried out: “Wretched man am I, who will deliver me from the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24). “If such a strong (husband) did not hope,” says St. father, “to escape the body of death with our own strength, but sought help from Christ, then what should we, so weak, do?” 1959 This is why it is necessary not only to believe from the very beginning, not only to begin everything with God, but also to be established in Him. 1960 It is not enough for a person to receive grace only once (in baptism), no, he then constantly needs 1961 that divine grace 1962 reinforcing his will (so to speak, cooperating grace), without which salvation is impossible, 1963 no perfection is possible, no security 1964 and no innocence. 1965 Man by himself not only cannot become better, 1966 but he is also unable to finish what he has already begun, unless a merciful God extends a helping hand to him, 1967 for without God man cannot do anything 1968 and without the grace of God he is not able to even wish 1969 or think about anything good. 1970 If it is impossible for a person to either finish or begin anything without God, then his role in the matter of his salvation comes down to assisting Divine power (vides utique quia ubique domini virtus studiis cooperatur humanis 1971). Therefore, no one, like the Apostle Peter, should boast of his own strength, 1972 for we have a great enemy, which we are powerless to defeat without God’s help. 1973 On this basis, by the way, David calls the one blessed who has all his hope in God, 1974 for who is strong except God alone, Who contains everything and controls everything. 1975 God's gracious, reinforcing help is given to man primarily in the sacraments. 1976 Already in confirmation, which immediately follows baptism, a Christian receives the strengthening gifts of the Holy Spirit. 1977 New gifts of grace are sent down to man in other sacraments, but mainly in the Eucharist, in which he is given the true bread of life that came down from heaven. 1978 Body of Christ, Whom no one can partake of unless he is first healed (i.e., baptized), 1979 St. Father calls “spiritual manna or rain of spiritual wisdom, which pours out from heaven to the worthy and seeking, and which waters the minds of the pious and makes their lips sweet.” 1980 This manna is so much better and higher than the historical one, this bread of angels, 1981 how much better is light than shadow and truth is higher than image. 1982 The grace-filled property of the Eucharist lies, among other things, in the fact that communion of the Body of Christ, on the one hand, cleanses the soul from sins, 1983 and on the other, strengthens it in a new life of grace, 1984 imparting to it victorious strength in the fight against enemies. 1985 Blood of Christ St. Ambrose also calls our redemptive price: this Blood must be drunk in order to be partakers of redemption, 1986 for the saving cup destroys the sadness of a sinful conscience and pours into the final joy and bliss of eternal life. 1987 “We eat the body of Christ,” says St. father, “so that we can be partakers of eternal life, and we are promised as a reward not food and drink, but communion of heavenly grace and life.” 1988 But most importantly, by partaking of the Body of Christ, a Christian receives Christ Himself. “Accept Christ in your mind, for where His Body is, there Christ Himself is also.” 1989 However, not only communion, but all the sacraments are good food with which the Lord nourishes and strengthens people. 1990 Although grace and gifts of grace are the work of the entire Holy Trinity, they are poured out, as mentioned earlier, by the Holy Spirit, thanks to Whom man achieves the perfection of life and the pinnacle of virtue. 1991 “Created by the Spirit and through the Spirit,” says St. father, “Strengthened by Him, strengthened in Him, we accept the gift of eternal life.” 1992 The Holy Spirit is the greatest Guide in prayer; He also lifts us above the frailty of the earth and promotes our ascent straight to high virtues. 1993 The Holy Spirit covers sins and destroys them. He destroys evil, blots out guilt and infuses good gifts. 1994 However, the Holy Spirit not only pours in a good gift, but He Himself is a donum or munus, which is given to people, 1995 i.e., He is thought of by the Holy Spirit. father not only as a person who acts through spirare and inspirare, 1996 not only as the Creator and not the creation, 1997 but also as the divine saving power - donum or munus, as spiritual grace (gratia spiritalis), as an inexhaustible source of love (lons profluus charitatis). 1998 This spiritual grace or power is given by God to man depending on the meritum of his will, that is, depending on his moral improvement. 1999 The gracious help or saving remedy for a weak person is not only grace in the proper sense, not only the grace of the sacraments or the Holy Spirit, but also external grace-filled things, for example, divine teaching or Holy Scripture. 2000 St. Ambrose is tireless in his praise of the Word of God, to which he attributes the same properties as to divine grace itself. The Word of God is the palaestra in which a Christian prepares himself for the struggle. Holy Scripture is the oil with which we anoint our shoulders before entering the arena. 2001 The Word of God calls us, the rejected and oppressed, to divine grace, so that we desire eternity, turn away from the present and, indifferent to the temporal, seek the future and the invisible 2002; in short: the Word of God either turns us away from sin or instructs us to chastity. 2003 The Word of God is the sword of the Holy Spirit, 2004 which separates lies from truth. 2005 The Word of God is light, 2006 in which the one who learns the law 2007 and the path indicated by it dwells. 2008 Holy Scripture is further equated with St. father to spiritual bread, to spiritual manna or rain of spiritual wisdom, 2009 this heavenly food that strengthens our souls. 2010 Holy Scripture is the bread with which the soul of the prudent feeds and delights, 2011 it is, in the proper sense, our daily bread, because conversation with God is a vital need of our soul 2012; The Word of God is good food that needs to be eaten daily 2013; This food satisfies the hungry, but it does not harm the well-fed, since it leads them to eternal life. 2014 All Divine Scripture of St. Ambrose sometimes equates it to a banquet table, and some of his books to various dishes of 2015 or dishes that nourish eternal life. 2016 However, the Word of God is often depicted by St. Ambrose not only as good food, but also as true drink. When a Christian drinks it, then the juice of the eternal Word flows into the veins of his mind and spiritual strength. 2017 Holy Scripture is the rain that pours with a saving stream throughout the entire universe, irrigating the minds of people and strengthening their spirit. 2018 “The song of the Lord descends from heaven like gentle dew and waters people like grass with the rain of spiritual grace.” 2019 Word of God St. the father finally compares 2020 with good clothing and says that Christ is still dressed in the preaching of the Gospel. 2021 The Word of God has a beneficial effect on the human soul, filling it with grace. 2022 It does not relax the body, but strengthens the spirit 2023 and purifies the inner mind 2024 ; it strengthens reasonable intentions and destroys the power of irrational passions 2025; it is the source of virtues, 2026 and the human mind, only watered with the seeds of heavenly words, instead of dry branches, produces the best growths and bears fruit. 2027 Word of God St. Ambrose also attributes the ability to heal spiritual wounds, i.e., sins. The Word of God is healing, 2028 and in it everyone will find something with which to heal their wounds, 2029 for the two denarii of the Good Samaritan are the Old and New Testaments, with which our wounds are healed, 2030 are those saving instructions with which spiritual infirmities are treated. 2031 “You are clean already through My word, which I spoke to you (John 15:3). Speak, Lord Jesus. Your word is healing, Your word is light, Your word is the washing away of filth, Your word is the source. You speak and the guilt is washed away.” 2032 Simple listening to the Word of God washes and cleanses a person. 2033 But this is not enough. St. Scripture not only leads to eternal life, but it itself is eternal life, for whoever separates himself from the Law of God also separates himself from eternal life. 2034 “What else,” asks St. Father, what if the graves are not the bodies of the infidels, in which the words of God do not dwell?” 2035 He who reads Holy Scripture draws rich pleasure from it. 2036 “What other peace can be greater than resting in the Word of God and enjoying its grace and consolation?” 2037 However, the Word of God produces such actions only if it is heard not so much with the ears of the body as with the understanding of the mind, 2038 otherwise: when it is not only heard, but also understood. 2039 Holy Scripture must be read as a wise man reads it, who understands what he reads and reaches the point where he is illuminated by the brilliance of eternal wisdom. 2040 Everyone who hears the words of the kingdom and does not understand is a debtor to God. 2041 In order not to become a debtor to God, man is called to study the law and not just study, but study day and night. 2042 Such teaching, careful and subtle study of Holy Scripture, constant reflection on divine instructions result, on the one hand, in comprehension of the highest mysteries, 2043 and on the other, readiness to fulfill God’s commandments. 2044 However, even with day and night teaching in the law, what is required is not so much constant diligence in reading as the desire to fulfill the law. 2045 On the other hand, when studying St. Scripture should not be forgotten that it hides in itself such secrets that will forever remain inaccessible to the human mind, unless God Himself gives the key to their understanding. 2046 In view of this, it is necessary, having cleansed our spiritual eyes and ears 2047 and thereby prepared ourselves to understand the Word of God, humbly and submissively ask God to reveal to us the secrets of Scripture. 2048 From the books of the Holy Scriptures of St. Ambrose, like St. Basil, especially praises the Psalter, to which St. Father spoke about the Word of God in general. The psalm teaches a person to avoid vice and discourages being ashamed of repenting of sins. 2049 Psalm is a night weapon, a daytime teacher, support in holiness, an image of calm, a guarantee of peace and harmony, 2050 for it unites those who disagree and reconciles the offended 2051: psalm is protection from attacks of evil spirits 2052; in it everyone will find a cure for the wounds of their own passion 2053: the psalm calms anger, frees from worries, eases sadness. 2054 One of the reasons for the high respect for St. Ambrose to the Psalter is its poetic form. “Although every moral teaching is sweet, what is especially sweet is that which is set out in verse and which is sung to the accompaniment of the psalter, since it delights and softens the soul.” 2055 After the psalms, the favorite book of St. Ambrose, as well as the Eastern fathers whom he imitated, was the book of the Song of Songs. But especially highly St. Ambrose puts on the Gospel. “The instructions of the Gospel,” he writes, “are higher than the instructions of the prophets and apostles. The law says: “Love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18), and the Gospel tells you: “Love your enemy” (Matthew 5:44). 2056 One must constantly be diligent in reading the Gospel and delve into its meaning, 2057 for “The Gospel is not only a teaching of faith, but also a school of morals and a mirror of righteous conversion. I find in the Gospel that the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the feelings and duties of many in order to teach how these duties should be fulfilled.” 2058 The Word of God, the sacraments, like the grace of God itself, are not given to man directly, but only through the church founded by Christ. “We strive and desire to achieve the grace of Christ through the (per) church.” 2059 Outside the church, without belonging to it, it is impossible to receive salvation. 2060 This is because the Lord, who called the nations and received them under the shadow of His wings, “committed them to the mother church for education (nutriendos).” 2061 The very teaching about the church by St. Ambrose is not distinguished by the completeness of his development. 2062 One can only point out that he distinguishes the church as a divine saving institution, in which the saving means imparted to believers through the hierarchy are concentrated, and as a society of believers, members of the mystical body of Christ, which he identifies, as we have already noted above, with the kingdom of God. However, his ideas usually merge into one. The Church, understood in the first sense, had its beginning in paradise. "St. church, writes St. Ambrose, - betrothed at the beginning of the world in paradise, foreshadowed in the flood, proclaimed in the Law, called by the prophets, waited a long time for the redemption of people.” 2063 But the actual organizer and founder of the 2064 church was the Son of God. Christ, who suffered for everyone, suffered especially for the church, 2065 to which He handed over the fruit of His redemptive suffering. 2066 Because of this, the church has holiness, 2067 it shines with the rays of virtue, as well as with the wealth of virtuous merits. 2068 She possesses all the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit 2069 and the Triune God, from whose sources she drinks. 2070 Christ gave her the keys to the knowledge of the mysteries, 2071 as well as the true teaching, 2072 from where - only the church gives birth to the free. The synagogue and heresies give birth to slaves. 2073 The Church with great streams of prudence (prudentia) and truth (justitia) irrigates the minds of the faithful, 2074 she teaches Christians how they can hold Christ, 2075 and supports them in the hardships of life. “Our support and protection in our weak body and the troubles of this world can only be the grace of the church (gratia ecclesiae), which redeems us, and our faith by which we live.” 2076 Only in the church are the grace-filled sacraments, and therefore only in the church is eternal life. 2077 “Baptism of grace and tears of repentance are two rivers flowing around the church. If you do not pay for your own sins and do not accept the grace of baptism, then you will not acquire the faith of the church.” 2078 But these sacraments, like all sacraments, must be performed in the church by true priests. 2079 Our sacrifice can only be accepted through a confession made by a priest. 2080 And in general the rod and grace of the priesthood are an essential sign of the church. 2081 Much more often St. Ambrose speaks of the church as a collection of all saints or believers (except heretics 2082) in Christ (and not only of this world, but also of the world there), as well as all higher rational powers and authorities. 2083 This assembly mystically forms the body of Christ, 2084 with individual believers being individual members of this body, 2085 - in particular, the poor - these are the feet of Christ, 2086 on which the ointment of mercy should be poured. 2087 The Church is the house of God, the walls of which are formed by all nations, 2088 by all believers in Christ, who are, regardless of their position in the world and the state, 2089 individual stones of this house. The cornerstone is Christ Himself. 2090 Or: the congregation is a tree, and the fruits of the good tree are the sons of the church. 2091 Often, as we have already mentioned, St. Ambrose identifies the church with the eternal and indivisible 2092 kingdom of God (civitas Dei 2093), in which the laws of God 2094 reign and from which all unbelievers, erring and heretics are excluded. 2095 This is a kingdom that has come down from heaven, and whoever enters the church with good faith and deeds becomes a citizen and inhabitant of this kingdom, 2096 as well as a priest of righteousness, for “we are all, if our merits make it possible, priests of righteousness, who are sanctified to the kingdom and priesthood by the anointing of joy.” 2097 Being members of the same body of Christ, all Christians are united among themselves by the closest connection, 2098 which unites them with the Holy Spirit 2099 and His grace. 2100 Hence, if one member suffers, then others suffer with it. 2101 No member can say to another: “I don’t need you,” 2102 just as the rich cannot say the same to the poor, nor the wise to the unlearned, 2103 but each must bear the burdens of the other. 2104 Such a close connection of Christians with each other is based not only on the natural law of nature, 2105 but, most importantly, on faith 2106 and primarily on divine love... “The body of Christ is the church, which is bound by the bonds of love... and in justice Peter is chosen as a priest, since he has girded himself three times with the spirit of divine love.” 2107 Due to such a close connection between believers, every Christian in the church and church fellowship finds grace-filled support and help in his difficult life feat. The Church is the caring mother of every believer. She stretches out her hands and calls those in danger, showing them a place of safe residence. 2108 As a caring mother, she is an intercessor before God for believers, a prayer book for those who have sinned, 2109 washing away their sins with tears. 2110 She prays not only for the living, but also for the dead, 2111 she asks God for the protection of Christians from the evil enemy, 2112 for the liberation of the dead from guilt and punishment, 2113 for the acceleration of the fiery cleansing process 2114, etc. 2115 Along with the prayers of the church, the prayers of individual members of the church, especially the righteous 2116 and saints, bring great benefit and help to a person. 2117 The good life of the righteous gives wings to his prayer, and the Holy Spirit Himself lifts up his prayers before God, 2118 and God, through the prayers of the righteous, gives forgiveness to the sinner. 2119 Hence the wise man is the redeemer of the foolish 2120 and the righteous is the protection and stronghold of his fellow citizens. 2121 A holy man is a savior for his fellow believers. 2122 So St. The Apostle Paul, being perfect, died not for his own, but for our weakness. 2123 These are the gracious means that God has given to man, called to walk in His kingdom in the paths of virtue. Virtue. Its basis and essence. Separation of virtues The teaching of St. Ambrose on virtue is neither clear nor consistent. This depended on the fact that his concept of virtue was formed under the influence of two kinds of influences: on the one hand, the autonomist ethics of the Stoics (more precisely, Stoic-Ciceronian), on the other, the religious or, more precisely, Christian ethics of both the West and, mainly, the East. 2124 Under the influence of pagan ethics, St. Ambrose is not limited to borrowing the terms of Stoic-Ciceronian morality, 2125 but also perceives something from the content of Stoic ethics; Thus, he says that virtue is a life in harmony with nature 2126 or, even closer, with reason, 2127 when “will is subject to reason,” 2128 when measure is observed in everything and harmony is created 2129 and when, thanks to this, that balance, consistency, constancy and moderation are established, 2130 that “freedom (vacuitas animi 2131) and equanimity of morals (morum tranquillitas 2132),” which characterize the sage, this most perfect person. 2133 On the contrary, following Christian ethics, St. Ambrose puts human morality in direct relation to the personal Divinity and looks at virtue as likeness to God, as obedience to the will of God indicated in Revelation, as a path that leads a person to blissful unity with the Divine. 2134 Adoption of St. Ambrose indicated two, if not always contradictory, then, in any case, opposite, principles of morality and determined the uncertainty and inconsistency in his teaching about virtue, which we mentioned above. The question arises: which of the two indicated concepts of virtue - pagan or Christian - is St. father dominant? Answering this question is not so difficult if we keep in mind that in the overwhelming majority of cases St. Ambrose adheres to the principles not of Stoic-Cicero, but of Christian ethics. 2135 But, since the latter in its general character was not the same in the East and the West, a new question arises here: is St. leaning towards the East with its asceticism and mysticism, or towards the West with its vital-practical spirit. father in his teaching about virtue? From the works of St. Ambrose cannot help but see that, although he remains a practical Roman in his ethics, in the teaching of virtue his sympathies lean more towards Eastern asceticism and the closely related idea of ​​the mystical unity of the spiritualized soul with Christ in God. Let us proceed to the presentation of the teachings of St. Ambrose on virtue. Philo already taught that the leader and mentor of man in moral life, 2136 as well as the source of all virtue and wisdom, 2137 is God or, more precisely, the Divine Logos (ορθός τῆς φυσεως λόγος), Who alone must be recognized as ὰρχη καὶ πηγή of all virtues, 2138 for from Him, as from a root, grow the four main virtues. 2139 This Divine Logos or Divine Wisdom, the reflection of which is earthly wisdom or ορθὸς λόγος, 2140 leads in a person to obedience to the mind both the feelings and the generally unreasonable part of the soul. He instructs, advises, reproaches. With him it is impossible to sin even involuntarily. On the contrary, without it the soul, even if it did not want to, will certainly sin. 2141 In view of the fact that virtue stems from God, it should be implanted in our soul not for our sake, but for the sake of God. 2142 Origen, recognizing together with the Stoics that virtue is a self-sufficient good, at the same time puts it in the closest relation to God: there can be no virtue outside of the relation to God and His law. 2143 God is the prime author and embodiment of good. 2144 He cannot fall away from goodness and allow anything shameful, while both are quite possible for a person. Only God has holiness and righteousness, as something essential, inherent in Him by nature: man has holiness only from the Holy Spirit; for him this holiness is an accidental property, which, as accidental, can be lost. 2145 The will of God is conceived by Origen as the highest norm for all human actions, and therefore everything must be in accordance with this will. The whole person, all his will, all his strength must be directed towards God. 2146 Only that virtue can have meaning which has the Creator in its image and which is performed for the sake of God and because of God. 2147 However, it is not God Himself, but His Logos, that is the image of all spiritual perfection. It is by this Logos that the seeds of pure wisdom and virtue are sown in our hearts. 2148 The idea that Christ is the beginning of all virtue is also expressed by St. Hippolytus, precisely when he says that Christ is the source from which flow the four rivers of the Gospel. 2149 In the teaching on virtue of St. Ambrose tries, first of all, to distinguish Christian virtue from pagan virtue, pointing out the contrast of goals pursued by both. Pagan virtues have temporary goals in mind. “We,” he says, “do not establish any rules of moral decency and honesty that would not have more to do with the future than with the present.” 2150 And this, of course, is because virtue has its foundation, its origin and source in the ever-living God. “Every virtue,” says St. father, - from God,” 2151 “for God in His essence is virtue, which He poured into human hearts so that people would be like Him.” 2152 Only God is absolute Good, only He is good with all His being, 2153 only He does not know development in virtue - for He is eternal in all perfection. 2154 People, and even angels, 2155 are only partially perfect. 2156 They have different degrees of virtue and prudence 2157 and can only exhibit certain types of one or another virtue. 2158 Being perfect in every way, God manifests Himself primarily in mercy 2159 and love, for God is love. 2160 However, the source 2161 of all virtues, their beginning and end 2162 is primarily the second Person of the Holy Trinity - Christ, which is why virtue appeared among people only when He descended to earth. 2163 Christ is the beginning of all virtues and at the same time Himself the embodiment of virtue. 2164 And in Holy Scripture He is portrayed as the power and wisdom of God, as the truth, the way, the truth, the resurrection (viritus Dei atque sapienta, veritas, via, justitia, resurrectio 2165). From Him flow the four rivers of the cardinal virtues: prudence and wisdom, moderation and justice. 2166 He is not only truth, but also the sun of truth, 2167 although primarily He is love. 2168 In Christ we see a teacher of humility, who came to teach meekness and simplicity to the proud and haughty at heart. 2169 So, God and, even closer, Christ is the source of virtue and He Himself is virtue incarnate. But if so, then it is self-evident that human virtue is nothing more than an approach to God, as God-likeness, or (as we saw above) the perfection of man in the image of the most perfect Christ. We encounter the concept of virtue as God-likeness already in Plato, and later in the Stoics, although neither of them received and could not receive proper development. This essentially Platonic idea of ​​virtue was adopted and transferred into his ethics by Philo, who placed it in close connection with the selfless “following of God” that the righteous Abraham showed. 2170 Perhaps, not without the influence of Philo, Origen wrote that “the highest good is to become like God,” and that this very definition of the highest good was borrowed by pagan philosophers from the sacred books. 2171 St. Ambrose also says that virtue is, to the best of our ability (secundum mensuram nostrae possibilitatis 2172), becoming like God (similitudo Dei 2173) or appropriating the image and likeness of God. 2174 Citing the words of the Savior: “Be perfect, as your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), St. Ambrose interprets them this way: “So, the likeness of God consists in having justice, wisdom and being perfect in virtue. After all, God is without sin, and therefore whoever avoids sin is in the image of God (Hoc est igitur similem esse Dei, habere iustitiam, habere sapientiam et virtute esse perfectum. Deus enim sine peccato, et ideo qui peccatum fugit ad imaginem est Dei).” 2175 But just as a person is not the image of God actually, but only the Image of God - Christ, so in his virtue he becomes like and follows, first of all, Christ. “Whoever follows Christ,” says St. father - he should imitate Him as far as possible; he must learn within himself from His instructions and examples of divine deeds.” 2176 “Let man be subject to Christ,” writes St. Ambrose in his interpretation of Psalm 36, “that is, subject to the wisdom of God, subject to the word, subject to truth, subject to virtue, for all this is Christ.” 2177 If a virtuous person is in the likeness of Christ, then it is clear that he becomes in close spiritual connection with Him. Origen, who obviously followed Philo, 2178 represented this mystical connection of a perfect or perfecting soul with Christ under the image of the bride and groom, arguing at the same time that from the marriage of these bride and groom are born those virtues by which the image of God is restored in man. 2179 This image of the mystical relationship between Christ and the virtuous soul is borrowed from Origen and St. Ambrose, who devoted an entire book to the question of the mystical relationship of the believing soul to Christ, De Isaac vel anima, 2180, and the virtues of the soul are thought of by St. by the father, either as the bride’s dowry, with which she approaches Christ, 2181 or (following Origen), as a natural fruit born of one who has “received the spirit of salvation” and in whom Christ has already been “depicted.” 2182 From all that has been said about the teaching of St. Ambrose regarding virtue, it is clear that virtue stems from God, that, on the other hand, its presence postulates a state of a certain closeness of a person to God, and that, finally, the just mentioned state, as it is easy to imagine, is achieved only through constant and consistent life according to the commandments of God. Such principles were given by St. the father has every right to conclude that virtue itself is not this or that particular and random virtuous act, but a certain mental skill, steadfastness of morals (gravitas morum 2183) or moralitas (in the sense of morum probitas 2184), a certain disposition (affectus 2185) or (as, for example, with Origen 2186) state of mind (havitus mentis 2187 ). “God judges,” says St. Ambrose, - about the merit of the righteous not by outward action, but by his inner disposition.” 2188 Thus recognizing virtue only as the natural fruit of a person’s known moral state or his known (mystical) proximity to the Absolute and All-Perfect God, St. the father, equally with the ancient philosophers 2189 and Philo, 2190 teaches that virtue is essentially one, 2191 that individual virtues are only types of one and the same virtue, that they are interconnected in the most intimate way 2192 and that where there is one virtue, there are others. 2193 “The virtues are combined and interconnected in such a way that he who has one also has many; and for saints one virtue is sufficient; however, the one whose virtue is more complete, the reward is more perfect.” 2194 All virtues are closely related to each other, which is why one cannot actually be virtuous in one thing and not be virtuous in another. But, if so, then, obviously, all the commandments of God, and all the moral duties of man are also connected with one another by an inextricable connection, from which follows the psychological impossibility of being obedient to God in one thing and disobedient in another, according to the words of the Apostle James: “Whoever keeps the whole law and sins in one thing, he becomes guilty of everything” (James 2:10). This idea, which we also find in Origen, is also developed by St. Ambrose. “So that we do not fall into confusion,” he says, “let us keep the commandments of the Lord and preserve everything. After all, if someone keeps one commandment and violates another, it is of no benefit to him. Someone has kept himself from blood, but has not kept himself from adultery, and now for the guilt of (only) one thing (utique in uno convictus) he is punished even by secular laws. Thus, abstaining from one crime does not benefit someone who is convicted of another.” 2196 And in a letter to Justus, St. his father exhorts him: “Be the same with respect to God’s likeness: not sober today and drunk tomorrow, peaceful today and intemperate tomorrow... It is not good to change for the worse, but be like an image on a didrachm, unchanged and maintaining the same appearance every day.” 2197 The necessary formal conditions of the virtue of St. Ambrose recognizes, on the one hand, the rationality of man, and on the other, free will. “Only that act,” he argues, “has moral value which is done consciously, rationally and deliberately (consilio, ratione, prudentia), and, most importantly, voluntarily (voluntate).” 2198 Based on this, St. the father distinguishes two moments in every virtuous act: intentio and acto. 2199 “In a perfect person, virtue is twofold; namely, in it, on the one hand, the intention is distinguished, and on the other, the action itself” (Gmina virtus est in homine perfecto, ut et intentio sit et actio 2200). These two points are not necessarily present in every virtuous act: there is not always an acto where there is an intentio, and a good actio does not always presuppose the presence of an equally good intentio. 2201 “Often, either a good mind is disfigured by the manifestation of some shameful act, or an unclean thought is covered by the beauty of some deed. But even if you act well and think badly, then (such an act) cannot be approved by the divine court.” 2202 Sometimes it happens that in actio there is more given than in intentio, or in intentio more than in actio. “When the Apostle Peter said: “Lord, why can’t I follow You?” I will lay down my soul for You “(John 13:37) - he had a desire to suffer, but there was no action itself, although there was already action in fasting, there was in vigils, there was in contempt for bodily pleasures.” 2203 An example of how actio gives more than intentio, and vice versa, is the Gospel story of Martha and Mary. 2204 The desire for good without actio is not enough for virtue. 2205 But, on the other hand, only that act must be recognized as valuable, which flows from a sincere and pure heart 2206 and from a good source, i.e., good will, 2207 for God judges the merit of a righteous person not by an external act, but by the state of his mind (mentis 2208), and He is appeased not by gifts, but by the mood of the petitioner. 2209 Hence it is necessary to ensure that the intention, as is the case with the righteous and perfect, 2210 is closely combined with action and action with intention. 2211 Before doing anything, you need to think carefully, 2212 examine your intentions, discuss first what is decent and honest (for only iniquitas prefers action to thinking 2213), strengthen your will 2214 and only after that move on to action or active virtue. In general, the intentio of St. Ambrose attaches greater importance, arguing that even the thought of a shameful thing covers a person with the greatest shame. 2215 But on the other hand, he does not find guilty those who renounced Christ not voluntarily, but under the influence of severe torment. 2216 In the division of the virtues of St. Ambrose was also not independent, following in this case both his Christian teachers and representatives of pagan philosophical thought, as well as Philo. Socrates identified virtue with knowledge. Plato, after much doubt, admitted that virtue is not only knowledge, but also a certain natural and innate disposition towards it, developed through exercise. 2217 Plato contrasts the first kind of virtues, as theoretical, with the second, as practical, 2218 although, however, he distinguishes theoretical and practical elements even in wisdom itself. 2219 For his part, Aristotle admitted that one can be virtuous either by nature, or through learning, or, finally, as a result of exercise 2220: Aristotle divides the virtues themselves into “mental” and “moral”, 2221 and he places the former much higher than the latter. 2222 The Stoics also accepted the Socratic position that virtue is knowledge, but they, distinguishing between intellect (knowledge) and will (activity), along with theoretical virtue, recognized practical virtue as necessary, 2223 although, however, they still considered knowledge or wisdom to be the highest virtue and the most perfect person - the sage. Philo accepts the Aristotelian scheme and teaches about three paths leading to virtue: nature, exercise and teaching (φύσις, ᾶ σκησις and μάθησις 2224). The first path is figuratively represented in Isaac and is ώς ρίζα π ᾶ σιν, 2225 the second - in Jacob and the third - in Abraham. 2226 Learning, exercise and natural talent are not different, but closely related states, called by one name or another according to the predominant position of one or another type of virtue. 2227 They are fused together, although, however, each of these paths is quite sufficient for virtue. 2228 From this idea of ​​Philo about virtue, it necessarily followed, among other things, the (Stoic) conclusion that virtue is at the same time both theoretical and practical. 2229 Distinguishing between theoretical and practical virtue, Philo concentrates his sympathies, however, on theoretical virtue. Being in a fairly close relationship to Stoicism, Philo perceives from the latter his teaching about wisdom as the highest virtue, and the sage as the most perfect man, 2230 and puts this teaching in close connection with his mystical knowledge of the Divine 2231 and unity with Him, 2232 as the final goal of ethical activity. Human virtue (= earthly wisdom), according to the teachings of Philo, stems from Divine Wisdom 2233; due to this origin, it is qualified by a learned Jew as knowledge (έπισῖήμη), and in this essential quality it is opposed to ignorance (ἄγνοια), i.e., wickedness. 2234 Hence the morally perfect person is called by Philo, as well as by the Stoics, a sage. 2235 True, Philo not only does not deny, but even recognizes practical (closest of all ascetic 2236) virtues as necessary, but he places them in a service relation to the mystical-contemplative virtue of knowledge of heavenly things in general and knowledge of the Divine, in particular. 2237 Ancestral virtue (γενική άρετή) - ἃ γαθότης, which actually stems from Divine Wisdom, according to the teachings of Philo, is divided into four cardinal virtues. 2238 Clement of Alexandria was not such a mystic as Philo, but he was a true disciple of Socrates, who placed knowledge (γνῶσις) so high that virtue, in comparison with it, was in a state of humiliation. 2239 In Origen, as in Philo, the first requirement from those striving for perfection, for γνῶσις᾿, is the elevation of man above sensuality, 2240 the abandonment of the “Egyptian,” 2241 and this elevation is composed of μάθησις , ασκησις and ε ὒ φυία. 2242 Like Philo, Origen distinguishes between two kinds of life: active and contemplative, 2243 and he places the second above the first, seeing in it the best path to knowledge of the Divine. 2244 The pinnacle of the contemplative life is spiritual knowledge - γνῶσις πνευματική. 2245 Two kinds of virtues: speculative and non-speculative (practical) are also recognized by Basil the Great, 2246 who sympathizes more with the contemplative life. 2247 St. Ambrose, like Philo and Origen, speaks of three paths that lead a person to perfection: learning, exercise and nature. 2248 An example of the first kind of virtue of St. the father, following Philo in this case, sees in Abraham, 2249 an example of the second kind - in Jacob, 2250 finally, an image by nature of a virtuous husband of St. the bishop points to Isaac. 2251 However, more often than not St. Ambrose divides virtues into two classes: theoretical virtue, more precisely, logical (λογική) and practical virtue (πρακτική 2252). At the same time, in the foreground, like his models, St. the father puts forward a theoretical virtue or wisdom, which, according to him, not only infinitely rises above other virtues, but also serves as their natural source. 2253 Following also his Eastern teachers, St. Ambrose goes further along this path of idealizing “mental” virtue. Thus, he identifies virtue with knowledge 2254 and applies the epithet sapienta not to individual (theoretical) virtues, but to all virtue and the virtuous life of a person. 2255 Further, the perfect or righteous man St. the father identifies with the wise, and about wisdom itself he says that it ends with mystical knowledge or direct contemplation of the Divine (σοφία θεωρητική), unthinkable without preliminary asceticism, detachment from sensuality and materiality, and practical virtues in general. However, usually St. Ambrose treats more of practical virtue than “mental” virtue. So, virtue is divided into St. father for wisdom, λογική, πρακτική and θεωρητική. However, such a division of the virtues of St. Ambrose began to conduct in the later years of his life, but earlier, being under the great influence of Philo (and ancient ethics in general), he spoke about a different division of virtues. Thus, in De paradiso, he, following the example of Philo, who taught that the four cardinal virtues stem from goodness, which, as a generic virtue, originates from Eden, from Divine Wisdom, 2256 says that wisdom is divided into four principles or four main (principales, 2257 cardinales 2258) or spiritual (spiritales 2259) virtues: prudence, prosperity in the period from the creation of the world to the flood, moderation - in the period of the patriarchs, courage - in the period of Moses and other prophets and justice - in the Gospel, 2260 although already in De Cain et Abel of St. Ambrose, again copying Philo, 2261 asserts that it is not wisdom, but virtue in general that is a genus and that it is divided into four particular virtues. 2262 No matter how artificial such a four-part division of virtues was for Christian ethics, nevertheless St. Ambrose tried to substantiate it on the letter of Holy Scripture. However, this attempt, as was natural to expect, did not lead to anything. 2263 Summing up everything that has been said, St. Ambrose about virtue, we, I think, will not be mistaken if we present the division of virtues of St. father in this form. He divides all virtues into theoretical and practical. Theoretical virtues, in turn, are divided into logical (λογικαί) and contemplative (θεωρητικαί). Practical virtues, in turn, fall, as we saw above, into two categories: negative virtue - denial of the flesh and the world (this is a virtue, so to speak, towards oneself) and positive virtue, which manifests itself either as love for God or as love for neighbors. 2264 In cases where St. Ambrose combines this division of virtues with the division into four main virtues inherited from pagan ethics; he brings virtue in relation to God closer to wisdom (prudence), virtue towards people - with justice, and negative virtue towards oneself 2265 - with abstinence or moderation; the fourth of the cardinal virtues - courage or courage - is not found in St. the father of applications in Christian ethics - at least in one of his later creations (interpretation of Psalm 45) by St. Ambrose, listing the basic Christian virtues, does not mention the virtue of fortitudo, 2266 although in De officiis ministrorum 2267 he pays a lot of attention to it, for obvious reasons. Virtue Theoretical Theoretical virtues, united (however, together with practical ones) in the concept of “wisdom” (sapientia), are shared by St. Ambrose, as we have seen, on logical (λογική) and contemplative (θεωρητική) virtue. The first of them is, in its own sense, a theoretical virtue, it is knowledge and justification of a person’s religious and moral duties, while the second is a speculative and mystical virtue of direct knowledge of God, which is actually the result or reward of a righteous life, consisting of practical virtue, as the realization of those principles that are given in theoretical virtue. Since the mystical virtue of contemplation is possible only for a righteous person, we will talk about it when we talk about righteousness, but now we turn to the teaching of St. Ambrose about logical virtue or wisdom in the proper sense. Philo taught that wisdom, as a virtue, through the medium of generic virtue - goodness - stems from divine wisdom, which he (although not always) 2268 identifies with the Divine Logos. 2269 Philo, distinguishing human wisdom from divine wisdom, 2270 defines it as “knowledge of divine and human things and their causes.” 2271 Origen also distinguishes between divine wisdom and human wisdom, which lies in reason 2272 and is the knowledge of divine and human things, as well as their causes. 2273 Origen, like Philo, identifies divine wisdom with the Divine Logos or Christ. 2274 Man reaches direct knowledge of divine wisdom only with the help of gnosis. 2275 And St. Basil the Great distinguishes between divine wisdom and human wisdom 2276. The latter is defined by him as worldly experience, 2277 and the former as true wisdom, stemming from the divine and being one of the four generic virtues. 2278 “True wisdom is the recognition of what one should do and what one should not do. Whoever follows it will never deviate from the deeds of virtue and will never be imbued with the harmful effects of vice.” 2279 St. Ambrose very often emphasizes not only the opposition, but also the contradiction between the wisdom of this age and the divine wisdom. 2280 From divine wisdom flows logical wisdom, which has as its subject the knowledge of truth in general, 2281 the study through hearing, reflection and understanding 2282 of the essence of things, 2283 further, the knowledge of the frailty of the world, - for “what other beginning of wisdom is not renunciation of the world?” 2284 - but the closest thing is the knowledge of religious and moral duties: knowledge of the Creator, 2285 faith in Him, - for “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.” 2286 Logical wisdom is the source of life, the source of spiritual grace (gratia spiritualis), it is the source of all other virtues that lead a person along the path to eternal life. 2287 This wisdom can be learned. Yes, St. the husband promises to teach the fear of the Lord, but the latter is one of the virtues, since through it the image of pious teaching is acquired. 2288 Although the teacher of this wisdom may be St. husband, however, it comes from the Triune God, Who communicates all truth. 2289 Usually, either the Father, acting through the Son in the Holy Spirit, gives us knowledge of the truth, 2290 or, conversely, our knowledge, proceeding from the Spirit through the Son, leads to the Father. 2291 Wisdom is the most precious acquisition, 2292 which does not depend in any way on random things, such as torture. 2293 Divine wisdom of St. Ambrose identifies with the Word of God or with Christ, 2294 Whom he already recognized above as the source of all virtues. “Christ is Wisdom... for He imparts wisdom to others.” 2295 “Christ is not only God, but also the true God, True from the True and true to such an extent that He Himself is the Truth. And therefore, if we are looking for a name, then it is Truth.” 2296 “In Jesus Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” 2297 This is where we will limit ourselves in presenting the teachings of St. Ambrose about wisdom, partly because we have already mentioned this particular wisdom more than once, but mainly because the teaching about it by St. father is somewhat confused. Cicero, in his work De officiis, mentions the division of virtues into theoretical and practical, into wisdom 2298 and prudence 2299 with the other three cardinal virtues, 2300 and in his moral and practical guidance to his son he speaks only about practical virtue. St. Ambrose either mixed or identified these virtues, which are different in nature, and then puts wisdom in the place of the cardinal virtue of prudence, 2301 then attributes to prudence the functions and qualities of wisdom, considering it the source of other virtues, 2302 then, finally, considers wisdom as one of the types of prudence, arguing that prudence is reflected in wisdom, teaching and understanding (sapientia, disciplina, intellectus 2303). The distinction between these three types of prudence in St. Ambrose is not clear. One can only note that under the word intellectus St. Ambrose understands that necessary for a righteous life 2304 understanding of the commandments of the Lord, which is the basis of all virtues, 2305 regulating even the very fear of the Lord, for “if the fear of the Lord does not agree with knowledge, then it not only does not bring benefit, but even harms.” 2306 Intellectus is not acquired through personal efforts, 2307 but is spiritual grace, flowing from the Holy Spirit and possessing, like the Holy Spirit Himself, the gift of life-giving. 2308 This grace is not given to everyone, but only to those who deserve 2309 it and who asked for it from God. 2310 Whoever has not received this supernatural revelation cannot understand the commandments of the Lord. 2311 As for the doctrine of disciplina, St. Ambrose expresses himself very vaguely. “What does a wise man desire,” he asks, “if not what concerns virtue and teaching (disciplina), without which he cannot exist?” 2312 In another place he contrasts teaching (disciplina) with unbridledness (insolentiae 2313), in the third, finally, he says that wisdom lies in honoring God and submission to Him, and teaching (disciplina) in abstinence from sins. 2314 Even more uncertain is the use of St. Ambrose of the term doctrina. 2315 One can guess that under the disciplina and doctrina of St. Ambrose meant church or dogmatic teaching. Man's Duties in Relation to God Despite all the high importance that St. Ambrose ascribes to wisdom as a theoretical virtue, he, like a true Roman, does not want to belittle practical wisdom, especially since if logical wisdom is the justification of practical wisdom, then this latter is a necessary condition for contemplative wisdom (θεωρητική). “Who,” asks St. father, is he unwise, if not the one who commits sin and chooses evil instead of good?” 2316 Theoretical wisdom is not actually thought of by St. Ambrose without practical wisdom or virtue. “If you seek the path of wisdom and learning (disciplina), he says, then honor God. To be submissive to Him is wisdom, but to abstain from sins is teaching.” 2317 Hence every duty of a Christian is a form of practical wisdom. “Both preaching the Word of God and serving meals - both are the duty of wisdom.” 2318 Among practical virtues, St. comes first. Ambrose places virtue or duty in relation to God. Philo already considered reverence for God the greatest of virtues, making the soul itself immortal. 2319 “The first principle of everything that exists,” he says, “is God, and of all virtues is piety (εύσεβεια).” 2320 People’s relationships with God are based either on fear or on love. Of these, love is higher than fear, for only he honors God in a worthy manner who loves him. 2321 “Life according to God, according to Moses’ definition, consists in love for God, for he says: “Your life is to love Jehovah” (Deut. 30; 20).” 2322 Origen also puts the veneration of God in the first place, 2323 and says that our religious attitude towards God can be based either on fear - a lower motive, especially since fear is a passion - or on love. God wants man to serve Him not out of fear, but out of love. 2324 St. Basil the Great indicates the following three motives for obedience to God: fear of punishment, characteristic of slaves, desire to receive a reward, characterizing mercenaries, and love of God and goodness, befitting sons. 2325 Responsibilities towards God and St. Ambrose places above all other responsibilities. 2326 “We must fulfill,” he says, “first of all the commandments concerning God and only then the commandments concerning people.” 2327 “When you fulfill your duty in relation to your Creator, then you can devote your strength to the work of doing good and helping people.” 2328 All duties towards God are united in the concept of obedience to Him. 2329 This is the obedience of St. Ambrose, like Philo, considers 2330 the basis of all virtues. 2331 “Learn to be obedient to God,” he says, “so as to choose not what you desire, but what you know pleases God.” 2332 Obedience to the will of God can be based on a feeling of fear of God, or, what is much higher, 2333 on a feeling of love for Him. He who fears God avoids sin and directs his steps along the path of virtue. 2334 Fear of God, thus, is also a manifestation of virtue, and therefore it is written: “Fear the Lord, all His saints” (Ps. 33:10). 2335 Moreover, this fear in itself makes a person both wise and blessed. “Fear according to God is holy, for “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord” (Ps. 110:10). So, who Those who fear God are wise, and they are blessed, for “blessed is he whom You have taught, O Lord, and instructed him in Your law” (Ps. 93:12). Those who fear God are blessed, as the example confirms, for “Blessed are all who fear the Lord” (Ps. 127:1). 2336 Fear, which turns away from evil and encourages one to strive for God, is salutary, however, it does not have the perfection 2337 that characterizes the fulfillment of the commandments out of love for God. True, the fear of offending God, Whom they love, is mixed with the fulfillment of God’s commandments out of love, 2338 however, there is a big difference between these two principles. He who loves God fulfills His commandments voluntarily, but he who fears does good out of necessity. The first is characteristic of free people, and the second - of slaves. God values ​​the voluntary works of the free more than the forced service of slaves. “That is why He made us free from slaves, so that we would do what we owe voluntarily, and not obey out of necessity.” 2339 The Lord Himself no longer calls free performers of God’s commandments not slaves, but friends, “for whoever loves, does, and whoever has done is justly awarded the gift of mutual love.” 2340 Only those who love God love His “dates,” but those who fear only preserve them, 2341 and yet “the fulfillment of the law is love.” 2342 Hence, all fulfillment of the law must be imbued with love, 2343 for the entire law is contained in one commandment: love. He who truly loves fulfills all the commandments. 2344 True love for God must be combined with a willingness to prove it in practice, with a willingness to suffer for Christ. He who loves God must, in every state (happiness and unhappiness), maintain a feeling of unceasing love 2345 and the tranquility of a strengthened spirit. 2346 He who truly loves Him, who has zeal for God, should not spare anyone or anything, and above all himself, for the sake of God. 2347 “If a glorious case of death presents itself to you,” St. instructs his clergy. bishop, die; if you miss it, it will not be so easy for you to wait for it again.” 2348 Man must love God, for such is the will of God. 2349 But human love is only a response to that infinite love of God for people, which was reflected in their creation, and, mainly, in redemption. “The Lord, loving His people with perfect love, gave Himself up to suffering. Likewise, we must love God and, if necessary, not avoid death for Him, impute suffering to nothing and not fear anything.” 2350 Love for God is primarily based on faith in God 2351 and on hope, 2352 but love is higher and more fruitful than faith and hope. 2353 After all, “love hopes for all things and trusts all things” (1 Cor. 8:7). If hope and faith are in love, then there is no doubt that love is greater. 2354 Love, in fact, is the principle of moral life, for it, on the one hand, cuts off sins, 2355 and on the other, unites, develops and organizes all virtues, 2356 - since piety is the foundation of all virtues 2357 and obedience to heavenly commands is their foundation. Love for God is not a feeling acquired by man himself: love is a gift of God, which is given only to those who deserve it 2359 and in whom grace is kindled. 2360 The direct expression of a person’s love for God is his prayer to Him. But prayer, to be successful, must satisfy certain conditions. Thus, it must be done in silence and calmness of spirit, so that each person praying is attentive to himself and self-collected. 2361 Prayer should be performed not only during the day (from morning to night), 2362 but also at night, following the example of Christ, “Who spent the night in prayer, asking the Father for forgiveness of your sins.” 2363 Christ Himself excites man to get up in the middle of the night and take up the weapon of prayer at a time when the tempter usually attacks. 2364 But a Christian should not wait for Christ to arouse him, but he himself is called to arouse Christ: “He who arouses Him is the one who thinks about Him, even during his slumber.” 2365 A person must always pray to God, always ask Him. If he cannot always pray, then at least let him always have a prayerful mood.” 2366 In our daily prayers to God, we must read the symbol early in the morning, “before dawn,” as an image of our faith, for “is it possible when a warrior in a tent or a fighter in equipment does not take an oath of office?” 2367 As for the prayer requests themselves, a Christian must first of all pray to God that the Word of God will not abandon him, that passion will run away from him and lust will disappear 2368; the person praying must ask God to “turn his eyes away from the affairs of this world” 2369 and to direct the paths of his mind to keep His justifications 2370; but especially - day and night - one should pray for the forgiveness of sins, 2371 for he who believes and who prays is redeemed. 2372 Further, a Christian is called to pray not only for himself, but also “for the whole people, that is, for the whole body, for all the members of your mother”... If individuals pray for everyone, then everyone prays for everyone. And if you pray only for yourself, you only pray for yourself. 2373 But what makes our prayer truly Christian is prayer for our enemies and for those who persecute us, as the Lord Himself asked, 2374 although, however, such prayer is only available to the strong; the weak are called to prayer, at least for themselves. 2375 The success of prayer depends a lot on the virtue of the person praying, for “a good life gives wings to the prayer of the righteous, and the Spirit Himself lifts up his prayers, while from sin prayer becomes more difficult and moves away from God.” 2376 Prayer combined with mercy is especially useful. 2377 Further, our prayer, if we want it to be heard by God, must come from the whole heart, following the example of David, 2378 moreover, a humble heart. 2379 “A person, even if he is holy and righteous, must always pray that the Lord will hear him according to His mercy, and not according to the merits of virtue, for virtue is rare, but sins are numerous, and according to His judgment, so that He will give strength to the weak. 2380 God not only hears our prayers, but gives more than what is asked of Him. 2381 If He does not fulfill our prayers, it is either because the words of our prayer disagree with our feelings, 2382 or because He considers what we are asking to be unprofitable for us, 2383 or because we are asking for something temporary or something shameful, that is, we are praying not for life, but for sin. 2384 Where there is true prayer, the Word is present, lust flees, passion is removed 2385; there, as if from a shield, all the flaming arrows of the enemy bounce off. 2386 But such prayer, like love for God, is an action of God’s grace. 2387 Man's responsibilities towards his neighbors Philo taught that all people, like all living beings, have one Father and that this fact is the basis of the brotherhood not only of people among themselves, but also of all creatures. 2388 Proceeding from here, Philo says that people are obliged not only not to harm their enemies, but even to try to be useful to them, 2389 although he believes that mercy should be shown first of all to the worthy. 2390 Philo, like his Stoic teachers, considers a morally perfect person, or sage, to be a cosmopolitan. 2391 In Origen we do not yet find a categorical justification for relations with one’s neighbor based on love: the Christian’s relations with other people, with himself and with God are defined by him in terms of the Stoic concept, as a manifestation of the cardinal virtue of justice. 2392 From the total number of neighbors, Origen singles out only those who are reborn with us in Christ: they should be treated as if they had one mother and one father with us. 2393 St. Vasily demands special sincerity from Christian relationships with neighbors and in no case allows lies 2394: all relationships with neighbors must be based on love: you need to love not only friends, but also enemies. 2395 Likewise, justice and equality should be observed not only in relation to the free, but also in relation to the slaves. 2396 These thoughts of St. Basil bases both on the Gospel and on the natural inclinations of man. “Nothing is more natural,” he writes, “to our nature than to have communication with each other and need each other and to love those of our fellow tribes.” 2397 St. Ambrose, in his teaching on attitude towards others, brings to the fore the idea that a Christian should not live for himself alone. “Let no one deviate from the duty to help his neighbor..., but let him consider everything his own: both someone else’s happiness and someone else’s misfortune.” 2398 “Therefore Christ died in the flesh for all, so that we might learn to live not for ourselves alone.” 2399 How is this “life for others” expressed? “In love for neighbors,” answers St. father, for both the Law and the Gospel require it.” 2400 The essence of the law is love, since “whoever loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” 2401 “If we want to please God, we will love (people), we will be unanimous, we will be humble, considering everyone superior to ourselves.” 2402 Christian love for neighbors has its source in love for God and is based on that mystical connection that unites all Christians into one mystical body (or church), headed by Christ Himself. We are all closely related members of one organism, of which none can exist without the other. All members of the body are united by such a close connection that when one of the members suffers, the others suffer with it. 2403 This is why all members of the church body should not harm, but serve and please each other. 2404 But in a physical organism the members are connected to each other, so to speak, by bonds of mutual necessity, but in a Christian society the individual members are connected to each other by the “unity of love and faith.” “Let us bear our burdens,” exhorts St. father, as the Apostle taught us (Gal. 6:2), who spoke thus to those whom love has made members of the same body.” 2405 Friendly attitude towards the people of St. Ambrose does not always base it on the mystical connection of Christians as members of the body of Christ: sometimes he accepts the Stoic justification according to which people should help each other due to the fact that all humanity is one common organism (corpus generis humani 2406), the members of which are relatives and brothers (consortes et conformes 2407), born of one mother - nature and endowed, contrary to all other living beings, with the highest gift - rationality. 2408 “Is not he our brother whom the same womb of rational nature gave birth to and united with us by birth from the same mother? One and the same nature is the mother of all people, and therefore we are brothers, born of the same mother and bound by the same right of kinship.” 2409 Animals do not have these rights of nature, since they have nothing in common with us, and they are not connected to us by any kinship ties. 2410 Due to the indicated ancestral connection, all people, as if they were uterine, must love each other with mutual love, 2411 for there is nothing more consistent with nature than helping another of the same nature as us. 2412 This benevolence towards the people of St., based on kinship by nature. Ambrose calls it justice, and, like Cicero, he says that justice developed from family relationships. 2413 The justice of St. father sometimes believes that this is the basis of the relationship between Christians as members of the church, arguing that, on the one hand, benevolence (= justice) receives a special justification and development in church society, 2414 and on the other, that “the church itself is a certain image of justice” 2415 and that “when the connection of the human race is broken, then the union of the holy church, which by the unity of faith and love is united into one closely connected and inseparable body, also collapses - also Christ the Lord, who died for all, grieves that His atoning Blood was shed in vain.” 2416 These two justifications for love for one's neighbors are St. Ambrose sometimes puts them side by side, 2417 but more often combines them, 2418 and he either thinks of justice as a generic concept, in which love for people is included as one of the types, 2419 or completely identifies it with love. 2420 “What is so fair,” asks St. father, how about you loving God and loving your brother?” 2421 “This is not the only type of justice not to offend someone who does not offend you: there is another type - to forgive someone who has offended you.” 2422 “What kind of justice,” St. writes further. father - better than divine? For the Son of God said: “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). And again he says: “Pray for those who persecute you and slander you.” 2423 Identifying justice with love, St. Ambrose involuntarily transfers to her those properties of forgiveness and meekness that are characteristic specifically of love. “If justice,” he writes, “is a virtue, then it must be free from guilt and not repay injustice with injustice. What kind of justice is it if you yourself punish another? This is not retribution, but participation in injustice. There is no difference in who you do evil to, just or unjust, since you should not do evil... After all, to be evil is the same as to be unjust.” 2424 So, a Christian is called to love all people, but first of all those close to him, only those close not in the flesh, but in the spirit, 2425 - those who will be with him not only in this century, but also in the future. 2426 Love itself is manifested either in the non-retribution of evil for evil, or in positive deeds of love. Love of the first kind gives rise to Christian patience and forbearance, 2427 and these latter find their completion in the constant 2428 forgiveness of offenses following the example of Christ, “Who, having taken flesh, desired to come into this world not as a Judge, but as a Redeemer.” 2429 Forgiveness of St. offenses Ambrose considers “true virtue.” “What good is there if we do not harm someone who does not harm us? But this will be true virtue when you forgive those who offended you.” 2430 The basis for such a commandment is, by the way, confidence in the Divine providence for the world, and even more so for those faithful to God, as the Provider, who also has the right of retribution. This right should not be admired by a person who, in view of the fact that God does not ignore the murder of an innocent person, 2431 is called upon not to defend himself even when he is attacked with a weapon in his hands by a robber, so that, in defending his life, he does not betray his piety.” 2432 It is a great thing to forgive offenses, but above it stands another virtue of the same order - not to slander one another, 2433 and even higher - to bless those who slander, 2434 praying for them, as well as for those who persecute, 2435 and, finally, to love enemies. 2436 A Christian should not know any hatred except hatred of the path of unrighteousness, 2437 just as, on the other hand, he must love virtue, no matter who it is, even in an enemy. “You must also love the one who does not love you: you must love the virtue in him, so that, loving virtue, you would begin to love the one you did not love.” 2438 A Christian cannot, of course, immediately rise to that peak of love for people, at which the actual distinction between friends and foes is already lost: a person reaches this peak only after a very long period of self-improvement. Stages of the Christian attitude of the righteous towards the enemies of St. Ambrose presents in this order: the righteous is silent and does not respond to offenders; blesses them; and finally Although the commandment to love enemies is obligatory for every Christian, 2440 however, only the perfect can bless the slanderer and love the enemy, thereby becoming a son of God. As for the positive deeds of love for one's neighbor, this kind of love for people can be manifested: in prayer for them, in helping them with advice, and, finally, in acts of mercy. Because of the close connection with which Christians are united in the church, each of them should pray for the other. 2441 In particular, children who have dedicated themselves to the service of God should pray for the sins of their parents. 2442 The special meaning of St. Ambrose gives the prayer of the dying man. 2443 As for helping one’s neighbor with advice, this, according to St. father, can only be provided by a righteous person, 2444 morally superior to the one who asks for advice. 2445 Advice is more valuable the higher the moral dignity of the adviser. 2446 Above all other deeds of love for one's neighbor, St. Ambrose puts mercy, which he very often identifies with justice. “Charity is justice and justice is mercy.” 2447 A Christian is called to mercy or beneficence not only by the Word of God, not only by the consciousness of a close connection with other members of the mystical body of Christ, but also by the example of the earth and, in particular, by the consciousness of his human nature, of which mercy is a characteristic property. Depending, most closely, on St. Vasily, 2448 St. Ambrose says that the earth, having brought us into the world naked, in need of food, drink and clothing, provides for common use 2449 both rich and poor 2450 all its wealth, all its fruits. 2451 Hence, when giving to the poor, a Christian does not give from his own, but only returns what belongs to others. 2452 However, it is not only nature in general that calls man to mercy and beneficence, not only the example of the earth, but first of all his own nature, for man received his name (homo) from the earth (humus), which does not steal from anyone, but gives to everyone. 2453 “Hence, humanity is called that virtue unique to man, which prompts him to come to the aid of his fellow man.” 2454 By this quality, by the way, man differs so sharply from animals: animals steal, but people give. It is true that animals give to their cubs, and birds give to their chicks, but “only man is capable of feeding strangers as well as his own.” 2455 Thus, mercy or compassion is a requirement imposed on everyone, 2456 and almsgiving is a universal virtue that is obligatory for everyone, regardless of his age and social status. 2457 Mercy (and humility) of St. the father figuratively calls the oil referred to in the parable of the ten virgins, “Have faith, have prudence, so that through this you can have in your vessels the oil of mercy and the grace of piety.” 2458 How high is St. the father puts justice and the mercy that rests on it, so negative and reproachful is his attitude towards greed, the root of all vices, the head and tinder 2459 of injustice, 2460 which has corrupted people. 2461 “Who does not want to lose the eternal,” says St. father, let him not take away what is temporary from another.” 2462 The holy bishop considers it impossible for a perfect Christian to think about appropriating for himself what belongs to others and the desire to build his own well-being on the misfortune of his neighbor. 2463 But especially St. Ambrose arms himself, like St. Vasily, 2464 against usury, which he considers a bait for his neighbor. 2465 Moneylender St. Ambrose likens Judas the traitor 2466 and considers him a damned man. 2467 The Holy Father is so strict about greed, about the desire to get rich at someone else’s expense, that he even has a negative attitude towards trade itself, citing the fact that “caring for profits is not characteristic of honesty, but of guile. Why does Solomon say: “He who takes money for bread is cursed among the people” (Proverbs 11:26).” 2468 “Christian,” teaches St. the father, according to the commandment of the Savior, must give a loan to someone from whom he does not hope to receive, 2469 for in return it will be paid by God Himself, only not in this, but in the future life.” He who gives to the poor does not lose, but gains; he lends to God here in order to receive there. 2470 “Give to those from whom you do not hope to receive back, for this is not a loss, but a saving: you give very little, but receive very much; You give on earth, but you will receive in heaven, you will lose interest, but you will have a great reward.” 2471 “Sell gold and rather buy salvation (i.e., alms), sell stone and buy the kingdom of God, sell gold and buy yourself eternal life.” 2472 If the earth already returns to man fruits that are much more abundant than those that she herself received, then all the more will God reward him for the mercy shown. 2473 “Poor man,” says St. father, makes God the Father your debtor: He, for the gift with which you helped the poor man, pays you, like a debtor to a good lender, interest: moreover, He makes the Son your debtor.” 2474 “I will teach you,” he writes in another creation, “how you can become good lenders, how you can receive good interest. Solomon says: “He who has mercy on the poor lends to the Lord; (God) will reward him according to what he has given” (Prov. 19; 17).” 2475 However, God will reward only that mercy that stems from a sincere desire to help one's neighbor. 2476 After all, sometimes people do good out of vanity. 2477 In order for our help, our mercy to bring real benefit to our neighbor, and not harm, 2478 and generosity must be, on the one hand, strictly justified, and on the other, prudent. “Let this be the standard, so that neither philanthropy is forgotten, nor need is left unattended.” 2479 From here St. Ambrose, like a true Roman, advises Christians, when doing charity, not to forget about themselves, that is, not to deprive themselves of what is necessary. “Mercy should be shown only to a certain extent, according to the strength of opportunity, so that no one deprives himself of everything (necessary).” 2480 In general, it is necessary to regulate justice with moderation, 2481 according to the words of Solomon: “Do not be just to the great (Eccl. 7:17).” However, at this point St. Ambrose is not distinguished by consistency: namely, in his most practical work, De officiis ministrorum, he speaks not only of feasible help to others in their misfortune and needs, but also of unbearable help. 2482 To the works of charity of St. the father refers, among other things, to hospitality, “through which Abraham acquired grace” (Gen. 18:3) 2483 and which must be provided, among other things, because we ourselves are strangers and strangers, both in this world and in our body. 2484 Just like St. Basil, St. Ambrose puts charity above “singing psalms.” Likewise, he finds it quite fair to sacrifice, for example, church vessels for the ransom of prisoners. 2485 Charity works of St. Ambrose considers delays to be impatient, and therefore strongly recommends not to miss the opportunity to do good and not to put off until tomorrow the good deed that can be done today. 2486 At the same time, St. Ambrose is suspicious of promises, claiming that they are deception, “for is it not in your power (now) to give what you want to give (later).” 2487 So, the Christian is called to charity. The question is: do all people need to do charity to the same extent? The Holy Father responds to this in the sense that mercy should extend to everyone, 2488 for “only God is impartial and knows everything; We are obliged to be merciful to everyone.” 2489 However, we should do charity to some people preferentially, for example, the poor, 2490 the elderly, and the crippled. 2491 On the other hand, we must remember first of all about those who are close to the faith, especially the righteous, 2492 then about our fellow tribesmen, 2493 etc. As for the question of whether one should do good to everyone without exception, St. Ambrose, repeating Origen, answers in the negative. “Mercy,” he argues, “can be unjust: that is why there were cases when the Lord forbade (for example, Saul) to be merciful” (1 Samuel 15:9; cf. Deut. 19:13). 2494 The reason for this prohibition is that showing mercy to the unworthy can expose many to the danger of falling. 2495 As a conclusion from this, St. Ambrose gives a rule: there is no need to be particularly lenient towards sinners. 2496 There is another group of people who, according to St. father, not only cannot be benevolent, not only cannot one be loved, but one should even hate him, be it parents, children or relatives. 2497 This group consists of the enemies of God. However, sometimes St. Ambrose softens the harshness of this commandment and says that hatred should not apply to unrighteous people themselves, but to untruth, 2498 especially since people can still turn to God under the influence of the Gospel preaching. 2499 But regardless of whether we can do good or not, all our relationships with our neighbors must be sincere and direct, free from envy, 2500 double-mindedness, 2501 deceit, lies and deceit. 2502 This is because, among other things, any deception is shameful, 2503 and on the other hand, what is gained by deceit and cunning is short-lived. 2504 There is only one case in which it is possible to deceive a person and not fulfill a given promise - this is when the fulfillment of the promise entails some dishonest act. 2505 On the same basis, sometimes one should not return the pledge and demand back the loan. 2506 The sincerity of human relationships finds its completion in friendship, in the praises of which St. Ambrose is as tireless as Cicero. 2507 St. has love and, in particular, mercy. Ambrose's redeeming character. 2508 “Mercy,” writes St. Father, referring to the parable of the Good Samaritan, “there is oil that heals the sick, for mercy frees from sin.” 2509 In other places in his works, St. Ambrose says that perfect love produces the remission of sins, 2510 that it mortifies guilt and all sins, 2511 that love has wings of fire with which it flies around all the hearts and wombs of the saints, burning everything material and earthly and supporting everything pure. 2512 Of all three Christian virtues, love is greater than 2513 and more important than 2514 faith and hope. “Where there is perfect love, there is all hope.” 2515 However, love, like other virtues, is not acquired by the person himself, but is given to him by God, “Send us, Lord,” prays St. Ambrose, - help so that we follow You, bound by Your bonds. There are no bonds stronger and more pleasant than the bonds of love.” 2516 Man's responsibilities towards himself The duties or virtues of a person to himself are carried by St. Ambrose has a brightly colored ascetic character of a dismissive and even contemptuous attitude towards the flesh, the world and, in general, everything sensual and material. Hatred of the body was already preached by Philo, for whom the birth of a person was synonymous with his fall. Contrasting the heavenly and the earthly, 2517 Philo argued that there could be nothing pure in sensible things. 2518 Man, although he occupies the middle between the heavenly and earthly worlds, is, however, first of all a φυτόν συράνιον, 2519 whose fatherland is the sky, and the earth is only a temporary habitation. 2520 Hence man must always strive towards heaven, towards the unchangeable and absolute God, in order to contemplate the Divine and abide with Him. 2521 But a necessary condition for this is renunciation from all earthly things, from the whole world, from everything that is recognized here as valuable. 2522 Detachment or flight from the sensory world is most immediately manifested in flight from the pleasures or temptations of the body, 2523 which St. the father calls it the prison and grave of the soul, 2524 - and in general from sensuality, which in itself is evil. 2525 If the mind follows sensuality, this culprit of passions, then it itself becomes carnal (τό σαρκός γένος). On the contrary, if sensuality follows the mind, then it ceases to be flesh (σαρξ) and itself becomes the mind (νοῦς 2526). A perfect person should not be distinguished by metropathy, but by complete apathy. 2527 St. Hippolytus, believing that the homeland of Christians is in heaven, also argued that everything related to the earth does not have a positive and independent meaning for a Christian, 2528 and therefore the temporary, earthly and perishable should not be preferred to the eternal, incorruptible and pure blessings of the future life. 2529 As is known, Origen also held ascetic views, claiming, among other things, that the earth on which we are in a state of humiliation is a place of punishment for the soul. 2530 St. looked at this world in the same way. Basil the Great. “We believe, children, that real human life means nothing at all; We do not at all honor and do not call good that which brings us perfection in this life alone.” 2531 Hence, he considers blessed only those who “spend their present life in the hope of the future century and exchange the present for the eternal.” 2532 Recognizing two principles in the soul: one – passionate and unreasonable, and the other – rational and spiritual, called to dominate the first, St. Vasily convinces: “Do not allow the enslaved mind to ever become a servant of the passions, and again: do not allow the passions to rebel against the mind and usurp dominion over the soul.” 2533 Since the passionate is identified by him with the flesh, with the pleasures of the body, to that extent St. Basil warns the Christian against the dominion of the flesh. 2534 The means to conquer the flesh and dominate over it is “virtue, which is a certain mean and proportionality, and excess and deficiency in one direction or another, protruding from the limits of virtue, is already immoderation and ugliness... Consequently, the beauty of the soul lies in its proportionality in virtue, and ugliness is in violation of the measure due to vice.” 2535 The goal of human aspirations should be the achievement of dispassion of God's nature and through this restoration of the image of God in the soul. 2536 St. also has a negative attitude towards the body and the world. Ambrose. We have already seen above that the negative perfection or dying of Christ consists, in fact, in the dying of the flesh, as the source of all sin, and the world, as the kingdom of evil and the devil, alien to truth and righteousness and full of vanity. “The Apostle taught that the creation of the human race was subject to vanity... So, the life of man in this age is vanity. The soul is subject to this vanity.” 2537 Here is the kingdom of death, here is the shadow, here everything is contrary to the true fatherland of the soul and alien to the soul itself. 2538 Therefore, she should not be carried away by the physical, she should not be carried away by the sensual, which is so deceptive. 2539 “Let us turn away,” St. convinces. father, “from the physical connection, let us put aside everything that relates to the earth.” 2540 “The good soul,” he says in another place, “despises the visible and sensible and does not cleave to them..., but strives for the eternal and invisible, full of the miraculous, to which it ascends with the pure feeling of its mind.” 2541 The Christian must conquer this age with which he is fighting during this life 2542 ; in it I must submit my soul to Christ, so that I can say later: “Is not my soul subject to God?” (Ps. 61). 2543 This death to the world is, first of all, dying to its seductions, 2544 - because only he exalts himself and places himself in a heavenly dwelling, who frees himself from pleasures and earthly pleasures, 2545 - is the dying of “the wisdom of this world, which does not know God, since it seeks to cover the wounds, and not open them to God,” 2546 - is dying, finally, to all worldly affairs that cannot have true fruit and good success, 2547 for we benefit from sorrow for God, not sorrow for the world. 2548 Only truth has the character of eternity, but everything that relates to the temporal, for example, the honor of the century, worldly care, is all vanity. Hence, if a Christian wishes to follow the path of truth, he must withdraw from the world. 2549 After all, he is a fighter of piety (athleta pietatis), fighting for the truth, and, as such, must be undressed from the cares of this life, must be naked from malice. 2550 Christ crucified in His flesh all the vanity of this world, and therefore whoever is in Christ not only cannot gravitate toward vanity, 2551 but should not even look at vanity. 2552 In other words: a Christian, if he wants to be perfect, must bring God not half of the didrachm, but sell everything and give it to the poor (Matthew 19; 21); he is not to serve the world even in part, but is called to deny himself entirely, take up his cross and follow Christ. 2553 But it is not enough to renounce vain things: you need to renounce all earthly bonds, 2554 in order to rise to eternal life, 2555 you need to renounce everything earthly so that the soul becomes free to accept the highest good, 2556 so that a person comes closer to the image and likeness of God, 2557 you need to leave everything earthly, 2558 you need to forget about the present and think only about the future, 2559 we must become dead to the earth, hide our life with Christ in God, so that it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us. 2560 The righteous do this. He, for example, “speaks of nothing earthly, does not engage in anything temporary” 2561: if he has to live and act in the world, he does what relates to the body not voluntarily, not with the desire to serve the body, but for the sake of Him who subdued in hope (Rom. 8:20), - only for the sake of obeying Him. 2562 In this case, he follows the instructions of the Apostle Paul, who (Col. 2: 20 - 21) “wanted us to be in the image of this world, and not to possess or enjoy it, and therefore to use it as if not using it, passing away, and not abiding, walking in the likeness of the world, and not in lust, so that with the strongest desire we would leave the very image of the world this." 2563 But one must not only deny the earthly, not only use it as if not using it, one must actually flee the earth, not only figuratively (in the sense of freedom from the vices of this life 2564), from the temptations and worries of this age, 2565 but also in the literal meaning of the word. 2566 “Saints,” says St. father, - they ran away from this life, although their life was useful for us and not useful, in their opinion, for themselves. What should we do when our life is not useful to others, and only brings us an increase in sins?” 2567 Identifying the earth with the source of evil and untruth, 2568 St. Ambrose says that she needs to flee out of a sense of self-preservation, imitating in this case the sailors who, in a storm, try to stay away from the shore so as not to break on stones and rocks. 2569 “Flee the earth,” instructs St. bishop, - in which there is envy, selfishness and disputes... Let the soul not be afraid to seek the above, let this home be left empty, for the earthly abode burdens the soul.” 2570 In the funeral oration for his brother St. Ambrose speaks directly about the need to leave this life 2571 and understands the words of God to Abraham: “Get out of your house” as a command to leave this body. 2572 Above we mentioned the example of sailors, which St. calls to imitate. Ambrose of Christians obliged to flee the earth. Another favorite image of his to express the same thought is the flight of birds above, where there are no snares. Claiming that our life is full of snares, that we walk between snares and live among temptations, 2573 St. the father says: “Our soul must fly above, where there are no snares, for a bird that has descended from a height or cannot rise to a height often becomes entangled in a snare.” 2574 This is the same soaring above the world for St. Ambrose serves as a way of life with Christ and in Christ, Who has nothing to do with this age. “We must not seek Christ within this world, who willed that His disciples should be above the world.” 2575 “Learn to be with Christ so that you can be above the world.” 2576 Hence all true followers of Christ, in so far as they are with Christ, 2577 must be above this world. 2578 Finally, the third image of a Christian’s renunciation from this world is given by St. Ambrose serves as “a dream for this world.” So, if Christ slept on the ship, then by this He showed the apostles that He was sleeping for the world. 2579 If a person cleaves to God in this way, if he becomes higher than earthly things, if everything earthly in him dies, then, according to St. Ambrose, “despises and denies everything that is under the sun.” 2580 “Cleaving to God and again returning the outline of the heavenly image, the soul, having ascended by the flight of spiritual wings to that ethereal and pure place where it can protect its life from the indignation of horses, looks with contempt at everything in this world. Rushing towards the eternal forces, she soars above the world.” 2581 So, the earth must be avoided and despised as evil. But we should not cleave to it also because we are not its permanent inhabitants, but only strangers and wanderers. 2582 We are guests here, 2583 from where we will soon have to retire to our fatherland, to our father’s house - to heaven, 2584 to that high place, 2585 from where we came, 2586 to the land of the living, where our life is hidden, where there are no shadows, but only one lightness. 2587 However, not everyone is still a stranger on earth, but only one who has rejected earthly pleasures and freed himself from every mood of earthly passion, of which the Lord is a part, who is sad that he lives on earth for a long time, who is not afraid to “resolve himself,” 2588 who belongs to God and revolves “in the heavenly.” 2589 This is why a righteous person not only does not fear death, but, on the contrary, even asks that his life here not be long. “He hastens towards the eternal and passionately desires to be freed from the labor and sorrow of this body.” 2590 The contemptuous or, to put it somewhat softer, negative attitude of St. Ambrose is logically led by St. to everything earthly, material and sensual. father and to denial of the body. “Man,” says St. Ambrose, is called upon to despise not only everything one has, but even one’s flesh for the sake of truth,” 2591 because it is “perishable,” 2592 that it is “the body of death,” 2593 more burdensome for the human soul than useful. 2594 Developing the (above) thought about the nets laid out for man on earth, St. father writes: “What am I talking about outside networks? We need to beware of our own. In this very body of ours there are many networks that we must avoid. Let’s not trust us to this body, let’s not mix our soul into it.” 2595 The body in itself is evil, it is hostile to the human mind, 2596 just as hostile to God. 2597 And since a person cannot simultaneously be a servant of God and the flesh, he must leave the body. 2598 “Let the soul leave the body so that it can be with God, since, while remaining in the body, it moves away from Christ.” 2599 “We lift our soul,” convinces St. father, - from the bed of this body and, as it were, we will rise from this tomb, let’s distract ourselves from the bodily connection, leave everything earthly, so that when the enemy comes, he would not find anything of his own in us.” 2600 Just as Abraham fled from the Chaldeans and renounced his father's inheritance in order to become a partaker of the faith, so the Christian must leave the physical inheritance and acquire the inheritance of the promise. 2601 And Moses was ordered to take off his boots, so that he who had to call the people into the kingdom of God would first of all put aside the coverings of his body and approach with an open spirit and the (reasonable) foot of his mind. 2602 What does it mean to free yourself from the bodily heritage, to leave the body? This means that one must free oneself from bodily pleasures, 2603 from bodily lusts 2604 or, in other words, free oneself from sins. 2605 But this is not enough. It is necessary not only to free oneself from the temptations of the flesh, but also to mortify it. “Let our flesh die, so that all guilt may die in it, and let us, as if raised from the dead, rise again through new deeds and morals.” 2606 “Who is,” asks St. father, who dies daily, if not he who bears the death of Christ in his flesh, so that all sins may die in him?” 2607 Sometimes this death of the body of St. Ambrose represents sleep as an image and therefore exhorts: “Let your flesh sleep, but the prudence of your heart stay awake.” 2608 But since these temptations of the body (according to Stoic teaching) owe their origin to the fact that desires acquire in a person a preponderance over his mind, “covered by certain clouds of unreason,” 2609 then all the efforts of a Christian in this case should be aimed at giving reason dominion over the passions and movements of the soul, 2610 so that “will does not anticipate reason and does not forget about it and, thus, does not introduced disturbances into the activity of the mind, so that it did not exclude or deny it.” 2611 You need to strengthen your mind so that no sorrows, no fears and horrors can crush it, 2612 so that it promotes virtue and limits passions. 2613 In general, a Christian is called upon to be especially careful in relation to his body and its passions, 2614 so that the soul is not captured by the desires of the body, 2615 so that the mind not only does not weaken, 2616 but, on the contrary, overcomes the passions of the body. 2617 This victory is achieved in two ways: either by weakening the flesh, or by completely killing it. The more the flesh and its desire are weakened, the stronger the spirit becomes, 2618 which now assumes the rights of the master. “What can be higher, what is more glorious than to live wisely, to weaken the flesh and bring it into a state of submission, so that it obeys the command and submits to the guidance of the mind?” 2619 Regarding the mortification of the flesh of St. Ambrose argues this way. There is a law of the flesh and a law of the mind. It is necessary that they be in agreement, and this happens when the flesh is completely subordinate to the spirit, when it is mortified; It is mortified when the wisdom is not carnal, but spiritual. 2620 Then the soul of the wise uses the body as an instrument or organ; she, like a glorious mistress, leads the obedient body where she wants, sculpts from it the image she desires and makes the virtues that she wants resound in her. 2621 A person achieves such results in relation to the body thanks to the virtue of abstinence (or moderation) (moderatio, abstintntia, temperantia), which observes measure and order in everything, 2622 which is the predecessor of correction, 2623 which cuts off 2624 and eradicates even traces of human passions. 2625 This virtue, regardless of the position it occupied in Stoic ethics, St. Ambrose places it very highly, asserting that it is “one might say the most beautiful of all virtues” (prope omnium virtutum pulcherrima) and that it was she who spread the church purchased by the Blood of the Lord. 2626 The Stoic concept of sin comes from St. Ambrose is a relatively modest place: on the contrary, a negative ascetic attitude towards the flesh as the source of sin, instructions to flee the flesh and mortify it appear in St. father to the fore. It is necessary for the flesh and the world to die in order to be resurrected for new life. Hence, just as a Christian must use the world, as if not using it and as if passing through it, so “he must use the body like shoes, for the sake of service, and not command, for obedience, and not for pleasure.” 2627 Distinguishing, following the example of Philo, the concepts operator terrae and agrocola and equating the body with the earth, 2628 St. Ambrose says that the sinner works on the body like a mercenary, for the sake of profit, but the righteous works (excolat) it in order to acquire the fruit and grace of good teaching 2629 and make his members weapons of justice, 2630 so that the fire of passion, excessive desire, does not burn the body, this covering of the soul. 2631 A Christian achieves these good goals when, as stated above, he suppresses the lusts of the flesh, when he mortifies his body. The best means for this is fasting, 2632 which St. Ambrose showers the same tireless praise as St. Basil the Great. 2633 General meaning of the fast of St. Ambrose defines it this way: the law prohibits us from excess in food, in order to thereby give dominance to reason. 2634 As for the most particular definitions of fasting, St. the father characterizes him as “a heavenly essence and image, peace of the soul, food for the mind, the life of angels..., a saving remedy, the root of grace, the foundation of purity.” 2635 In short: St. Ambrose recognizes fasting as the source of almost all virtues. Fasting is “the teacher of abstinence, the teaching of modesty, humility of the mind, the purification of the flesh, the image of sobriety, the rule of virtue, the purification of the soul, the prodigal of mercy..., the grace of love..., the guardian of youth, the support of weakness, the bread of salvation.” 2636 Fasting is further attributed the power to extinguish the power of fire, 2637 to stop the mouths of lions, 2638 to bring forth water from rocks, 2639 to resolve infertility, 2640 to command the elements 2641 and to raise the dead. 2642 Fasting is necessary for everyone who proclaims Christ, 2643 it is necessary for every believer, because only thanks to this feat, 2644 a Christian cleanses himself, cleanses his flesh, 2645 defeats and defeats the devil, 2646 deserves forgiveness of sins 2647 and a return to paradise. 2648 However, fasting produces such an effect only if it is combined with good deeds. 2649 On the other hand, the most serious sins require exceptional measures: they are cured not simply by fasting, but, according to the apostolic command, by exhaustion of the flesh, “for unless the carnal sense dies, there can be no fruit of eternal life.” 2650 By placing the miserable life of man in the flesh and in general in the world, this kingdom of evil, in connection with the sin of pride and exaltation of the first man, and on the other hand, considering redemption, among other things, as a consequence of the obedience of Jesus Christ, 2651 St. Ambrose, like St. Vasily, of all the duties of a person towards himself, humility comes to the fore as the head of all virtues, 2652 as a principle opposite to the one that now reigns in the world. 2653 Only he who has humbled himself can free himself from the power of the body, which burdens the soul, from the power of the age, 2654 only he can open his eyes and recognize the truth coming from the mouth of God. 2655 And this is because humility itself, full of truth and justice, comes from God. 2656 And Christ humbled Himself in order to exalt everyone, 2657 with humility He gathered His church, 2658 He taught humility to His followers, for he did not say: “Learn from Me, for I am strong,” but: “For I am humble.” 2659 Humility must be demonstrated always and everywhere. It is commendable in our prayer to God, from Whom it deserves rich mercy, 2660 it is irreplaceable in human relationships, since it brings even strangers together, 2661 it gives the Christian himself everything he needs, 2662 and, most importantly, it justifies a person before God - for he is only righteous and pleasing to Christ who denies himself, 2663 - and at the same time makes him immortal. 2664 From here it is quite clear that the holier a person is, the more humble he is 2665: the Pharisee had more virtues than the tax collector, but since the latter showed humility, he was justified more than the Pharisee. 2666 Not only that. Humility is a virtue that is praised by God even in a pagan. 2667 So high is the virtue of humility. “Is there anything more glorious than humility?” 2668 – asks St. the father answers: “There is nothing higher than humility” (nihil est excelsius humilitate). 2669 The virtue of humility is manifested not only in the deeds themselves, but also in the words. 2670 The greatest form of humility in this case is silence, 2671 an example of which was given to us by Christ, who was silent before Pilate. 2672 The saints, due to the fact that the voice often serves as a harbinger of sin and speech as the beginning of error, loved silence. 2673 After all, the first sin owed its origin to speech, for the unclean and cunning serpent first tempted us through the voice. 2674 Since talkativeness leads to the destruction of innocence and virtue, as well as incitement to fall and sin, 2675 it is necessary to have your own door in your mouth, which you should close at the right time, 2676 because whoever holds his tongue cultivates good behavior, as well as meekness and patience. 2677 Silence requires a particularly strong effort of will from a person. That is why many, even those who triumphed over torment, could not always bear the cruel word, 2678 and in Scripture the patient is considered more courageous than the one who takes the city. 2679 In general, St.’s strictness in speech. Ambrose goes so far as to say that he does not recognize (at least for the clergy) the permissibility of jokes, 2680 rightly pointing out that a person will have to give an answer to God for every idle word. 2681 The attitude of a Christian to wealth, poverty and the misfortunes of life in general, as well as to temptations The nature of the above attitude of St. Ambrose towards the flesh and the world makes it possible to affirm in advance the negative attitude of St. father and to worldly goods and, in particular, to wealth. So it really was (with some limitations, however, as we will see below). A virtuous life and the bliss associated with it, according to St. father, is a self-sufficient good, and therefore the perfect or wise man considers only this life to be good (solum et praclarum bonum), only he desires it, only strives for it, only enjoys it. 2682 Possessing this good, the righteous or the perfect possesses true wealth, 2683 freeing him from all want or lack. 2684 Since a virtuous life is not only a good in general, but also a unique good, since outside and apart from it there is no other good. That is why for a righteous person 2685 all earthly things are completely indifferent (after all, the misfortunes of life do not take anything away from him, and prosperity does not add anything to his only good 2686) - that is why, in particular, the righteous person is completely indifferent to earthly goods, including wealth. 2687 True, he sometimes rejoices in earthly things, for example, he rejoices in children. However, this joy does not add anything to his bliss, since even if he loses his children, he will not become less happy, for this loss has not diminished his perfections, and what is perfect is also blissful. 2688 As for wealth, the wealth of the righteous is not in earthly things, not in the human and physical, but in the divine and spiritual, 2689 in the strength of mind and “in the good spiritual coin of the image and likeness of God,” 2690 in the wealth of “heavenly revelations,” according to the words of the psalmist: “In the ways of your testimonies I have been delighted, as if in all riches” (Ps. 118; 14 2691). The righteous is rich in faith, which endows him with the wealth of the world, 2692 so that he no longer needs anything, 2693 - and not only in faith, but also in piety and charity, and, most importantly, he is rich in Christ 2694 the Lord, 2695 in Whom alone he rejoices. 2696 “If you want to be rich,” St. instructs. father, be poor for the world so that you can be rich for God. Rich in faith, rich in God; rich in wisdom, rich in knowledge, rich in the Lord.” 2697 But not only the perfect and righteous one, but also every Christian, due to the opposition of the present and future life, cannot consider anything that relates to this age and to the present life to be good. He knows that if there is feasting, joy, jumping and singing, then there will be fasting, tears, prayers and groaning 2698 and, conversely, if this life is in work, then that life is at rest. 2699 The Christian also knows well that of these two opposite lives, true life is only there and, conversely, earthly life and all the treasures of this world are nothing and everything that is in it is a lie. 2700 There is no true good in anything earthly: neither in power and honor, nor in good health, 2701 nor, finally, in what is most often taken for good, in wealth, which passes away 2702 and which cannot be taken with you to the grave, 2703 in anything perishable, the search for which testifies only to vanity, 2704 there is no true good. But, if, in this way, true life and true good are possible only beyond the grave, then it is self-evident that only a fool would want to “gather up the bodily things of the soul,” 2705 the wise and generally Christian have a negative attitude towards all the “alien to his nature” 2706 blessings of this world, for good is only that which is related to the future eternal and blessed life. 2707 From this point of view, can, for example, wealth be considered a good thing? What good is it, really? Does it bring any benefit to the soul, does it follow the soul into the future life? 2708 After all, only virtue is the companion of the dead, only mercy follows us, 2709 wealth matters only to those living on earth, and there is no benefit from it to the dead, just as there is no benefit to the living. Wealth not only does not bring benefit to a person, but, on the contrary, even harms him, or rather, his soul, 2710 because various kinds of monetary profits entail the loss of virtue, and luxury not only destroys virtue, but also leads to the loss of true faith and forgetting the commandments of God. 2711 This is why the righteous, knowing that every gain of this age is destruction for the soul, does not care about any gain except that which relates to eternal life. 2712 “Despise it,” instructs St. father, “everything that belongs to the age and the reproach of the Lord’s passion is preferable to almost all riches,” 2713 because disdain for wealth is “a very solid foundation for virtue” 2714 and therefore: “Who is more glorious than the one who is not seduced by gold, who is indifferent to money and, as if from some stronghold, looks with contempt at human passions?” 2715 This is the view of St. father for earthly goods and, in particular, for wealth. However, St. Ambrose does not always have such a negative attitude towards the goods of this world. Sometimes he betrays his teaching about virtue as the only good, and in relation to the Aristotelian understanding of perfect bliss, consisting of the goods of the soul, body and random ones, he argues that goods according to their value fall into three categories: the first should include the goods of the soul, the second - the goods of the body, for example, health, strength, beauty, and finally, the third - the goods of a random nature, such as wealth, friends, fatherland, fame. 2716 Taking an essentially Aristotelian view of the good, St. the father, in accordance with her, changes his view of wealth. Thus, he no longer denies it categorically, but says that wealth can be both good and evil (indifferentia bona 2717) depending on how it is used, and that “the heavenly saying condemns not those who have wealth, but those who do not know how to use it,” 2718 that it is not the riches themselves that are subject to censure, for there is room for virtue in them, 2719 but only the riches of sinners. 2720 ​​When can wealth be a blessing? “Then,” answers St. father, - when it is a means for you for virtue (adjumentum virtutis 2721), when you use it for works of mercy, when you “waste” it, 2722 when you bestow it on the poor, 2723 when you redeem your soul through it. 2724 It is only under this condition of beneficence of St. Ambrose is ready to recognize wealth as a blessing. On the contrary, if wealth is not squandered on works of mercy, then it no longer becomes good, but evil, since it harms the rich, 2725 closest of all, by giving rise to greed in him 2726 and removing from him the image of God, clothing him in earthly things. 2727 In his later works, St. Ambrose, depending on the ascetic way of thinking he had adopted, more decisively than before denies wealth, the possession of which he considers a misfortune for a Christian and a burden for those who own it. 2728 “What seems good, for example, wealth, prosperity, joy, alien to sorrow, is in fact an obstacle to obtaining bliss, as is clear from the sayings of the Lord: “Woe to you who are rich, for you already have your consolation.” Woe to you, you who are full, for you will hunger “(Luke 6; 24 – 25 2729). “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). If poverty is blessed, to which heaven is open, let us despise these bodily riches, let us renounce bodily abundance.” 2730 Along the way (in connection with the question of God’s providence) St. Ambrose touches on and resolves the question of why in this world it often happens that the sinners enjoy wealth while the righteous are poor. He gives two explanations for this fact. First. Riches belong to the age, and “the age is subject to the evil of the age.” Hence, if sinners use wealth, then they use what is sinful, which bears the stamp of evil. Moreover, the princes of the world patronize those who serve them. 2731 The conclusion from this is that Christians should not ask God for the reward of the age and hope for what belongs to the world. 2732 Since wealth is recognized as both sinful and vain, St. Ambrose argues that the rich are actually poor, because the true inheritance does not belong to them, 2733 and, on the other hand, the more the rich have, the more they desire and thus the more they need. 2734 Second. By sending riches to sinners - something random, the Lord places trust in them, so that they will not later have any reason to excuse their untruths. 2735 The question of the misfortunes and sufferings of this life, as well as their meaning for a Christian, is resolved by St. Ambrose in the same spirit as the question of wealth. And in resolving this issue, St. Ambrose, two types of justification or two elements are noticeable: a more random one - Stoic and a more permanent one - Christian. Based on Stoic principles, St. the father says that poverty and, in general, the misfortunes of this life are something indifferent, 2736 which in no way diminishes the blissful state 2737 of the sage, who is contemptuous of all the misfortunes and sufferings of the world 2738 for the simple reason that they do not exist for him. Standing on Christian soil, St. Ambrose does not deny suffering, but, on the contrary, in connection with his assertion of the fact of the opposition between the present life and the future, he speaks, on the one hand, about the need for Christians to suffer in this world of evil, and on the other, about the usefulness of this suffering for a person’s moral life. Living in the present world, in this age of evil and the kingdom of the devil, a Christian is called to fight against this age and this kingdom. Hence, the whole life of a person on earth is spent in constant labor, suffering and disasters. 2739 And Christ, who came to redeem people, could achieve this only through suffering for His servants. 2740 His disciples and co-heirs must follow the same path of suffering: “He is a joint heir with Him who is glorified with Him, and he is glorified who through suffering for Him has compassion for Him” (Rom. 8:16). 2741 This is why whoever seeks Christ also seeks His sorrows and does not give up suffering, 2742 for only “through tears, lamentations and very frequent prayers do we achieve the power of eternal bliss,” 2743 for through many sorrows a person must enter that kingdom of God, 2744 to which the narrow path leads not wide. 2745 However, blessed is not the one who suffers, but the one who overcomes suffering, who does not succumb to the influence of temporary sorrow. 2746 The latter is possible for a Christian because he not only suffers, but suffers in the hope of a future blessed life. 2747 “The righteous person knows that if he suffers in this life, he will not suffer in the next, and whoever has not struggled here has no hope of reward in the future. Whoever has received the benefit here has (already) his reward.” 2748 Before the glory of the next century, all the suffering of this world 2749 is nothing: not poverty, 2750 not insults and persecution, 2751 not even death and martyrdom. 2752 True, in suffering there is sometimes such an excess that even the powerful spirit of the saints is not able to suppress. 2753 But one should not give in to despondency, since God sends angels to protect those who are heirs of divine promises. 2754 On the other hand, this excess and bitterness of suffering does not spoil the sweetness of bliss. “During the harvest of a good conscience, there may be an admixture of some sorrow,” but this bitterness is invisible “in the sheaf of a blessed life.” 2755 “Save,” exhorts St. Father, consider your reward for the future and the reproach of this world to be an increase in your reward.” 2756 It should be added, however, that the misfortunes of this world are useful to us not only in view of the future life, but also in the present, and precisely because joy and good fortune overcome the mind and lead it to sin, 2757 as was the case, for example, with the Jewish people, who, having become fed and fat, rose up for games and retreated from the Lord. 2758 On the contrary, misfortunes make a person especially devoted to God: after all, in misfortunes, dangers and fasts, the outer and carnal man dies and the inner man is renewed, 2759 and therefore “for you,” concludes St. Ambrose, “it is good to have a contrite heart.” 2760 Speaking about the Christian's enduring of the sufferings of this life, St. Ambrose tries to emphasize one feature of Christian suffering. A believer in Christ endures suffering not stupidly, as is characteristic of the Stoic sage, and not with hope only for a future life, 2761 but, following the example of Christ Himself, also with joy. “Let us rejoice in our sufferings, as Christ rejoiced in His,” 2762 – exhorts St. father of his flock. “To the perfect one,” says St. Ambrose in De Iacob, - the sadness of this world is alien, all arousal of bodily sorrow is alien" 2763. And the reward is given only to those who rejoice in misfortunes; on the contrary, none of the sorrowful are crowned, just as none of the sad ones win. 2764 “Where is patience,” writes St. Ambrose to Irenaeus, “there is joy.” 2765 “But if all the disasters of this life are nothing for a Christian, then,” argues St. father, - for him, what is considered the greatest misfortune of this life - death - is not evil.” After all, only that which harms the soul should be considered evil; death does not harm the soul, therefore, it is not evil. 2766 But that which is not evil is good, 2767 from which it follows that death is also good. 2768 After all, death is actually the separation of soul and body, in which the soul is liberated and the body is destroyed; the one who is liberated rejoices, but the one who goes into his own earth feels nothing 2769; death is thus peace for the body and freedom or permission for the soul, 2770 which after death passes on to a “higher,” 2771 “happier life.” 2772 On the other hand, if real life is full of burdens, then death, which puts an end to it, is a blessing. 2773 But death is especially beneficial for a person’s moral life, since it frees him from vices and passions that tempt even the righteous, 2774 from all sin, 2775 and also from all guilt. 2776 Even more than that: death is saving. “What more can we say about death than that it was death that redeemed the world.” 2777 If the Son of God Himself did not shy away from death, then we should not shy away from it either. 2778 True, we are afraid of death, but for no other reason than because we have an unclean, “wounded” conscience 2779; It is not physical death that we should fear and avoid, but moral death, when the soul dies. 2780 As for physical death, not only should it not be avoided, but, on the contrary, desired and even anticipated: we achieve this when we behave as if we had already left this world, for mortification (of the flesh) is an imitation of death and its anticipation. Through this anticipation, we can get ourselves in advance, like the Apostle Paul, a place in heaven. 2781 It is enough just to reject everything mortal, and we acquire the benefits of death. 2782 “We need to die to the world in order for God to live. If we live by the flesh, then, of course, the rationality of the flesh is death; We cannot then live to God, for this carnal wisdom and the life of this age are hostile to Him.” 2783 But no matter how gloomy colors St. Ambrose the life of this century, no matter how severe the sufferings and disasters of this life are, no matter how desirable liberation from them and from sinful flesh is, however, St. my father categorically denies that suicide is permissible for Christians. “It is not permissible for a person,” he instructs, “to commit violence against himself, 2784 not to mention the fact that running around the world requires staying in it.” 2785 The Holy Father points out the inconsistency of those who resort to suicide: they cannot bear death and at the same time strive for it - what they avoid as an evil, they take as a medicine. 2786 Only in one case did St. Ambrose considers suicide permissible - this is in the case of dishonor. Thus, he approves of the act of Pelagia of Antioch and her sisters, who drowned themselves in the river to save their honor. 2787 So, a Christian must not only resignedly, but also joyfully endure suffering and disasters, because they are a necessary part of the present evil world and present life, so contrary to the life of the future century. 2788 But, besides this foundation, St. Ambrose also points out something else, which not only reconciles a Christian with the misfortunes he experiences, but even makes him desire them. God, sending people disasters and suffering, generally tempting them, does this in order to strengthen a person in goodness. 2789 Temptation prompts a person to introspection, critical assessment and a more accurate understanding of his strengths and the surrounding reality. “Temptation,” says St. Ambrose, - like an arrow, it penetrates inside a person, it, like the sword of the Lord or, what is also the verb of God, explores the secret places of the human being 2790: thanks to it, a person has the opportunity to separate from himself what is transitory, like chaff, 2791 and in any case not attribute to himself anything supernatural (supra hominem)” 2792. In those cases when a person, thanks to success and happiness, falls into conceit or wickedness, temptations and disasters return him to the path of righteousness, as can be seen in the example of the Jews. 2793 But temptations not only return a person to the path of righteousness, but also, which acquires special value, strengthen him on this path. Temptation is an exercise of our faith, 2794 an exercise of the soul. 2795 Just as the strength of the body increases with frequent exercise and, on the contrary, weakens if it is not exercised, so is the case with mental strength, 2796 and with our faith in God. Where there are no temptations, there is no spiritual strength, no virtue, no victory, 2797 for all the temptations of this world are an exercise of faith, a sign of patience, a glorious training of virtue, a victorious confession (exercitium fidei, insigne patientiae, eruditio gloriosa virtutis, confessio plena victoriae). 2798 “Not a great merit,” says St. father, “do not deviate from the commandments of the Lord when you enjoy well-being, when no one offends you, no one persecutes you.” It is much more important if you do not depart from God, having lost all your property and children. 2799 After all, persecution is then sent by God so that “faith will shine, so that virtue will shine, so that the inner mind will be revealed to everyone.” 2800 And we should not fear temptations for which there is a reward as evil, but, on the contrary, 2801 like a righteous person, desire and ask God for such temptations that we can endure. 2802 One should not be afraid even of severe suffering, because where there is greater work, there is greater reward, 2803 where there are many temptations, there are also many crowns and awards, 2804 where there are more temptations, there is more glory, 2805 just as the helmsman is then more glorious when he “avoids shipwreck in a storm, among the heaving waves, cutting through and not hiding from them.” 2806 St. himself Ambrose sympathizes with the times of persecution, which forced Christians to be attentive to themselves, fostered disdain for death and brought people closer to God. 2807 But this is not enough. Temptations not only strengthen faith and increase glory, they also impart peace and bliss to the soul. “Peace can be established in a person’s soul,” says St. father, - only thanks to temptations, for peace and tranquility come only when a person expels or suppresses vain thoughts, when he eliminates all movements of emerging passions, when sorrows, persecution, hunger, danger, and the sword become more frequent.” 2808 On the other hand, these same temptations impart joy and bliss to the human soul - the apostles, for example, rejoiced at suffering for the name of the Lord. 2809 This is understandable. After all, suffering, like temptation, is sent by God, but God punishes the one He loves. 2810 That's why St. the father considers blessed those who are subject to the calamities and sufferings of this life. “Who will now deny,” he asks, “that those who suffered are more blessed than those who did not suffer any torment of persecutors,” 2811 and this is because the bliss of the righteous by the sufferings and disasters of this life, as well as by the temptations of the passions, not only does not decrease, but, on the contrary, increases even more. 2812 God tempts people either Himself directly, or through the devil, 2813 to whom he gives the power to tempt people 2814 in order to defeat the devil and justify the righteous, 2815 and also to save the spirit of man. 2816 By tempting people and not defeating them, the devil thereby makes them stronger and better, 2817 from which it follows that with his machinations the devil does not so much harm people as, against his will, protects them. 2818 The devil in his temptations of believers is helped, as we saw above, by his angels on the one hand, and by wicked and sinful people on the other. The highest Christian virtues (κατορθώματα). Righteous or sage. Contemplative virtue (σοφία θεωρητική) It was said above about those duties or virtues in relation to God, neighbors and oneself, which every Christian must fulfill who wants to assimilate the grace-filled redemption of Christ and be justified by God. But, as we have already seen, this progress in virtue or the assimilation of the fruits of Christ's redemption does not happen suddenly, but gradually. First, a person is physical, then spiritual, and finally spiritual. First, he admires the power of his mind to the first, then to the second, then to the very third heaven, where he is honored to see the “radiance of spiritual grace.” 2819 Just as some of the athletes are called pueri, others - ephebi, others - viri (παιδες, ἕ φηβοι, πύκται), and Scripture distinguishes several levels of virtue: boys (Ps. 88; 18), young men and old men (Ps. 36; 25) or, as in St. John (1 John 2; 12 – 13): children, young men, fathers. 2820 In other words: virtue has its ages; Thus, he is courageous who is free from the mistakes of youth, who, thanks to the maturity of the spirit, does not feel the temptations of youth, and is young, who has no development in virtue. 2821 It should be noted that the height of moral perfection does not depend on the age of one or another person: there are those who are old men in their youth, and others who are young men in old age 2822; for example, in the Apostle John the youth there was a venerable old age of piety and gray wisdom, for an immaculate life is the fruit of a good old age (Wis. Sol. 4; 9). 2823 In the long ladder of a Christian’s moral success, all the above-mentioned virtues (to God, to one’s neighbors and to oneself) constitute only the first, less perfect, part of the path; it is followed by the second, which is not achieved by everyone, but only by the chosen; this second part, this highest moral mood 2824 also has its own special, perfect virtues. We find the idea of ​​two paths of moral perfection - κατόρθωμα and καθῆκον - in Stoicism, in Philo and the fathers and teachers of the church of both the earlier (Clement of Alexandria 2825) and later (Eusebius of Caesarea 2826) periods. Like them, St. Ambrose accepts the Stoic (essentially) doctrine of perfect duties - κατόρθώματα and ordinary or average - καθήκοντα, 2827 of which the first are characteristic of a few, and the second of almost everyone. 2828 But only in De officiis ministrorum does the Stoic concept of these two kinds of virtue appear in St. father in almost all his spontaneity. Usually it takes a Christian form with him and he, in relation to the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7; 25, distinguishes between the commandments “instruction” and “command” (ordinary virtues) on the one hand, and “advice” (perfect virtues) on the other. The commandment is binding on everyone, but the advice is only on the chosen ones. 2829 “Advice is given to the virtuous, but instruction holds back the erring.” 2830 But perfect virtues also accept the entire inheritance of glory, while ordinary ones acquire only “something less valuable.” 2831 As for the content contained in the words “command” and “advice,” then with the first St. Ambrose sometimes connects the idea of ​​the Old Testament Law, and with the second - of the Gospel grace, 2832 however, more often by the word “command” he means all those commandments in relation to God, neighbors and oneself, which were mentioned above, and by “advice” - mainly virginity, then martyrdom, poverty and, finally, love for enemies. 2833 Of these highest virtues, we have already spoken about love for enemies when we talked about the commandment of love for people; about the poverty of 2834 and the martyrdom of 2835 St. Ambrose says little in general and only talks about virginity at length. In the concept of the virtue of virginity of St. Ambrose brings to the fore bodily purity, 2836 which he calls the mother of all virtues, 2837 for “she cannot,” he argues, “not contain all moral virtues.” 2838 Thanks to their purity and chastity, virgins have a nature alien to bodily filth, pure and undamaged, such as children have, “who, as not being involved in vice, by the very innocence of their age, have retained the gift of chastity.” 2839 Virgins are awarded the kingdom of heaven, for “it belongs to those who, through ignorance of vice, approach childish nature.” 2840 But, since the kingdom of heaven bestows angelic life, virgins still here on earth are likened to the angels of God, “who are not connected to each other by any marriage ties” 2841 and who, thanks to their non-involvement in body and matter, stand above the greatest man himself. 2842 For these reasons, the Milanese saint places the virtue of virginity extremely highly, even considering it the main virtue. 2843 She, according to him, has heaven as her fatherland, 2844 as her superior is Christ, whose flesh did not see corruption, and whose Divinity was not involved in sin, 2845 as her image is the church. 2846 The virgins are surrounded by a special guard of angels, whose lives they imitated. 2847 To the virgins of St. Ambrose, in agreement with the Apostle, 2848 also equates those widows who did not want to enter into a second marriage, although he considers virginity higher than widowhood. 2849 This is how St. Ambrose defines more perfect and less perfect virtues, although this distinction is given to him relatively rarely, and only in theory; usually he speaks about a virtuous or non-virtuous state in general. “Both wisdom and unwisdom,” he writes, “can be perfect and imperfect, but they are designated by one name.” 2850 So, (in general) a virtuous state makes a person perfect. But, since only one who has assimilated the fruit of Christ’s redemption will be a perfect Christian, then the perfect one is at the same time justified and righteous. St. Ambrose does not set out to characterize righteousness and therefore only accidentally and in passing indicates the features of righteousness, which he merges with virtue. The righteous are those who are distinguished by moral perfection, who are alien to sin, who reinforce their faith with good deeds, 2851 who, according to the biblical expression (1 Cor. 2:2), enter into the fire with noble metals - gold and silver, which here burned their sins on the fire of divine love, for “whoever has the fire of love here has nothing to fear from the fiery sword there.” 2852 The righteous not only fulfills his duties to God, but, what is even higher, following the example of God Himself, who is quick in His words and deeds, he tries to be a quick executor of the Lord’s commands. 2853 In the 7th speech of the interpretation of Psalm 118 of St. Ambrose sets out, among other things, the rules that guide a righteous or saint. 1. He thinks about heavenly rewards. 2854 2. In times of misfortune, he finds consolation in Holy Scripture. 3. He does not retreat, but, on the contrary, strengthens himself even more in the law at the sight of the godless and wicked, as well as their abundance of wealth. 2855 4. He thinks about divine judgment. 2856 5. He is compassionate towards evil people and enemies, 2857 even if he is insulted. 2858 6. He praises God with hymns, singing and psalms. 2859 7. He always glorifies God. 2860 In more detail, St. the father describes the qualities of the righteous when he speaks of him as a sage, what is the rapprochement or identification of the righteous with the sage for the saint. Ambrose is very consistent. We have already seen that through the wisdom of St. the father recognized both the justification (σοφία λογική) of virtue and the virtue itself (σοφία πρακτική). It was therefore quite natural for him to assert that he who has reached the pinnacle of virtue has reached the pinnacle of wisdom and that therefore he is a sage. Hence the righteous (fidelis) and the wise are one and the same. 2861 The concept of the sage, as the most perfect person, was especially developed by the Stoics, who endowed their sage, among other things, with the following qualities: perfect knowledge and wisdom, perfect virtue, complete freedom, independence from external conditions (he is rich and has no need for anything), independence from anything outside of him (being at peace or apathy) and, finally, contentment and bliss. St. Ambrose borrows this concept of the sage from Stoicism, but, accepting Stoic forms and definitions, he fills them with Christian content, and, while the Stoics either completely denied the possibility of the actual existence of their sage, honoring him only in an ideal way, or counted sages in single units, St. the father recognizes every (virtuous) Christian as a sage. “Whoever has accepted Christ is wise, and whoever is wise is free; therefore, every Christian is both wise and free.” 2862 Christian sage at St. Ambrose has perfect wisdom, understood both in the theoretical (λογική) and practical (πρακτική) sense, 2863 i.e., he has knowledge of virtue and, at the same time, active and perfect virtue, 2864 ignorant of the vices characteristic of the unwise. 2865 The wise, further, is free. 2866 This freedom of St. Ambrose understands in various senses, but primarily in the sense of free will. “A wise man does nothing against his will, and he is not forced to do anything.” 2867 “He is also free in action itself, for he does only what he wants.” 2868 Hence, the freedom of the sage is defined as freedom to govern oneself, and is contrasted with the slavery of the unwise. “Stupidity is so much worse than slavery that slavery is a saving grace for it, for a fool cannot govern himself, he has no ruler and is carried away by his own pleasures.” 2869 Sometimes the freedom of the righteous is understood by St. father in the sense of the freedom that Christ’s redemption brought to humanity, 2870 and, most closely, in the sense of freedom from the Law, which lost its power over the righteous who became above the Law. “The wise man is always free, always in honor, he is always the one who is above the laws.” 2871 Why? Because the will of a wise or righteous person is so strengthened in goodness that it no longer needs the dictates of the law. “The law is not given to the righteous, but to the unrighteous (2 Tim. 1:9), for the righteous is a law unto himself; he no longer has the need to assimilate the image of virtue, for he carries it in his heart, having the work of the law written on the tablets of his heart.” 2872 If pagans “do what is lawful by nature,” then all the more is this characteristic of the wise and righteous, 2873 who voluntarily, 2874 and not out of fear of punishment, does good. 2875 The will of the sage is so strengthened in goodness that sin and even a sinful desire become impossible for him, just as they are impossible for children, 2876 to whom any thought of sin is alien. “Such is the power of perfect correction that it returns you to a state of spiritual childhood, for it does not know the ways of error and, even if it wanted to commit sin, it cannot, since it has forgotten how to sin.” 2877 However, the freedom 2878 of a Christian from the yoke of the law and slavery to sin is at the same time slavery to Christ. 2879 But this slavery is slavery in spirit (ex animo and not by necessity 2880; it is good, for only thanks to this slavery does a person become free from real slavery. 2881 “Christ, whom he binds, frees him, and whom he binds, he looses.” 2882 Moreover: slavery to Christ is a state of not only freedom, but even reign, for to serve means to reign. (Deo servire regnare est 2883). If slavery to Christ makes a person free, then, on the contrary, moving away from Christ is a loss of freedom and a transition to a state of slavery, 2884 which is why the Holy Father writes: “Whoever wants to be the master of his own will and at the same time not be under the bonds of the Lord Jesus has become mature in sins and fallen into a state of stupidity.” 2885 But since the bonds of Christ are the bonds of love, mercy and faith, 2886 then service (servire) to others is nothing more than a manifestation of Christian freedom. 2887 “The Apostle taught me that higher than freedom itself lies the freedom to serve. Although I was free, (yet) I made myself a slave of all, in order to win many (1 Cor. 9; 19). What is higher than freedom, if not the possession of the Spirit of grace, if not the possession of love? Freedom makes people free, but love makes people a friend of God.” 2888 The wise man is free within himself, free and outside himself. He has no need or lack of anything, since the whole world of wealth belongs to him, 2889 for whoever lives in accordance with nature considers everything that belongs to nature to be his, 2890 and whoever has the benefit of virtue lacks nothing. 2891 Accepting these stoic (actually) thoughts, St. Ambrose, however, adapts them to Christian teaching, filling the pagan formulas with new content. So, if he speaks about the sage’s possession of the whole world, then it is not a sage in general, but a Christian one, thanks to affirmation in faith, who has achieved moral perfection: “Whose destiny is God, he owns nature.” 2892 This is where faith appears in St. father’s source of wealth: “Faith is sufficient in itself, sufficient and even more than sufficient: it is rich in its own opinion. After all, nothing is alien to the wise, except that which is not in accordance with virtue; Wherever he turns, he will find everything his own. The whole world is his possession, because he uses it all as if it were his own.” 2893 Sometimes St. the father sees the source of wealth in the rich conscience of the righteous, which abounds and gives, while the sinner is always in need. 2894 Sometimes, finally, the wealth of the wise St. Ambrose sees in grace, with which alone the wise man is content, 2895 since he who has acquired grace has everything, 2896 for where Christ is, there is everything. 2897 Stoicism further asserted that the wise enjoy complete peace and bliss. But the bliss of the sage among the Stoics had some vague character, since they believed in apathy the completion of moral life. St. Ambrose eliminates this ambiguity, filling the word “bliss” with a certain content, composed, firstly, from the concept of peace and joy of a cleansed conscience and at the same time the consciousness of one’s virtue, and secondly, from the blessedness of the knowledge of God and contemplation of God. “Perfect virtue has peace and undisturbed tranquility, for which all the misfortunes of the world do not matter. She stands motionless, as if on the safest rock, and the mind remains quiet and calm before all the storms of this century.” 2898 “What is the fruit of justice,” asks St. Father, what if it’s not peace of mind? Or what does it mean to live justly, if not to live in peace?” 2899 This peace is actually the peace of conscience and consciousness of one’s virtue. “For the righteous, his state of mind is a source of bliss, and for a sinner, it is a source of suffering: the first is justified by his judgment, and the second is condemned; the first one rejoices at death, and the second one is sad.” 2900 The concept of blessedness of the righteous includes not only the consciousness of a clear conscience, not only the consciousness of one’s good deeds, 2901 but also the consciousness of the divine grace received. 2902 The last element is of primary importance, for “Your grace makes us more blessed than our innocence.” 2903 However, the most essential element in the concept of bliss is the knowledge of wisdom, and even closer, the knowledge of divine mysteries. Philo, as we know, taught that the goal of human aspirations is mystical unity and contemplation of the Divine, that a virtuous life serves as a preparation for this contemplation, and renunciation from sensuality and carnality is a necessary condition. We find the same thoughts in St. Ambrose. Contemplation is the completion of a virtuous life, it is σοφία θεωρητική, 2904 which a person cannot achieve before he becomes virtuous and renounces materiality, for “the light and glory of God cannot be seen otherwise than by renouncing the worries of human weakness.” 2905 The blissful state of knowledge of God, which St. Ambrose sometimes designates simply as “knowledge” and specifically God 2906 or as “knowledge of wisdom”, 2907 knowledge of “wisdom”, 2908 as libertas (Libertatem nostram in cognitione esse sapientiae 2909), given only to those who have achieved perfection, for “wisdom does not enter a bad soul.” 2910 Just as sick eyes fear the light, so a weak mind cannot bear the radiance of wisdom 2911; an imperfect person uses only “average” teachings, he is only a stranger, and not a possessor of wisdom, since only perfect virtues accept the entire inheritance of glory. 2912 This is why the Apostle Paul preached in heaven what he could not preach on earth, for the secrets of wisdom must be spoken among the perfect. 2913 Bringing this knowledge of God closer to a certain extent to the prophetic “teaching in the law,” St. Ambrose says that in the first book of psalms the order is indicated according to which one must first love the law 2914 and walk in life, and only then learn from the law; first one must perceive the moral, in which life is contained, then the mystical, in which knowledge is given. However, life and knowledge are united by the closest connection. “If you seek perfection, then there is neither life without knowledge, nor knowledge without life; one is assimilated to the other.” 2915 So, only the perfect one is worthy of “the knowledge of heavenly mysteries,” 2916 those “secrets of wisdom” that the apostle heard when he was caught up to the third heaven, 2917 that “glory of God that illuminates the mind of the wise with the brilliance of knowledge and divine understanding,” 2918 that “depth of knowledge” that resides in the sanctuary of God. 2919 Thoughts on the mystical knowledge of God by St. Ambrose elaborates in letter 37, written under the direct influence of Philo. “Who is wise,” he asks, “if not the one who has reached the very secrets of the Divine and clearly knows the hidden wisdom? He is only wise who, under the guidance of God, has reached the knowledge of the source of truth. Thus, through grace, mortal man became the heir and successor of the immortal God, and also a partaker of joy, as it is written: “Therefore, O God, Thy God hath anointed Thee with the oil of joy more than Thy fellow servants” (Ps. 44:8). 2920 In the interpretation of Psalm 35, St. Ambrose writes the following on the same subject: “In darkness God established His dwelling, so that you would initially receive the rain of mystical fruitfulness and then, saturated with heavenly dew, know the brilliance of the revealed light, so that you could say: “We have received from His fullness” (John 1:16). 2921 It should be noted, however, that mystical divine knowledge is communicated to the soul of the righteous not directly, but through the Word of God, through Christ, Who is the Bridegroom, mystically united with the soul of the righteous, as with His bride. 2922 Hence, the immediate goal of man is the knowledge of the Word, since from Him, from this Bridegroom living in the soul of man, comes the truth, 2923 which delivers inexplicable bliss, for “the pleasure of divine knowledge exceeds all joy of earthly pleasure.” 2924 “Blessed is he who is satisfied in Christ,” cries St. father. 2925 “Let us enjoy this food,” exhorts St. Ambrose, about which the prophet said: “Delight yourself in the Lord” (Ps. 34:4). This food is enjoyed by those who, with some amazing mind, have perceived the highest pleasures, those who can know what this pure and intelligible pleasure of the mind is.” 2926 It is possible for the human soul to enjoy the Lord, for it carries within itself the entire Divinity, when it, this bride of the Word, thanks to faith and merit, ascends to Christ and receives heavenly seeds into the spiritual womb (uterus intelligibilis). 2927 The doctrine of the justification of man among the Western fathers and teachers of the church, as we know, was of a legal nature. However, after the West's closest acquaintance with the theological science of the East (in the 4th century), this view began to change. So, already St. Hilary spoke of the insufficiency of good works for justification and the necessity of divine mercy to achieve perfect beatitude. 2928 St. Ambrose, without abandoning, however, a completely legal understanding of justification, affirms this idea even more decisively, coming in this regard close to the view of Blessed Augustine, who at this point very often only repeats the Milanese saint. St. Ambrose was not completely alien, as we have just said, to the legal understanding of justification through personal merit, through the compensation of evil deeds with good ones. 2929 So, in one, even quite late, of his creation, he writes about the merits and virtues that protect a person: “There is true joy, this is the one that, according to the word of God, is precisely when someone rejoices, being protected by good merits and virtues.” 2930 And in an earlier exegetical work (De Cain et Abel) he directly says that we deserve divine mercy through our faith, zeal, and deeds 2931 and that in the same way we earned grace from God, and with it everything, and the forefather Israel. 2932 Not only that. Sometimes St. Ambrose categorically expresses himself in the spirit that sins must be covered with good deeds, 2933 that one must be wary so that more sins do not occur than virtues, 2934 that for the forgiveness of sins repentance is not enough, but it is also necessary to “cover up previous sins with works of correction, so that sin is not imputed to a person,” 2935 and that God examines and weighs the merits of individual people and, depending on the merit, pours out for everyone His grace. 2936 “We have merits and sins,” writes St. Ambrose. - Both are weighed as if on scales. If a person has more sins than virtues, then they follow him (1 Tim. 4:24).” 2937 Quite often also St. Ambrose equates the position of Christians on earth with the position of hired workers working in Christ's vineyard 2938 for a reward (praemium, retributio, corona certaminis, merces caelestis), which they have to receive in heaven. 2939 Future bliss is, therefore, payment for a person’s work, 2940 an abundant harvest income for his virtuous life on earth. 2941 However, the doctrine of the justification of a person by his own merits is taken by St. Ambrose is generally a very modest place: in the foreground he usually puts forward the doctrine of the justification of man solely by the grace of God. The Holy Father directly and categorically declares that nothing should be attributed to one’s own merits, but to God, Who called man, and to His grace. 2942 “No one ascribes anything to himself, but let him assimilate everything to grace... let him attribute everything to Christ.” 2943 And man achieves salvation not by his own merits, but only by the will of God 2944: the heavenly dwelling, 2945 and the promised land, 2946 and bliss, 2947 and everything is given to a person not by virtue of his merits, but by the grace or mercy of God, just as the very grace of the Lord is sent down to a person not as payment for merit, but as if by will (of God)." 2948 God gives this grace to a person both before baptism and even more abundantly (to those who diligently serve God) after baptism. “Thus,” concludes St. Father, “Christ’s gifts, incentives to virtue, and rewards.” 2949 What, after this, could a person attribute to himself, and not to the Creator of everything - God? 2950 What could he boast of, if not that by the grace of God he became a partaker of the redemption accomplished by Christ? 2951 Or will he want to take credit for the victory over the devil? But “the devil is defeated not by his merit, but by his own malice.” 2952 But in saying this, St. Ambrose is far from denying man's personal participation in his salvation. This personal participation of a person is manifested in his faith, 2953 without which a person cannot receive the rights of the heavenly kingdom. 2954 This faith preserves a person, 2955 it also justifies him. 2956 Only this faith of St. Ambrose understands it in the sense of living faith, necessarily accompanied by deeds of love. “And He (God) does not require precious gifts from you, but that fragrance of faith that the altars of your heart emit and which is distinguished by the love of a pious mind.” 2957 Sometimes, however, St. the father contrasts faith and good deeds and claims that a person is saved precisely by faith, and not by good deeds. “It is not by works, but by faith that we are justified.” 2958 “God pleased that salvation should be sought better by people’s faith than by works, so that no one, boasting about his works, would fall into sin.” 2959 With this, as well as with other statements of St. father, that faith itself is a gift of God, 2960, of course, does not at all deny the importance of a Christian’s personal initiative for salvation, 2961 but only the grace and mercy of God are placed in the foreground. This idea is best expressed by St. Ambrose in the following words. “If we fulfill what is commanded to us, we should not immediately become exalted, but, on the contrary, humble ourselves even more, because our service cannot compare with the benefits that we have received from God, such as the gifts of nature, life and salvation. And so, knowing this, the righteous one asks God for mercy.” 2962 And can, in fact, a person take credit for anything when on his own, without God’s help, he cannot even wish for anything good, 2963 much less direct the path of life according to his own desire? 2964 Not only that. Even a redeemed, reborn and already strengthened in virtue Christian cannot do without the special mercy of God, 2965 since, living in the body, this clay vessel, 2966 a person constantly sins 2967 and sometimes so deeply that he eradicates everything that the grace of God managed to plant in him. And one should not think that a righteous person is free from falls or sins, for no one is free from sin. 2968 “Who, including the righteous, is not involved in sin? Or whose life is such that it is considered worthy of the likeness of God? 2969 The sins of the redeemed man. Separating them. Sacrament of Repentance Above we became acquainted with the confusing teaching of St. Ambrose about the source of sin and its psychology (subjective side). Now let us touch upon the issue of the division of sins, as well as the consequences and significance of sins for the moral life of a redeemed person (the objective side). From a moral point of view, St. Ambrose divides all people into three categories: the righteous, the sinners, and the godless or wicked. 2970 Speaking about sins and sinners, St. the father most often means persons of the second category. In his most sinful state, St. Ambrose, based on the opening words of the first psalm, distinguishes three stages. “Blessed is the man who did not follow the advice of the wicked, and did not stand in the way of sinners, and did not sit on the seat of the plague” (Ps. 1:1). Here are indicated, as we think, three categories of sins: (sins of) thoughts, actions and statements. The one who has not thought anything evil is considered blessed... (So), first, so that a person does not become entrenched in sin, second, so that he does not stand in it, third, so that he does not think about sinful things. He who has not established himself cannot yet stand; he who has not established himself cannot think; he who has not thought is blessed.” 2971 Somewhat lower than St. the father talks about what it means not to stand in the way of sinners. “Not to stand in the way of sinners means not to allow anything disapproving in either words or deeds.” 2972 Thus, St. Ambrose distinguishes between rootedness in sins or a state of sinfulness, individual sins of deeds and words, and, finally, the easiest type of sin - sin of thought. 2973 There is actually no sharp line between the types of sin just indicated, and the transition from the sin of thought to the sinful state occurs completely imperceptibly. Hence, no matter how easy the sin of thought is, St. the father constantly reminds his flock of the need to be free even from sinful thoughts, both because the Lord will judge us not only for our deeds, but also for our thoughts, 2974 and because these apparently minor sins have their own dangerous side, for a light sin leads to a more serious one. “Just as a fire that jumps into a sheaf does not go out, but remains until it destroys everything it has captured, so even a small spark of sin, born from the tinder of vice, flares up into a big fire.” 2975 This is why it is necessary to beware of the first sins, “so that they do not become numerous and, moreover, the most severe.” 2976 Just as someone who wallows in the mud, the more he rolls around, the more dirty he becomes, so the one who covers himself with the mud of depravity, unless he frees himself from it soon, becomes more and more dirty with it every day. 2977 In the end, he reaches grave sins, and then “God moves in him to depart from him,” 2978 and at the same time the image of God is destroyed in him. 2979 This destruction or destruction of the image of God is reflected in the loss, first of all, of the “sharpness of religious tension” (“This is the rust of the spirit,” says the Holy Father), and a person’s faith is covered with a cloud of unbelief, 2980 - then, the rationality of a person, who now, having lost rationale, becomes an unreasonable, animal, carnal person (homo irrationalis, animalis, carnalis 2981), - and, further, his freedom, for whoever does not have a clear conscience is a slave, and whoever remains in sin is a slave, for he is in the heavy shackles of sin. 2982 In short, the ingrained habit of sin acquires such strength that it suppresses nature itself, which, “although curable for salvation, however, thanks to the passions intensified over time, becomes incurable.” 2983 By his subsequent stay in sin, a person changes his nature, loses his human dignity and becomes a snake, a horse, a fox 2984; having lost human dignity, he can no longer retain the very name “man”. 2985 Further rooting of man in sin leads the fallen man to the fact that the sun of righteousness dies for him (Mal. 4:2), 2986 and he himself, living in sin, dies to God - he dies not in a visible way, physically, but spiritually, spiritually and eternally 2987 death, 2988 which is evil, 2989 which is why in Scripture it is called bitter (Eccl. 7; 27) and fierce (Ps. 33; 22). 2990 As morally dead, these sinners (and pagans 2991) go down to hell 2992 while still alive and are numbered among the dead, 2993 while still alive they become members of the dragon's body, 2994 members of the kingdom of the devil, for the Lord delivered those guilty of sin into the power of His enemies. 2995 But the most difficult thing for a sinner is that he constantly experiences the severe torment of his stinking conscience, more than all the graves. 2996 “There is no pain greater than that which wounds the conscience with the edge of sin, and there is no burden heavier than the burden of sins and the weight of reproaches.” 2997 These torments of conscience, filling the heart of the sinner with sorrow, 2998 do not give him peace for a minute (for him there is only one peace of hell 2999). However, sometimes a person, due to immeasurable iniquities (propter nimias iniquitates), reaches such a degree of decline that he no longer perceives the knowledge of sin 3000 and does not confess his sins to the Lord, 3001 despite all the sorrows that God sends him in order to prompt him to repentance. 3002 Thus, through his sins, an already justified Christian loses grace, 3003 loses eternal life, of which he has already become a partaker; through sins, he breaks ties with the kingdom of Christ the Savior, with His church, which is alien to all sin and defilement, for he who sins mortally internally separates himself from the church 3004 and its grace-filled sacraments. 3005 However, God does not abandon man here either: in His mercy He gives him the means to once again become a partaker of the blessings of the heavenly kingdom. The remedy is repentance. Thanks to repentance, a person gets the opportunity to receive forgiveness of sins, approach the sacraments, be accepted into church communion, and subsequently gain eternal life itself - forgiveness of sins is, after all, eternal life. 3006 Repentance thus produces the same effect 3007 as baptism, which is why, in its internal side, repentance comes very close to baptism. As in baptism, in repentance the dying of the flesh is accomplished for the perfection of the spirit; so, at least, says St. Apostle Paul, betraying the Corinthian incest to Satan. 3008 Like baptism, repentance is not repeated, for it is performed only once and, moreover, publicly. 3009 However, St. Ambrose was not a consistent rigorist in relation to repentance, denying the repetition of repentance - and not only for light, but also for serious sins. Even more than that. For the forgiveness of some minor sins, St. the father, faithful to the legal tendencies of Western theology, did not even see the need for repentance. It should be mentioned here that from a penitentiary point of view, all the sins of St. Ambrose divides 3010 into two classes: grave sins (delicta graviora), which he also calls, in relation to 1 Tim. 5; 24, preceding (praecedentes), which destroy the state of grace, and light or subsequent sins (delicta leviora or sequentes), which do not produce such a destructive effect in a person’s moral life as the first. 3011 The first kind of sins are sometimes designated by St. father, like iniquitas. 3012 Sins of the second category, according to the teachings of St. father, and do not actually need the sacrament of repentance, since they are compensated and covered by good deeds and in general by the merits of a person. “Thus, by compensation for love and other deeds or some other satisfaction, the guilt of sin is resolved.” 3013 As for sins of the first category, they are all healed by repentance. 3014 St. Ambrose does not indicate exactly what sins he classifies in the first category, but he definitely states that God forgives even the most serious sin in repentance 3015 and that He would have forgiven Judas if he, firstly, had sincere faith, and, secondly, would have brought due repentance. 3016 “How,” asks St. father, - can someone who has the gift of God - faith, not have forgiveness of sins? 3017 After all, whoever has faith also has life, whoever has life is certainly not deprived of salvation.” 3018 Forgiveness of sins is given by God to man only in the sacrament of repentance, but repentance is valid only when it is performed in a legal manner 3019 or, otherwise, if it satisfies certain conditions. First of all, a person must recognize and confess his guilt before God. Where there is no confession of sin, there is no remission of sins, 3020 there is no washing of them, 3021 there is no justification. 3022 After all, the wound seeks a doctor, and the doctor demands confession. 3023 Sin is poison, but the antidote is the consciousness of sin, 3024 for whoever confesses sin thereby condemns it. 3025 Not only that. By confessing our sins, “we return them, transfer them to the author of our falls” 3026 and through this we reduce our punishment for sin. 3027 St. Ambrose places confession of sin so highly that he attributes a cleansing effect to this very confession. “Let legal cleansing, that is, confession of sins,” he says, “cleanse you.” 3028 True, confession of sins is difficult for the fallen, and many shy away from it out of a natural sense of shame, 3029 however, this “shame” is valuable before God, because it is a guarantee of correction. After all, whoever is ashamed of what he has done will want to get behind him 3030; whoever repents and remembers his sins is hurt, and whoever is hurt can no longer enjoy sin. 3031 God, of course, knows about his sins even without a person’s confession, but it is valuable for Him to hear the confession of the Christian himself, as a sign that he has truly recognized the sin and is no longer ashamed to reveal it to God. “Show me,” the saint urges. Ambrose, - I will heal your wound. True, He knows, even if you don’t show it, He wants to hear your voice.” 3032 In confession to God, humility is valued, so contrary to sin, for confessio itself is the negation of self-exaltation. 3033 Knowing the meaning of repentance and, in particular, confession, a righteous person, if he has to sin, does not wait for accusations from the outside, but hurries to confess his sin as quickly as possible. “The righteous man knows how to break the chains of his sins; he does not expect an accuser, but warns, so that by confession he can be freed from all his sin, so that the enemy has no reason to accuse. That is why Scripture tells you: “The righteous at the beginning of his speech is an accuser of himself” (Prov. 18; 17). He deprives the enemy of his voice and, by confessing his sins, stops teeth ready to extract hostile accusations.” 3034 Although confession of sins is essential in repentance, it is not the only condition for the forgiveness of sins: there are also other requirements that must be fulfilled by the repentant, namely: to his confession the sinner must add earnest prayer 3035 first of all that God will teach him His justifications, so that the repentant will not sin later, 3036 then fasting and tears, 3037 which, like a river, wash away sins, guilt, 3038 conscience 3039 and cleanse the soul, 3040 and, most importantly, the sinner must show the sincerity of his feelings in good deeds 3041 and, especially, in mercy. 3042 But that’s not all. Knowing that by his disobedience he endlessly offended God, the repentant sinner, like a criminal, must cultivate in himself a readiness and even a desire to undergo divine punishment for his sins and through this avoid punishment beyond the grave. “Whoever brings repentance must prepare himself for punishment, so that he is punished here and not subject to eternal punishment; he should not wait for time, but he himself hastens towards divine wrath,” 3043 for “punishment of the guilty is some kind of resolution of sins.” 3044 When the repentant satisfies the conditions of repentance presented to him, then he is granted forgiveness of sins. However, it is impossible to imagine the situation in such a way that a sinner, by his sincere repentance and his good deeds, deserves forgiveness of sins - no, forgiveness, like justification, is given to a person not according to merit, but according to his faith (ex fide 3045): by his good deeds, the sinner only makes himself worthy of forgiveness, he only justifies his hope of receiving forgiveness by the grace of God 3046 and by virtue of the Savior's suffering on the cross. 3047 Hence all repentance - not only forgiveness, 3048 but even the very confession of sins, 3049 - according to the teaching of St. father, is a matter of the grace of God 3050 and, namely, the grace of the Holy Spirit. 3051 To understand the meaning of the last words of St. father, you need to keep in mind that St. Ambrose usually distinguishes two elements in Christian repentance: in the proper sense, repentance preached by John the Baptist, and then the grace of remission of sins (gratia, quae in remissione peccatorum est 3052). “Through John, repentance,” he says, “through Christ, grace. This is given by the Lord, and this is proclaimed in some way by the slave. This and that is preserved by the church, so that grace is preserved and repentance is not swept aside. for grace is the gift of a generous giver, and repentance is a healing remedy for the sinner.” 3053 These two elements, of which repentance precedes and grace follows, are so closely related that there can be neither repentance without grace, nor grace without repentance. 3054 Repentance, as a means of returning to a life of grace, is possible only during earthly life. 3055 There is no repentance after death. 3056 The impossibility of a Christian achieving on earth either complete moral perfection or complete bliss A person constantly sins and therefore needs daily repentance (cotidiani nos debet poenitere peccati 3057). But, if so, can a Christian achieve moral perfection here on earth? “No,” answers St. Ambrose, “on earth a person achieves only half-perfection, but complete perfection will become possible for him only there, in the future life.” 3058 Why is complete perfection here impossible for him? “Because,” says St. father, - that he lives “in this age,” and this age will certainly defile him with sin and involve him in guilt.” 3059 “Here no one can be completely pleasing to God, even though he may be free from personal sins, for, living in the land of the dead, he needs purification that would free him from the infection of this country.” 3060 It goes without saying that since there is no complete moral perfection on earth, then there is no absolute divine knowledge on it, which is characteristic of the highest moral virtue - contemplative wisdom. That is why, although Christian times are predominantly a period of grace, Christians do not possess the truth, but only an image of it. On the other hand, religious truth itself cannot be revealed on earth in its entirety. After all, truth is absolute and eternal, and, as such, it cannot be realized in all its essence in this temporary, perishable and transitory world. Hence the Christians who are here “in the shadow”, 3061 in the Gospel do not follow the truth, but only “the image of the words of God,” 3062 and Christ Himself, who did not come to earth, did not appear in His real image, but “took on the form of a servant,” came “in a light cloud.” 3063 If ​​the truth, therefore, cannot manifest itself on earth in its entirety for the same reasons, 3064 is unable not only to contain, but also to perceive 3065 the perfect truth in its reality. “The immortal spirit of man lives a disembodied life. From here he responds to another land, full of bliss, where he sees not the false instead of the true, as here, but the living substance of things, for there, detached from the dark image of the body, feelings, voice, he puts aside the changeable darkness and, opening his face, sees with his gaze the grace of eternal life. 3066 Only in that true, 3067 immortal 3068 and glorified 3069 state which clothes the elect as with a garment will 3070 be able to contemplate the perfect truth. 3071 Only there, in the sky, where there will be neither light nor sun, 3072 but the lordship of the Lord will illuminate, 3073 where the true and immortal 3074 light shines, enlightening every person coming into the world, 3075 where the “eternal light” shines, in which the righteous 3076 abide and rejoice 3077, contemplating the revealed face of the Lord, 3078 - only there will a perfect Christian have the opportunity to contemplate the perfect Truth, to contemplate the Divine Wisdom and the all-perfect God Himself. But it will be there and then. Now, “we know God only in part, for here everything is imperfect, and there everything is perfect, here are babies, and there are strong.” 3079 We see only in the image 3080 that future, the shadow of which we saw in the Law, 3081 for, like Moses, much less can we contemplate “the whole fullness of the Divinity.” 3082 Even the Apostle Peter and the other two apostles, being in the body, were not able to see the radiant humanity of Christ, but fell to earth, 3083 and St. The Apostle Paul, this chosen vessel, while in the body, could not see the truth face to face. 3084 If our corporeality is an obstacle to the achievement of the highest virtue and perfect knowledge, then it is clear that “slaves who want to achieve perfect faith in God must exhaust their body, strictly monitor its purity and bring it into submission,” 3085 for it is not through indulgences to the body, but through the elevation of the soul and humility of the heart that what is true is achieved. 3086 “In fairness, therefore, St. the apostle Paul devalued this body by calling it the body of death. Indeed, who could see the brilliance of virtue with their eyes, who could grasp the truth with their hands, who could observe wisdom with their bodily eyes? 3087 So, there is no wisdom on earth. “And you,” says St. bishop to a Christian, - do not seek the perfect wisdom of God in this world, for the world has not known it. But if you want to find it, trample the waves of this world, as Peter trampled, and walk upon the waters of this age.” 3088 If, therefore, the complete perfection of man is impossible on earth, then, as is self-evident, a perfect reward 3089 for virtue is impossible here, and complete bliss, which consists in the contemplation of the highest good, is also impossible. 3090 True bliss, this “sweetness of the Word,” 3091 complete and perfect adoption, 3092 perfect knowledge of God are possible only after a person’s departure from this mortal body 3093 and, even more often, after the resurrection, when there is no longer corruption. 3094 Dwelling on the words of the Savior to the prudent thief: “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43), St. Ambrose writes: “The Lord does not tell you this, because you are still in this feverish, lustful body, desiring more earthly things. When you can say: “You have loosed my chains” (Ps. 115; 16), that is, you have destroyed me from the flow of this life, freed me from this mortal body, then he says to you: “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” 3095 So, only in the future life can a person receive the full reward. 3096 However, in this world a Christian cannot enjoy complete bliss, not only because there is neither complete perfection nor complete bliss on earth, but also “due to the uncertainty of the future,” 3097 i.e., due to the possibility for the righteous to fall into sin during his subsequent earthly life. “Until the end of this life, no one can be considered blessed, for he is open to sin; only the one who ends his life without blemish is rightfully considered blessed, for he enjoys the lot of the blessed.” 3098 So, complete bliss will follow only after the grave, for grace itself will be poured out in full only in the future life, and now it manifests itself, strictly speaking, only potentially, precisely as gratia futura (future grace). 3099 The same must be said regarding salvation; our salvation is not, in fact, actual salvation, but only futura salus (future salvation) 3100; on earth we are only in the “shadow of salvation,” 3101 but we will achieve real salvation only when, alien to earthly shortcomings, we dwell among the angels in paradise, 3102 for only there will eternal and permanent salvation come. 3103 From here it follows that both our complete redemption, which is to take place after the future judgment, 3104 and our heavenly reward 3105 are actually the objects of our hope. And our whole life on earth is nothing more than a continuous struggle with the century, 3106 and the world is an arena full of struggle. 3107 If the whole life of a Christian is a struggle, then it goes without saying that the reward for this struggle can be given to him no earlier than its end, that is, not earlier than after his departure from this life. “Even though you have done many works of righteousness, do not be impatient and demanding, believing that the reward for justice should be given to you in this age, and do not complain that any misfortunes have befallen you unjustly. As long as you live (on earth), you should compete and not (receive) rewards.” 3108 Chapter IV. The moral state of a perfect (glorified) person The highest good or future bliss. Degrees of bliss of the righteous. Posthumous state of people. The resurrection of the dead and the future day of judgment. Eternal torment of sinners. From the teachings of St. Ambrose about a virtuous life, it follows that neither complete perfection nor complete bliss are possible on earth: both are the lot of the future life; only there does the righteous become both truly perfect and truly blessed. Claiming that a Christian achieves complete perfection only in the future life, St. Ambrose thereby allows for the possibility of moral development beyond the grave. 3109 True, he does not express this thought directly and categorically, but it is indirectly affirmed by him when he speaks of the ascension of the righteous beyond the grave to higher and higher levels of bliss, 3110 which, of course, should be determined by the progressive height of their moral perfection. The idea of ​​the possibility of moral development beyond the grave is also confirmed by those passages from the works of St. father, in which he says that the soul, having renounced the body, rejoices, because it receives the opportunity for a broader and, most importantly, free development of its initiative. 3111 If St. Ambrose does not directly express thoughts about the afterlife perfection of man, but he has no shortage of statements that moral activity is possible for a person only here on earth, when he remains “in the life of this body,” 3112 that whoever is not cleansed and freed from guilt here will not be clean and free from punishment there either, 3113 that after death there can be no change in the state that a person has earned through his earthly activities. 3114 To reconcile this contradiction in the teaching of St. Ambrose is not possible. One can only point out why a person achieves complete perfection only in heaven or in the future life. The highest Christian virtue, according to Ambrose, is the mental virtue of “contemplative wisdom” (σοφία θεωρητική); Being “mental,” this highest virtue, this pinnacle of moral perfection remains inaccessible to a person in its full extent as long as a person lives with the body, 3115 this negative, material principle that defiles the soul and serves as an obstacle to the mind in its ideal aspirations and activities. In general, the question of the perfection of the righteous beyond the grave by St. Ambrose remains in the shadows, but St. the father speaks at length about perfect bliss or the highest good, which, like complete perfection, is possible for a person only after liberation from bodily bonds, possible only in a future life. 3116 Plato recognized the knowledge of the Divine and at the same time likeness to God as the highest and only good (όμοίωσις θεφ κατα το ὁυνατόν 3117), while Aristotle, along with this only good, allowed the presence of secondary goods, distributing these different types of goods into three categories: the goods of the soul, the goods of the body and external or incidental goods. 3118 Subsequent philosophical schools in defining the good - which is an essential and characteristic point in every philosophical system - leaning either towards Plato or towards Aristotle, and sometimes combined the concepts of the good of both philosophers. Stoya, in particular, initially recognized the Platonic concept: she saw the highest and only good only in virtue; however, later, when the Stoic teaching softened under the influence of life’s demands, the Stoics began to admit that, in addition to the highest good, there can be a relative good, that, although for the wise all things are indifferent, some of them should be preferred (προηγμένα), and some should be denied (άποπροηγμένα). Philo recognized the mystical contemplation of the Divine as the highest and only good, the preparation for which is practical virtue (Godlikeness) and, in particular, ascetic mortification of the flesh. However, along with this, he admits both the ancient Stoic understanding of the highest good (when he says that the divine law commands to honor virtue for its own sake 3119), and the Aristotelian one (when he distinguishes three types of goods: spiritual, bodily and external 3120). Philo’s example was followed by Origen, who in his concept of future bliss successfully combines the concepts of Plato about unity and likeness to God and Aristotle about the perfect virtues of the intellect and will. 3121 Like Philo, Origen believes the highest good is primarily in the knowledge of the Divine and becoming like Him. 3122 “If,” he says, “many philosophers saw the highest good in becoming like God, then they borrowed this from Holy Scripture.” 3123 Man can know God with his mind 3124 ; only complete knowledge of the Divine is possible not in the present life, where a person is bound by the body, but in the future; then “the perfect mind (of the saints) with enriched thought and feeling will approach perfect knowledge; at the same time, the mind will no longer encounter obstacles from these bodily senses, but, enriched by mental increments, will always contemplate the causes of things with complete clarity and, so to speak, face to face.” 3125 This future bliss is further depicted by St. father, as alien to sorrow and sorrow, etc. 3126 This bliss will last forever, which is why the future blessed life is also called eternal life. 3127 St. also looked at the future bliss that lies in the knowledge of God. Basil, who wrote: “For us now, due to the weakness of the flesh that surrounds us, the vision of the glorious appearance of God is incompatible: but for the angels, who do not have any cover similar to our flesh, nothing prevents us from looking unhindered at the face of the glory of God. Why, when we become sons of the resurrection, then we too will be rewarded with knowledge face to face.” 3128 St. Ambrose, as we already know, sometimes accepts the Aristotelian division of goods into three categories: external, bodily and mental goods. 3129 But of these, only the last kind of goods have, according to St. father, in moral terms absolute value, since only they can be called in the proper sense good or the highest and only good. As for the goods of the body and external ones, St. Ambrose, only under the influence of Stoicism, which inherited Aristotle’s view of the good, admits them to the category of goods, and then (like Aristotle) ​​secondary ones; in most cases, under the influence of the negative attitude perceived by the East from Plato in everything material and earthly, he not only deprives these benefits of positive value for the moral life of a Christian, but even sees in them something negative that impedes the moral success of a person. Thus, the concept of the highest good of St. the father is ultimately identified with the concept of spiritual goods or goods of the soul. What about St. Does Ambrose mean by the goods of the soul or the highest good? The highest good, 3130 and at the same time the primary source of all good, 3131 is God. He is the only, true 3132 and at the same time eternal, alien to any changes, 3133 Good. “This Good (i.e., God) permeates everything, and we all live in It and depend on It. It Itself has nothing above Itself, but is Divine. No one is good except God alone. Thus, whatever is good is Divine and whatever is Divine is good.” 3134 Even closer, thanks to St. Ambrose calls the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Accomplisher of the salvation of people - Jesus Christ. “He (the Lord Jesus) is our peace, He is the highest good... This is our treasure, He is our way, He is our wisdom, our truth, our shepherd and good shepherd, He is our life. You see how many benefits there are in one Good.” 3135 A person's participation in this Supreme Good 3136 is for him a source of the highest pleasure 3137; The righteous knows nothing higher than this pleasure, higher than this good: “There is nothing in heaven that I would desire outside of you,” says St. Ambrose, paraphrasing the words of Ps. 72; 25, 3138 - for whoever has achieved this good owns everything.” 3139 In what way is this communion or “cleaving” (adhaerere Domino 3140) of a person to the Supreme Good manifested, in what cleaving of St. the father, as we will see below, posits the essence of future heavenly bliss? 3141 This participation of the righteous in the highest good consists in the direct knowledge or contemplation of the Divine face to face. 3142 Although the righteous already on earth achieve contemplation of the Divine, this contemplation is not face-to-face knowledge, for with bodily eyes 3143 a person cannot see what is eternal, that is, God, Christ 3144; on earth, man sees Christ only in the shadow of His body, which is the church. 3145 Only in the future will a person cognize the very image of the revealed truth, 3146 only in the future will the veil fall and the shadows that prevented our gaze from penetrating into the eternal truth, penetrating to the Sun of Truth Itself will disappear. “Come, Lord Jesus,” cries St. bishop - but no longer in the shadows, but in the sun of truth.” 3147 Thanks to the cleaving 3148 and the knowledge of the indicated Divine and eternal Good face to face, 3149 a person becomes, according to the words of the Apostle Peter, a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1; 4 3150) and even more than that: a true son of God. True, “a Christian is adopted while still here on earth, but this is adoption,” says St. Ambrose, following Origen, is imperfect.” Perfect adoption will occur only in the future life. “Adoption also occurs in the Church of the Lord, when the Spirit exclaims: “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6), as you have in the letter to the Galatians. But it will be perfect when those who deserve to see God face to face rise in incorruption, honor, and glory. Then the human race will consider itself truly redeemed (humana conditio 3151). With the glory of the children of God, St. Ambrose places righteous people in a close connection and heavenly state of freedom (libertas gloriae filiorum Dei, libertas verae gloriae 3152). But, since the very transformation into the sons of God contains the knowledge of God as its main element, then the true freedom of St. the father is relied upon in the freedom of higher knowledge. 3153 On the other hand, this higher knowledge of the Divine, this unity of man with God makes him a partaker of the future (futura, superventura gloria 3154), true, 3155 immortal, 3156 heavenly glory, 3157 which the elect put on as clothing. 3158 This glory of the righteous, resulting from their union with God, lies in the fact that they are filled with divine light, that is, the lordship of the Lord, 3159 Which is the light that enlightens every person, 3160 the eternal and immortal light. 3161 In this light the righteous dwell and delight, 3162 thanks to it, they contemplate God not in conditions of imperfect knowledge, but already face to face they see the glory of the Lord revealed to them. 3163 Whoever partakes of this glory of the Divine will no longer want anything else. 3164 This unity of man with the Divine is, finally, the source of both constant or “eternal grace,” 3165 and a special state of grace, characterized as consummatio gratiae. 3166 This is the main element of the future bliss of the righteous. However, since the blissful state of the elect in heaven does not represent anything different from the perfect state of the righteous here on earth, but is only its more complete internal development and external manifestation, 3167 since the concept of the future bliss of the righteous is not covered by direct knowledge of God and contemplation of God, but is composed, like the blissful state of Christians on earth, also from other elements and, above all, a pacified conscience and the joy of doing good. “Divine Scripture,” says St. father, “believes a blessed life in the knowledge of the Divine and in the joy of doing good.” 3168 “Chastity and knowledge make a person blessed,” he notes in another place. 3169 This integrity of St. Ambrose values ​​her so highly that sometimes, apparently, he is ready to see only in her the factor of bliss. “Such is the brilliance of the honest,” he says in De officiis ministrorum, “that the peace of conscience and the serenity of innocence create a blissful life.” 3170 In any case, one can think that the joy of a clear conscience and the peace of the spirit of the righteous in the image of St. Ambrose on beatitude takes place immediately after the grace-filled contemplation of God. This is the state of the pure conscience of the righteous St. the father very often designates it also as “the grace of eternal peace” (gratia perfextae quietis 3171), the grace of “heavenly or paradise peace”, 3172 which will occur on the “day of the Great Saturday”, 3173 i.e., the future life. 3174 In the indicated concept of peace of St. Amrosius imagines the state of not only the pure, sin-free conscience of the righteous, but also the mental state of the sinner, who through the sacrament of repentance managed to wash away his sins and prepare himself for heavenly bliss. “There is no rest for those,” teaches St. father, - where there is no peace of mind, where the spirit is tormented by the remorse of a guilty conscience, 3175 and, on the other hand, only those who have washed away their sins with tears and tears 3176 and who are thus alien to grave earthly sins deserve peace.” 3177 “Allow yourself,” convinces St. Ambrose, “from every Sabbath and lighten the burden of sins, so that, being at peace, you can earn the peace of the next Sabbath.” 3178 However, the concept of a reconciled conscience (requies remissionis 3179) still does not cover the concept of “peace”. The latter also includes the idea of ​​peace as a consequence of the destruction of the struggle between the old and the new man and their unification (after the burial of sinful movements of the spirit) in one person. 3180 This same concept of “rest” includes, further, the freedom of the soul from all earthly affairs, 3181 in the image of how God rested from His works, 3182 in particular: freedom or peace from labor, 3183 earthly worries 3184 and, especially, from suffering, since the future blissful life, being a land of the living, alien to death and corruption, 3185 excludes all suffering, sorrow, tears, lamentations 3186 and, conversely, communicates positive joy, inversely proportional to earthly suffering. 3187 The future blessed peace was predicted, according to St. father, already in the sufferings of Christ, which “are the image of the kingdom of heaven.” Just as during the suffering of Christ no tears or crying were heard, so there will be no crying there either, for the Lord wiped away the tears of the believers with the blessing of the cross and “in His suffering indicated the image of future bliss.” 3188 Thus, the source or culprit of the grace-filled peace of the righteous in the future life or in the heavenly dwelling 3189 is again God, from where peace, as a type of future bliss, like Contemplation of God, has a direct relation to the Divine. “God is our peace,” writes St. Ambrose, partly repeating Philo, “He has rest from work, there we are satisfied with the Great Sabbath.” 3190 “Christ is the bed of saints, on which all hearts weary of worldly wars rest.” 3191 “Our peace,” says St. the father in another place is the Lord Jesus,” 3192 and the partakers of this rest are those who sleep the sleep of Christ; on the contrary, whoever does not sleep the sleep of Christ does not have the rest of Christ, and he will not rise at the resurrection of Christ. 3193 In other words: the word “peace” is used by St. Ambrose, as a synonym for the blissful state of the righteous with God and in God, opposite to the painful state of sinners in hell: “The righteous is in peace, the wicked is in sorrow (justus un reguie, impius in aerumna). 3194 Peace and contemplation of God do not again constitute the entire content of future bliss. If the latter is essentially no different from earthly bliss, rising above it only quantitatively and not qualitatively, 3195 then future bliss is characterized by St. Ambrose with the same features as the earthly blissful state of a righteous or wise person. What is new in this case is only a joyful stay not only with Christ, but also with the angels and with the saints, 3196 - with those best of us, whose deeds we marvel at, 3197 i.e., being in the society and assembly of saints (consortium, 3198 coetus 3199 sanctorum). Dr. J. E. Niederhuber, wishing to maintain the division of goods into three categories in the doctrine of future bliss, places communion with saints in the third category of random or external goods, 3200 which, of course, is unfair, for the communion of the righteous with the saints in St. Ambrose is thought of in close connection with communion with God, and righteous, according to St. father, strive for communication with God, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and the angels with whom he will live forever. 3201 “Let us strive tirelessly,” exhorts St. father, - to our Redeemer Jesus, to the society of the patriarchs, to the forefather Abraham, to the assembly of the saints." 3202 The peace itself, which was mentioned above, which is the reward of true holiness, possible only in heaven among the chosen angels of God, 3203 necessarily presupposes communion with the saints - quies futura sanctis. 3204 Another quality of future bliss that distinguishes it from earthly is the participation in it of the body, about which St. Ambrose forgets in his speeches about the earthly bliss of the righteous. The participation of resurrected bodies in future bliss or heavenly glory is based, according to the teaching of St. Ambrose, on their mystical connection with the glorified body of Christ (per consortium Christi corporis). 3205 However, the bliss of the body is much lower in nature than the bliss of the soul and it is characterized not so much positively as negatively, as freedom from desires, suffering and death. 3206 Future bliss of the righteous (futurae beatitudinis delectatio, beatitudo vitae aeternae 3207) St. Ambrose most often depicts it as “eternal life” (vita aeterna), by which he means the totality of all individual goods: “although there are many goods, yet there is one eternal life.” 3208 At the same time, in the concept of eternal life, the knowledge of God comes to the fore, since eternal life rests in the knowledge of God the Father, God the Son 3209 and God the Holy Spirit. 3210 The author (operator) of eternal life is the Holy Spirit, 3211 and the dispenser is He who created eternity. 3212 The benefit of eternal life, alien to change or transformation, 3213 is so great that no wealth 3214 and nothing in the world 3215 can equal it in importance. On the other hand, all the suffering of this life is too fleeting compared to the eternal reward. 3216 From what has just been said it follows that eternal and blessed life are equivalent concepts. The Holy Father in De officiis ministrorum really says this: “... In this place Scripture especially clearly calls that eternal life which is at the same time blessed.” 3217 True, in the same De officiis ministrorum of St. Ambrose differentiates between eternal and blessed life, arguing that blessed life (earthly perfection and earthly bliss) is a condition for gaining eternal life, 3218 however, there is still no opposition between them, but only a distinction between the lower and highest stages of bliss. We said above that the term “eternal life” in St. Ambrose usually serves as a general designation for the future blessed life. It should be added here that this understanding of “eternal life” is held by St. not always a father. Sometimes he portrays eternal life as one of the types of future reward, along with, for example, the kingdom of God 3219 and the general 3220 and private benefits conceivable in it, 3221 along with the communion of angels, etc. In the interpretation of Psalm 119, St. Ambrose, by the way, writes: “Our expectation is eternal life, our expectation is the kingdom of God, the communion of angels, spiritual blessings.” 3222 No matter how we call the future perfect bliss of the righteous - the highest good, eternal life, blessed life, etc., only one thing is certain, that it will be revealed in its entirety only in the next century, after the Christian has finished his present life. From this point of view, future bliss is sometimes considered by St. father, as a reward to a person for his virtuous life on earth. “The reward for good action is the bliss of eternal life.” 3223 “Let us not be ashamed to endure what is easy here, so that there we may have full praise and glory and receive eternal rewards through the Lord Jesus for our temporary labors.” 3224 But the term “reward” is not suitable, in fact, for future bliss, for it gives rise to the idea of ​​something different from the deed for which the reward is given, it evokes in a person’s mind the idea that this future bliss is, in fact, the goal, while virtue is only a means to achieve this goal. In fact, the future blessed state of the elect in heaven does not represent anything different from the perfect state of the righteous here on earth, but, on the contrary, it is a further, more complete development of that blessed state that the righteous already enjoy on earth and which is the necessary and natural result or completion of their virtuous life. 3225 “As is the earthly, so are the earthly, and if his life does not rise above the earth, then he will have no peace after death: he will not see the light forever, because he was looking for the temporary.” 3226 “Only a healthy and strong eye can look at the sun, and only a good soul can see good.” 3227 Otherwise: “Future bliss is the fruit of our virtue 3228 or the fruit of our soul, which in Scripture is sometimes equated to a garden, 3229 which is why it is said that “the blessed one will give fruit” - of course, in his resurrection, when he can give something permanent.” 3230 This is why true Christians act virtuously not because they are promised a reward, but out of love for virtue itself. “It is not for the sake of reward that a person strives for perfection,” teaches St. father - and receives a reward for perfection. They imitate Christ not because of the promised good, but because of the love of virtue. Christ himself is good by nature, but not for the sake of reward.” 3231 Just as the redeeming grace of Christ, which He won with His Blood, as a reward, is the same for all people, 3232 but differs in the degree of assimilation of it by each Christian individually, 3233 so the heavenly reward is essentially the same for everyone. All workers in the vineyard, despite the different hours of work, received the same pay; however, not everyone can say that he has been awarded the crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8). From here, by the way, it follows that one thing is a reward according to the mercy and grace of God, and another thing is a reward for work - a reward as the fruit of virtue. 3234 This is why, although there is one eternal life, the crowns of reward and the numerous palms of reward are different. 3235 The degree of reward is directly related to the number 3236 and the importance of 3237 virtuous deeds. The higher the feat, the greater the reward. 3238 Goveniya, 3239 for example, sorrows and misfortunes 3240 result in an increase in reward. Hence, each virtue has its own reward: “different rewards are assigned for different virtues,” 3241 and individual holy people, glorified by certain virtues, are crowned with certain crowns. Thus, “Joseph is the crown of purity, Paul is the crown of righteousness, Peter is the crown of faith. Certain virtues also have special crowns. Christ alone has the crown of the head with which the Church crowned Him. In this crown are contained all crowns, for glory is not a part of any crown, but the reward of all crowns.” 3242 But, no matter how different the crowns of one or another virtue may be, they are ultimately grouped together by St. father into two main categories: the crowns of paradise and the crowns of the kingdom of heaven. In this case, St. Ambrose obviously follows Origen, who taught that the saints, having emerged from this life, are in paradise and that only after some time, depending on personal success, do they ascend to the kingdom of heaven. 3243 And according to the idea of ​​St. Ambrose, paradise (perfectae beatitudinis amoenitas 3244) is the lowest country of the invisible sky in general, and the kingdom of heaven is the highest. The righteous first go to heaven and only then, depending on merit, rise to one or another higher kingdom or country of heaven. 3245 And the first man was placed in paradise so that through personal success in virtue he would be worthy of being elevated to the kingdom of heaven. 3246 But, since the first man not only did not reach the kingdom of heaven, but even lost his dwelling in paradise, Christ came in order to first restore what was lost, and then add something new, “so that through paradise man would reach the kingdom.” 3247 Learn more about this thought from St. the father develops this way: “Whoever converts already at death itself (a hint of the prudent thief) and confesses the Lord Jesus deserves heavenly life; Whoever strengthened himself much earlier and fought for Christ, who acquired the souls of people, who sacrificed himself for Christ, by his merits prepared for himself a kingdom, which he rejoices in receiving. That is why Peter is told: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). From robbery he who is converted has peace; he who is approved in the apostleship receives power.” 3248 Paradise, with which St. Ambrose identifies the third heaven, according to St. father, is in the same relation to the kingdom of heaven as the Godlikeness of the first man in his primitive state is to the religious and moral perfection of redeemed man. 3249 Depending on this distinction between paradise and the kingdom of heaven, St. Ambrose never connects with the idea of ​​paradise such concepts as regnare cum Christo, glirua caelestis and the resulting visio Dei de facie ad faciem, asserting their availability to a person only when he takes a certain place in the heavenly kingdom. 3250 As for the kingdom of heaven itself, St.’s idea of ​​it. Ambrose is not distinguished by clarity. Sometimes he distinguishes between actually two kingdoms of heaven: the first and the second. “The first kingdom of heaven is prepared for the saints at the release of the body, the second - in life with Christ (already) after the resurrection.” 3251 More often he speaks of seven heavens, which in a certain spatial arrangement form the heavenly kingdom. Of these heavens, the third is paradise, into which the Apostle Paul was raptured. 3252 Every righteous person, depending on his merits, is given a place in one of these heavens. 3253 As people improve, they ascend from the first heaven to the second, from the second to the third, etc., until they reach the seventh heaven. 3254 In connection with this and depending on the IV book of Ezra, St. Ambrose distinguishes seven stages of bliss. 3255 In the representation of St. Ambrose about the seven heavens, the difference between paradise and the kingdom of heaven is almost lost. Paradise and the heavenly kingdom are thought of by St. Ambrose, as a single integral kingdom of God, distinguished by St. father from the kingdom of Christ, in which “we are found all the time while we live in the body and until we are freed from the slave image.” 3256 Often St. Ambrose speaks in his works about Abraham's bosom, not meaning, for the most part, any specific place under it, but using this word to designate the generally blissful state of righteous people both in this and the other world. 3257 Sometimes sinus Abrahae St. Ambrose is placed in close connection with eternal life, 3258 is sometimes called the entrance to eternal peace, i.e., paradise, 3259 sometimes, finally, taken in the sense of a certain place in hell - quies mortis, where before the coming of Christ the souls of the dead forefathers went and stayed. 3260 The question is: when will the righteous receive these crowns of reward or, in other words, when will this future bliss of the righteous come, as well as the suffering of sinners? St. Ambrose answers this question in the sense that a person can receive a reward or punishment deserved in earthly life on the day of general judgment, although even before this judgment neither the righteous are left without reward, nor sinners without punishment. 3261 This statement will become more understandable if we say that the afterlife of a person is St. Ambrose divides it into two periods: the first (tempus medium) - before the general judgment or resurrection and the second - from the time of the general judgment. First we will talk about the first period. Not all the dead remain in the same state during tempus medium. In this regard, St. Ambrose distinguishes three categories of the dead: the righteous, the sinners (which in turn fall into two categories: people with grave and light sins) and the wicked. The righteous or perfect immediately after their death enter the kingdom of heaven and are immediately rewarded with gloria caelestis. Such righteous people include: patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs of both the Old and New Testaments 3262; further, pious virgins, confessors, etc. 3263 This entry of the righteous immediately after death into the kingdom of heaven (designated by the Holy Father as the first kingdom) is called holy. Ambrose with the first resurrection (as opposed to the second at the end of the world 3264). Thus, the righteous, even before judgment, are rewarded with the bliss of the (first) kingdom of heaven. “Blessed,” says St. Ambrose, “who has a part in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6), for such will come to grace without judgment.” 3265 As for sinners, they undergo purifying fire during the tempus medium. “He will enter into peace,” says St. father, whoever walks through the fire." 3266 Sinners are exposed to this fire for a more or less long time, depending on the degree of their sinfulness: those of them who have light sins are more likely to be freed from purgatory and receive bliss as a reward - only not in the kingdom of heaven, but in paradise, in which they remain until the final formal judgment 3267; on the contrary, serious sinners remain in purgatory until the day of the second coming, when they are released from purgatory in order to undergo final judgment. 3268 The cleansing fire, thanks to which the sins of man are burned away 3269 and the souls of people become more spiritual, 3270 the Lord Jesus Himself prepared for His servants 3271: this fire is different from the fire that the Lord prepared for the devil and his angels and with which the gospel rich man burned. 3272 St. Ambrose seems inclined to understand it, along with Origen, in a spiritual sense, 3273 however, he speaks of it as a material fire, and says that the most purifying fire, which burns our works of combustible materials (but not gold and silver), is accompanied by a painful process 3274 of greater or lesser intensity, depending on the degree of man’s sinfulness. 3275 Thanks to this purifying fire, sinners take part in the second general uprising. 3276 As for the godless, finally, for them fire is an avenging fire. They enter into it immediately after death and are immersed in it forever. Just as Moses was saved when crossing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh was drowned, so the godless are forever plunged into the lake of fire. 3277 It should be noted here that from the cleansing fire of St. Ambrose distinguishes the testing fire, which he brings together with fire baptism at the doors of heaven. However, the performance of St. Father is not very clear about this fire. So, sometimes this fire is holy. Ambrose brings us closer to the judgment of God, to which every person must appear, 3278 - sometimes with the eternal light of God, 3279 - sometimes, finally, fire is called the Holy Spirit and the light of the face of God. 3280 This fire enlightens the righteous, and formally liberates sinners from those sins from which they were already cleansed in purgatory. 3281 Often also St. Ambrose identifies the fire of judgment with the fire of purification. The second period of the posthumous state begins with the day of the general judgment, which coincides with the day of the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. 3282 The resurrection of the dead, which has to be in consummatione mundi, 3283 is not a matter of human merit, but of God’s mercy; it is a gift of God, 3284 it is the gracious fruit of the saving work of Christ, 3285 meant at the first coming of the Savior 3286 and extending to the whole person (both body and soul 3287). The resurrection of Christians, as individual members of the body, is based on their mystical connection with Christ as the head, 3288 as the second Adam, who was the firstfruits of those who rose again, just as the first Adam was the firstfruits of those who died. 3289 Because of this, the resurrection of Christ determines the resurrection of only believers. 3290 True, everyone without exception will be resurrected - both the righteous and the sinners, 3291 but not everyone will be resurrected for judgment, namely: the godless or wicked will not be resurrected for judgment. 3292 Further, although all people will be resurrected at the same time, they will nevertheless be resurrected in the order determined by their merits 3293: first the righteous, then the sinners and, finally, the godless. 3294 The bodies of the resurrected will be essentially the same as now, 3295 however, the resurrected bodies of the righteous will be very different from the resurrected bodies of sinners. While the bodies of the latter will not change, 3296 the bodies of the righteous will shine through a special process of commutatio, immutatio, 3297 through the process of glorification. The latter will be manifested in their immutability, 3298 in a glorification opposed to the corruptionis deformitas of the mortal body, 3299 in their spirituality and simplicity, in the image of the simple nature of God, 3300 and, finally, in freedom from weaknesses (passiones) both physically and ethically. 3301 On the day of the end (consummatio) of the present world, the resurrection of the dead and the second coming of Christ, there will be a general judgment at which people will receive a final verdict, either rewarding them or punishing them. However, in its true sense, this judgment will be a judgment only of sinful Christians, but not of the righteous and the godless. Namely. The righteous, who have already been rewarded with the kingdom of heaven immediately after death, will not be judged by this court at all. 3302 The godless, who for their unbelief are condemned to eternal torment also immediately after their death, will not be resurrected for this judgment: they, it is true, will be resurrected, but only to torment. 3303 At this court only believers will be judged who died as sinners, who did not rise with the righteous in the first resurrection, but had to free themselves from sins through the purifying fire. 3304 At the general judgment, the final verdict is pronounced on both the righteous and sinners, and the former receive eternal bliss as a reward, and the latter receive eternal torment as punishment. Then Christ will transfer the kingdom to God and the Father, then the second kingdom will come, the pinnacle of perfection (finis consummationis 3305), complete perfection (plena perfectio 3306) or the highest perfection of man (perfectio consummati hominis 3307), united with complete and eternal bliss. It is quite natural, of course, that the righteous await this judgment with joy, 3308 while for sinners the day of judgment is an evil day. 3309 We have already spoken about future bliss above. Now let's say a few words about punishments for sinners. All those who have been condemned, St. Ambrose divides it into three categories. The first includes those who have fallen under the curse of the devil and his angels, alien to repentance and the saving grace of Christ 3310; to the second - the godless and wicked, whose torment, different from the cleansing torment of sinned believers, is designated by St. father, like scourging with the devil (flagellari cum diabolo 3311); finally, the third category includes believing sinners who committed such grave sins that the cleansing fire could not destroy them. The torment of sinners is characterized by features opposite to those with which the bliss of the righteous is depicted. In first place is St. the father puts “the removal of unforgiven people from God,” 3312 deprivation of the opportunity to contemplate God and the divine light, 3313 being outside of Christ, Who is light in darkness, 3314 and hence immersion in darkness 3315 and, precisely, “the darkness of eternal night.” 3316 At the same time, sinners are forever deprived of the kingdom of God 3317 and their stay in it, 3318 deprived of communication with the holy angels 3319 and in general those who live in the light. 3320 Sinners are “in chains and prison” 3321 not only because they are deprived of freedom and have fallen into the miserable, difficult and unbearable slavery of sin, passions and the devil. 3322 Since the sinner cannot take anything with him from here except the guilt of his sins, 3323 there he will experience terrible hunger, 3324 which will serve as a sign of internal hunger due to the deprivation of grace-filled means and, above all, faith. 3325 At the same time, sinners will also experience positive torment, which is closely related to their place of residence. This place will be the underworld and precisely the lowest part of hell (ultima inferni 3326), in which the devil is tormented. 3327 Sinners will suffer in the lower part of hell or the lake of fire 3328 ; the upper part of this lake forms a cleansing fire, through which sinned believers pass with or without harm to themselves. 3329 In hell, sinners are subjected to terrible and merciless fire of torment, 3330 constant fire and endless burning, 3331 for fire and brimstone burn there forever. 3332 But in fact, eternal fire is prepared only for the devil, 3333 the godless are only flagellantur cum diabolo. 3334 From what has been said it is clear that St. Ambrose understands hellfire in a material sense. However, in his interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, under the influence, as one might think, 3335 of Origen, he speaks about it differently, namely, he says that this “fire is born of sorrow for sins.” 3336 It is quite natural, further, that sinners, as those who have not received forgiveness here, 3337 in contrast to the righteous who receive peace as a reward, will not have peace, 3338 will not dwell in the land of the living, 3339 on the contrary, eternal groaning and restless sojourn await them. 3340 This is the eternal torment of sinners in St. Hell. Ambrose most often represents spiritual death both in the soul and in the body. 3341 The torment of sinners, like the bliss of the righteous, has its own degrees. Angels are punished more severely than people, and the sins of the old are more severe than the sins of the young. 3342 The one who, by the grace of God, received the image of God and then lost it on the path of lawlessness is also punished more severely. 3343 Likewise, those who seduce another, and especially children, are subject to a more severe punishment. 3344 The unfortunate lot of the godless in the next world St. Ambrose designates the term poena miserabilis. 3345 Just as the bliss of the righteous is eternal, so is the torment of sinners eternal: the fire to which they are subjected is eternal, 3346 their destruction is eternal, 3347 which in essence is destruction, 3348 non-existence, 3349 is eternal death, 3350 which does not, however, entail the destruction of physical existence and the material principle. 3351 However, at this point St. Ambrose did not remain completely consistent, as he succumbed, albeit weakly, to the influence of Origen. 3352 Origen taught about apokatastasis, i.e., about the salvation of all people, and even demons, which is to take place at the end of the ages. In accordance with this, he attributes a redemptive character to “prison and the fire of torment,” i.e., punishment in hell, and calls the suffering itself saving. 3353 And St. Ambrose argues that the torment (not of the godless or demons, but) of sinners who believe in Christ 3354 and belong to the church, 3355 will not continue forever, for God saves them according to His mercy. 3356 But, saying this, St. the father is very far from Origen’s apocatastasis, for he directly states that there will be few saved, but many condemned. 3357 Both in foreign and, in particular, in Russian theological literature there are no special works devoted to the moral teaching of St. Ambrose, except for quite numerous, more or less thorough and detailed treatises, whose subject is clarification of the question of the relationship between the moral teachings of St. Ambrose in his book De officiis ministrorum and Cicero in his work De officiis; individual pages, and sometimes even chapters, which have as their subject the moral teaching of the Milanese saint, can be found in the following works about St. Ambrose: Dr. Th. Förster, “Ambrosius Bischof von Mailand” 1 Wed. Deutsch, 3; R. E. Herzog-Hauck, I, 446 (Leipzig, 1896). Exameron, I, 1, 3 sqq; Ep. 45, 15; De fid IV, 4, 43. Expos. in Ps. 118, 12, 7. Rarely does saeculim refer to the time after the coming of the Savior. Er. 70.16. Exameron, I, 10, 37; in Ps. 118, 12, 7. In p.s. 38, 18; De interp. Iob et David, I, 5, 14; Exameron, IV, 5, 22. Er. 44, 14: “So seven years of peace have passed. The eighth illuminated grace, which made man no longer only a member of this world, but placed him above the world, and we no longer live our lives, but the life of Christ.” De Abrsham, I, 4, 28; De fide, V 2, 31. Exameron, IV, 5, 22; In p.s. 38, 18. De Ioseph. 7, 39. Dr. I. Niederhuber (Die Eschatologie, 127) misunderstood this passage, referring the present time or “octave” to these future times. De excassu fr. II, 62, 84; In Luc. X, 33, 44. In Luc. I, 36. Also in Origen - Selectia in Genes. MPG, XII, p. 121; In libr. Iesu Nave Homil. XV, 4; IX, 8; cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, “De Origenis ethica”, pp. 81 – 82. De off. m. I, 48, 238; cp. I, 49, 250. De opif. m. 157 sqq., 165, etc. Сobtr. Cels. IV, 40. Cp. prof. K. I. Skvortsov, “Philosophy of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church,” 291; Thamin R., 85. Paradise was also understood in the spiritual sense by St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria (cf. D.I. Tikhomirov: “St. Gregory of Nyssa, as a moralist,” 141 – 143. Comm. in Iob. tom. XII, 37; Contra Cels. VI, 43; In libr. Iesu Nave hom. VI, 4, etc. Wed. Capitaine, 196. De paradiso 2, 11; 9, 42. Er. 45, 3; Wed Philo, De opit. m. 154; cp. Dr. G. Wilbrand, “S. Amrosius”, 15. Er. 45, 7; Wed Ibid. 3; De parade. 3, 12; Est ergo paradisus terra quaedam fertilis, hoc est anima fecunda. In Luc. X, 161; De Noe 13, 43; De inst. virg. 4, 25. De Isaac. 1, 2; cp. Philo, De opif. m. 165; Leg. alleg. II, 11; III, 16. Er. 45, 17: Caneamus ergo ne hominem istum, id est, νοῦν, mulier illa, id est, passio sensuum nostrorum delectatione et ipsa decerta atque illusa effiminet et circumseriptum in leges suas et sententiam trahat. De parade. 1, 4, 5; In p.s. 118, 4, 2. Cp. Niederhuber, “Eschatologie”, 53 De parade. 1, 1. Cp. Niederhuber, “Eschatologie”, 52. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31; In Luc. IV, 16. In p.s. 118, 4, 2; paradise – incolatus supernae posessionis – De parad. 2, 10. In p.s. 118, 4, 2; 15, 36. De parade. 10, 47 – 48; 12, 59 – 60. Cp. MPL, t. XV, p. 1241, adnot. "a". Book S. N. Trubetskoy, “The Doctrine of Logos”, 144; Dr. E. Zeller, “Die Philosophie der Grechen” 3. Th., 2. Abth., 393 – 402. Zeller, III, 2, 393 – 398. Quest. in Exod. II, 122 – 123. Cp. E. Brehier, “Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie”, 82. De fuga et invent. 69; De confus. lingu. 178 – 179. De conf. Lingu. 172. By the way, Philo says that in the first six days God created the genera and types of passions, and after that the types themselves. Leg. flleg. II, 12. Leg. alleg. I, 31; II, 13. Life 2, 7. De opif. m. 134. Cp. De gigant. 12 sqq.; De plant. 13 – 14; De Sonm. I, 135; (cp. Orig., C. Cels. V, 55; Comm. in lohan. t. VI, 25). De plant. 18 – 20; Leg. alleg. III, 69; cp. VitaMos. II (III),61. Leg. alleg. I, 31, De gigant. 31. Leg. Alleg. I, 54. However, both people are placed in heaven: πεπλαφμένοι, τόν δέ χατ. Ibid. 53. De confus. lingu. 21; Leg. alleg. I, 70, III, 115. De agrie. 30; De opif. m. 117. The irrational part of man is made up of these seven parts. Leg. alleg. I, 11. De congr. erud. gratia. 26. Leg. Alleg. I, 37 – 38; Quod det. pot. inside. 87. Quod d. s. immut. 48 – 49. Quod det. p ό t. ins. 129. De Decal. 87; Quod d. s. ins. 129. Str. V, 8, 53, 1. Wed. prof. D. P. Martov, “The moral teaching of Clement of Alexandria” p. 8 and approx. 1. Str. V, 14, 94, 3 – 4; Praed. I, 3, 7, 1. Str. VI, 12, 96, 4 – 97.1; 8, 68, 3; Coh. X, 100, 2 – 3. De princ. IV, 37. Russian translation, 385. De pribc. IV, 36; Ad Rom. III, 7; II, 9; Contr. Cels. IV, 25. In Contr. Cels. I, 32 Origen says that the souls of people, uniting in an incomprehensible way with their bodies, come into the world with the moral physiognomy that they acquired in their pre-worldly existence. In Genes. hom. I, 13; cp. De princ. III, 5, 4. In Levit. hom. IV, 3; In Genes. I, 13. Cp. Capitaine, 45. Contr. Cels. VI, 63; De princ. I, 2, 6. De princ. III, 4, 5; II, 8, 4. Cp. Capitaine, 27 – 28. Wed. De oration. 28 (MPG, XI, p. 525). In Ies. Nav. hom. XI, 4, 5; De princ. I, 1, 7; Com. in Iohan. t. X. 16 (MPG, XIV, p. 349); De orft. 28. Origen means here the gross body, but not the corporeality characteristic of all spirits except God. Wed. De princ. II, 2, 2: “In fact, rational beings have never lived and do not live without it (bodily nature), for living an incorporeal life is characteristic, of course, of the Trinity alone.” De principle. I, 3, 6; II, 10, 4. In Ezech. hom. I, 16. Cp. Skvortsov, 289. In libr. les. Nav. hom. IX, 4. Compare, for example, De princ. III, cap. I. Cp. Capitaine, 93 – 97. Homil. in illud: Attende tihi ipsi 3. Const. monast. II, 1. Russian translation vol. V, 355 (Edition 3; Sergiev Posad, 1892). Sermo de legend. libris gentil. 8 (MPG, XXXI, p. 885). Regulae fusius tractat., interrog. II. Er. 34. Wed. Förster, 140, Anm. 84. Wed. Dr. C. Siegfrid, 388. In p.s. 43, 4; cp. De parade. 1, 5. Cp. D.I. Tikhomirov, 106: “St. Gregory distinguishes between the general and the frequent in man, and the creation of the universal human essence is attributed to one moment of the creative act, and the work of the particular to another.” Page 107: “Distinguishing two moments in the creative act, through which existence is given to man, Gregory, at the same time, on the basis of the words of the Writer of Genesis, believes that creation in the image of God actually refers to the first moment and, therefore, to the universal human essence.” De Cain et Abel II, 9, 36; De virginitate 13, 83; Ep. 34, 4. Cp. Ceillier, “Historire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques”, V, 548. Er. 43, 7. When did St. Ambrose draws attention to the physical side of a person, then speaks about him completely differently: “Compared with the heavenly, what is a person if not a foolish beast (De interp. Iob et David III (IV), 9, 26).” De institut. virg. 2, 14; De Cain et Abel II, 1, 6. Don ergo duo in duo, sed duo in tres et tres in duo dividentur – In luc. VII, 139. De virginitatt 18, 113 – 114. De Abraham II, 8, 54. De virginitate, 18, 113 – 114. De Cain et Adel II, 10, 36; Apologia 5, 21. This division is Stoic, borrowed from St. Ambrose in Philo. Wed. Quod det. pot. ins. 168; De off. m. 115. Tertulian in De anima (p. 14) mentions philosophers and philosophical schools who divided the soul into 2, then 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and even 10 parts. For example, De Noe 11, 38; 25, 92. De Abraham I, 1, 4; II, 1, 8. De officiis ministrorum I, 13, 19; I, 50, 152. Ibid. To the inner man of St. Ambrose contrasts external or carnal (Ep. 73B 20). Wed. D.I. Tikhomirov, 112: “νοῦς in the writings of Gregory is very often used as a term denoting the entire spiritual and rational nature.” Wed. page 135. De Jacob, I, 1, 4; cp. Macc. IV, 3 (G. Dindorfies, Flaun Iosephi opera, U. H., p. 394 from which book St. Ambrose makes many borrowings concerning the mind and its functions. De Abraham II, 5, 20. Sometimes, following Philo (De epi. m. 163) St. Ambrose equates the mind (νοῦς) with the masculine principle, and sensuality (passio) with the feminine; their communication with each other gives rise to a person’s mental life. (Er. 45, 47). De Jacob I, 1, 5, (...); I, 2, 6. De Noe 25, 92. Here we see a materialistic understanding of the human spirit (Greek πνεῦμα). De Cain et Abel II, 1, 3 – 4. Philo, De migrat. Abraham. 2 – 3. De incarnate. II, 11; cp. In Luc. II, 79; De bono mortis 3, 8. De Isaac I, 2, 3; ch. I, 8, 79. De parade. 12, 54; Ep. 34.3; In p.s. 118, 10, 10; De institut. virg. 3, 17; Exameron VI, 6, 39; De Isaac 2, 4. In p.s. 118, 10, 15, 10; cp. De Cain et Abel II, 10, 36. De obitu Theod. 30; cp. De excessu fr. II, 130. Exameron VI, 7, 40, 43; De institut. virg. 3, 17; De obitu Theod. 30. De Isaac 7, 59; cp. Ep. 34, 3. In p.s. 118, 10, 15; 10, 10; Ep. 34, 2 – 3; Exameron VI, 1, 2. De Isaac I, 2, 4; In p.s. 118, 10, 10. However, some sayings of St. Ambrose gives reason to think that he, like other, partly Eastern, but mostly Western, fathers, was inclined to attribute a certain materiality to the soul. Thus, he recognizes a simple and alien to complexity substance only in St. Thomas (De Abraham II, 58), from where one can draw the opposite conclusion about the corporeality or materiality of any other being (cf. Orig., De princ. II, 2, 2). In De bono mortis, the idea of ​​the materiality of the soul is expressed more clearly: “At death itself,” writes St. Ambrose, “we observe how the soul of a dying person frees itself little by little from the shackles of the body and, coming out of the mouth, flies away as if from the prison dwelling of this body (2, 5).” Exameron VI, 7, 43; Exhort. virg. 10, 68. De Abraham II, 7, 44; cp. De fide I, 5, 36. De excessu fr. II, 21; cp. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31, 35. De fide III, 3, 19 – 20; cp. De Spiritu Sanctu I, 8, 98. De parade. 12, 54; cp. De bono mortis 7, 26. De virginibus III, 5, 21; De Isaac 7, 59; De Abraham II, 9, 64. Exameron VI, 9, 54; Ep. 43, 14. De excessu fr. II, 3 et passim. For example, Exameron I, 8, 31; De parade. 7, 35. De Noe 12, 41; cp. In p.s. 118, 8, 23. Er. 72, 17; Wed Er. 15, 11. Letter 45 written by St. Ambrose around 389 - 390 (cf. Rauschen, “Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser theodosius dem Grossen”, S. 311), but the time of writing letter 72 remains unknown. (cf. Ihm, “Studia Ambrosiana”, 39). Compare, for example, De Iacob I, 1, 4. Exameron VI, 7, 4; cp. De fide I, 7, 48 sq. In p.s. 118, 10, 16; Exameron V, 7, 40, 41; In Luc. X, 49. Exameron VI, 8, 45; De excess. fr. II, 130; De institut. virg. 3, 20; De Noe 4, 10. Cp. S. Deutsch, 9. Ep. 43, 10. Cp. Philo, De opif. m. 77. In p.s. 118, 2, 13; cp. Ep. 43, 14 and Philo, De opif. m. 69. Exameron VI, 8, 45. Not the body, but the soul was created in the image of God, a free soul, which, thanks to reflection and consideration, dwells both here and there, which, thanks to the thinking ability, sees everything. For example, while we are in Italy, we reflect on what concerns the East and the West, as well as Persia... This means that this ability of the mind to see hidden things, far removed from us, and at one moment be transported to the (other) end of the earth, belongs to the image of God. In p.s. 47, 8; De Jacob I, 1, 1; Exameron IV, 4, 13. Cp. Dr. F. Wörter, 531 – 532. Ep. 43, 15 – 16; cp. Philo, De opif. m. 69 – 71, 83; Wilbrand, Ibid. Ep. 43, 15, 16 – 19, 14; De Jacob I, 1, 4. In p.s. 118, 8, 23; cp. Exameron VI, 8, 49; 7, 42; In p.s. 36, 73. Exameron VI, 7, 41; cp. In p.s. 118, 10, 15. A person then becomes the image and likeness of God when he shows justice, wisdom, and virtue. De bono mortis 5, 17; cp. De Jacob II, 7, 30; De helia 16, 61; In p.s. 118, 8, 23. The Lord, Who from His soul created you in His image and likeness, that is, rational, righteous, pure (then you are in the image of God, if you are righteous, so that you may be an image of righteousness, if you are pure, so that the image of your integrity may shine)... De interp. Iob et David III (IV), 8, 24. Ep. 2, 9; De fuga saecul. 3, 15; De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 19. Cp. Dr. R. Seeberg, “Lehrbuch ser Dogmengeschichte”, 2 Band. S/ 335; R. Thamin, 331. Ambrose is so far from denying the natural foundation of morality that he seeks the beginning (of it) even in the highest animals (De Abraham I, 2, 8). In p.s. 118, 14, 7. From this it is clear that Ewald (S. 60, Anm. 1) incorrectly asserts that St. Ambrose knows the internal law written in the heart by the spirit of the living God, but he does not call this law conscience. Wed. Seeberg, 335; Thamin, 331. In p.s. 39, 22; cp. In p.s. I, 31. Ep. 37, 32; cp. Philo, Quod omn. prob. lib. 7 (M. 452); cp. Wilbrand, "Ambrosius", 12. Ep. 73, 3; De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 44. De paradiso 14, 70; Ep. 2, 10; Apologia 9, 48; De interp. Iob et David I, 3, 8; cp. Philo, De Iosepho 48. De officiis ministrorum III, 4, 24. Er. 37, 32; Wed De Abraham II, 4, 16. Cp. Th. Schmidt, “Ambrosius, sein Werk de officiis libri tres und die Stoa”, 21. Exameron VI, 7, 42; In p.s. 118, 10, 11; Ep. 45, 16. In p.s. 118, 10, 16. Cp. Worter, 537. De paradiso 5, 28 – 29; De interp. Iob et David. III (IV), 8, 24. Clement of Alexandria argues in the same spirit - Str. VI, 12, 96, I sqq. De Noe 26, 90; cp. Exameron VI, 8, 45; Epistola 45, 13. Ibid, 16. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 24. De Jacob I, 1, 4; In p.s. I, 48; Exameron VI, 7, 41. De paradiso 9, 42; cp. I. Tixaront, “Histoire des Dogmes”, p. 227. De Jacob I, 2, 8; De paradiso 14, 70; In p.s. I, 48. De Abraham II, 1, 1; In p.s. 118, 4, 3; Praef. in p.s. I, 3; In p.s. I, 35. In p.s. 118, 10, 16; Exameron VI, 7, 42; cp. Epistola 34, 3. Leg. Alleg. III, 276. Cp. Siegfried, 247 – 248. Ep. 73, 5; cp. De paradiso 12; 59. De paradiso 13, 63; De Noe 30, 115. Er. 58, 12. This letter appeared in 395. (Cp. Rauschen, 457; however, Ihm, 53 – 54, dates the appearance of this letter to the last years of the life of the Milanese saint). De opif. m. 131; cp. 152. C. Siegfried, 237; prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, cit. op. II, str. 381 – 382. Leg. alleg. III, 67; De sacril. Abel et Cain. 195. De mutal. Nomin. 110 – 111; Leg. alleg. I, 83 Cp. Dr. C. Siegfried, 244. Leg. Alleg. II, 456. De migrat. Abraham, 2. Quod det. pot. inside. sol. 15. De somn. II, 192; De ebriet. 222. De opif. m. 151 – 152; De vita M. II (III), 147. Cp. at Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky (II, 384): “For him (Philo) sin was an essential property of material flesh, and in its perception there was the fall of the ancestors.” Leg. alleg. III, 108 – 110. Leg. alleg. III, 107 – 111; II, 50, 51, 71; De opif. m. 152. De congr. erud. grat. 59. De migrat. Abraham, 187 – 188; De congr. erud. grat. 21. Leg. alleg. I, 69; De gigant. 15. Cp. Dr. C. Siegfried, 245. Leg. alleg. I, 69 sqq. Cp. Dr. E. Zeller III, 2, 399 – 400; prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 381 – 382, 1084 – 1087 De gigant. 12 – 13; De plant. 13; De somn. I, 135. Depending on Plato, Philo sometimes pursues the idea that the soul left heaven and moved to this world, as to an alien city. –Dr. H. Windisch, “Die Frömmigkeit Philos”, S. 7 – 8. D. I. Tikhomirov, 161 – 162. Qaest. in Genes. IV, 64 – 65. De sacrif. Ab. et Cain., 2. Cp. De fuga 79 – 80; 15 – 16; Leg. alleg. I, 48 – 49. For examples, see Dr. C. Siegfried, 253 – 256. De congr. erud. grat. 130; cp. Qu. Deus s. immut. 17 – 19. De Decalog. 4. Cp. E. Brehier,298. Str. VI, 16, 136, 1; VII, 12, 79, 6. De princ. I, 3, 8; II, 8, 3. In Math. t. XI, 15; Select. in p.s. 20, v. 11. Hom. Quod non est auctor malor. 7. Wed. A. Harnack, “Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte”, 3 B., 8 Lief., 1910. S. 48 – 49. De Cain et Abel I, 10, 47; cp. De Abraham II, 11, 78; cp. Philo, de sacrif. Abel et Cain, 102 – 103. De poenitentia I, 14, 73. De poenitentia I, 14, 73; Dr. R. Sceberg, II, 338. De Noe 5, 12; De Jacob I, 4, 15. De Jacob I, 3, 10; cp. In p.s. I, 30. De Isaac 2. 5: Anima igitur secundum sui naturam optima est, sed pleruque per inrationabile sui obnoxia fit corruptioni, ut inclinetur ad volnptates corporis et ad petulentiam, dum mansuram rerum non teneat, aut fallitur opinione atque inclinata ad maneriam adglutinatur corpori. According to the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the attraction to sin “first arose not in the highest rational side of our nature, but in the lower sphere of our nature - in το αίσθητόν and precisely in τό επιθυμητικόν (De orat. Dom. or. 4; D. I. Tikhomirov, 183)". De Cain et Abel I, 5, 20. De exces. fr. I, 55; De poenitentia Ii, 8, 75. De Helia 19, 69; Ep. 63, 26. De noe 9, 29; cp. De Jacob I, 1, 1. In p.s. 118, 1, 5; Ep. 63, 14. De paradiso 15, 73; De Jacob I, 2, 5. De Iacob I, 2, 5: Ante delectationem concupiscentia, post delectationem gratulatio est. In De Cain et Abel I, 5, 16, Eve's vices are outlined in this order: food, boasting, greed and vanity. De paradiso 15, 73. Cp. Ep. 63, 14: Siquidem ipse serpens voluptas sit, et ideo veriae ac lubricae, et velut veneno quodam corruptelarum infectae passiones voluptatis sint. De paradiso 15, 73. Philo (De opif. m. 152) and Clement (Str. III, 17, 103, 1) have the idea that the first parents fell as a result of carnal intercourse. We also find a faint hint of the fall of Adam and Eve through carnal intercourse in St. Ambrose (Exhort. virg. 6, 36). In p.s. 118, 1, 5; De paradiso 2, 9; In p.s. 118, 16, 12; 17, 3; 14, 36. In ps. 38, 58. De virginitate 1, 3; De paradiso 12, 54; In p.s. 47, 20; In p.s. 118, 1, 13; De poenitentia I, 13, 64. St. develops this idea in somewhat more detail. Gregory of Nyssa, whose teaching about the origin of sin is captured, however, differently in comparison with the teaching of St. Ambrose, character. “The devil’s insidious plan was to mislead an innocent person, to deceive himself in assessing what is good, to force him to accept as good what only seems good, without actually being such, and then to voluntarily follow this ghost of good” (D. I. Tikhomirov, 175).” In p.s. I, praef. 1; cp. Basil. M., Regul., fus. Tract., inter. 2. De Jacob I, 1, 1; In p.s. 47, 8: Natura hominis contrariorum capax est,ut et malitiae in ea sit vis et virtutis ingressus. In p.s. 118, 14, 20; 3, 34. Cp. In p.s. 118, 7, 14; 8, 14. This is consistent with what we said in the first chapter regarding the teaching of St. Ambrose on the moral value of the body. De Abraham 143 sqq. This Philonov teaching about the origin of evil is consistent with the Bible, but does not, of course, agree with his dualism and his view of matter and body. Com. in epist. ad Rom. Vii, 1 (MPG t.XIV, p. 1056). In Ioan. t. II, 7 (MPG XIV, p. 137; 133). Wed. Dr. G. Capitaine, p. 70, 155 and andot. 1. Wed. P. F. Smirnov, “The Essence of Evil, According to the Teachings of St. Basil the Great" in "Christian Readings", 1907, February, 238 - 240. Hom. II, in Hexaem. 5 (MPG t. XXIX, 40). Hom. Quod Deus non est Auctor malorum 3 (MPG t. XXXI, 333): προς τὴν ξαυτοῦ φύσιν . Ibid.: πρός τὴν ημετίραν αλσθησιν . Hom. II in Hexaem. 5; Hom Quod Deus non est Auctor malorum 3. Hom. II in Hexaem. 4 (MPG t. XXIX, 37). Hom. Quod Deus non est Auctor malorum. 5. Hom. Quod Deus non est Auctor malorum. 7. Ibid. 5 (MPG XXXI, 341): Ζτόμηαις γαρ αγαθου ίστι τό κακόν . Exameron I, 8, 28, 30, 31. Exameron I, 8, 31; cp. In p.s. 36, 82; 38, 35. Contr lul. Pelag. I, 8, 44; Confes. III, 7, 12; De civit Dei XI, 9. Hom. Quod Deus non est auctor malorum 3. De Jacob I, 3, 12; Ep. 46, 4 sq.; In p.s. 38, 29; Apologia proph. David 11, 36; De fuga s. 1, 1; 2, 9; cp. De interp. Iob et David II (III), 3, 10. Exameron VI, 7, 42; In Luc. VII, 73; In p.s. I, praef. 3: Nam si tenuisset infusam sibi a Domino aeternae illius caelestisque delectationis gratiam, nec saecularibus captus amisset illecebris, numquam tam miserabilis aerumnae subiisset injurias; In p.s. 118, 11, 14; 15, 36. Cp. Dr. F. Wörter, 540 – 542. De Helia 4, 9; cp. De paradiso 13, 64, 65. Exameron VI, 7, 43; De Spiritu Sancto Ii, 11, 126. In p.s. 61, 11, 12; De viduis 13, 79. De Jacob I, 5, 19; In Luc. VII, 139. In p.s. I, praef. 3; De exces. fr. s. Satyri II, 47. De excessu fr. II, 47; In p.s. I, praef. 3. Cp. De excessu fr. II, 29 – 30. De paradiso 5, 28 sq.; 7, 35; In p.s. 1, 48; De obitu Theod. 36; In p.s. 37, 5: Postquam est obnoxia facta (caro) peccato, facta est caro mortis: quia erat morti debita. In p.s. 38, 21. St. Ambrose, following the example of Philo, who distinguished between the death of the body and the death of the soul (Leg. alleg.I, 105 - 107), and Origen, who indicated five meanings of the word “death” (In ep. ad Rom.VI, 6; cp. Dr. G Capitaine, 167, adnot. 4), also uses the word mors and mori in different senses (De paradiso 9, 43), Moreover, he distinguishes three types of death: bodily or physical, when the soul is separated from the body, mental or sinful, when a person dies spiritually through his sins, and, finally, mystical or spiritual, when a person dies to the sinful world in order to live with Christ (De excessu fr. II, 36 sq.; De bono mortis 2, 3; In Luc. VII, 35 - 38; De paradiso 9, 43 – 45). Adam was punished with the first death, that which is absolutio animae et corporis and quaedam hominis separatio (De bono mortis 3, 8; cp. Ibid. 2, 3; 8, 31; De Cain et Abel I, 2, 8; II, 10, 25; De excessufr. II, 35 - 36). This death in the image of St. Ambrose (especially in De bono mortis and De exces. fr. II) loses the character of punishment and takes on not only the character of the limit to which a person will be subject to punishment (poenarum nostrarum meta) (De exces. fr. II, 38), not only the meaning of a cure for earthly evils (Ibid. II, 38; remedium naturae - Ibid. II, 47), but also the quality of good, the opposite evil (cf., for example, De excessu fr. II, 39: Ergo mors non solum malum non est, sed etiam bonum est; 40: Mors haec lucrum est, et vita poena est; 47; especially De bono mortis). Wed. De paradiso 7, 35, etc. Vita M. II (III), 147: γένεσιν, συμφυές τό άμαρτάνειν εστίν; De mut. nom. 48 sqq. Dr. E. Zeller, III, 2, 402. Vita M. II (III), 147; De mut. nom. 48 sqq; Quest. in Genes. IV, 157 (365); Cp. E. Breier, 273 – 274; Dr. E. Zeller, III, 2, 402. Paedag. III, 12, 93, 3; Strom. II, 12, 55, 2; VI, 12, 96, 1 ​​– 2; II, 18, 81, 1. Cp. R. Thamin, 429. Comm. in ep. ad Rom. V, 1 (MPG t. XIV p. 1009). Cp. Contr. Cels. VII, 50; In Levit hom. VII, 3: Quaecunque anima in carne nascitur iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur... Mulier ergo quaecunque conceperit semen, et peperit masculum, immunda erit septem diebus etc.; Com. in Math. t. XV, 23: αυτοῦ, διά το περί της γενέσεως μυστήριον. Hence, the universality of sin in Origen became closely related to καταβολή κόσμου - Dr. Freidlich Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte”, 1906 4 S. 335 – 336. Cp. priest Gr. Malevansky, “The Dogmatic System of Origen” in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, 1870, March, 564 - 597. However, hereditary sin spreads in people not only through birth (physically), but also through teaching, through negative examples - Com. in ep. ad Rom. V, 1 (MPG t. XIV, p. 1018), why it is not only baptism that regenerates a person, but also the teaching of piety (Ibid. V, 2 – MPG XIV, 1024). Cp. St. Gr. Malevansky, ibid., pp. 566 – 567. Contr. Cels. VII, 50; In Levit. hom. VIII, 3; In Math. t. XV, 23. Libellus de oratione, 29 (MPG t. XI, p. 537 – 539). Wed. Russian translation by Prof. N. Korsunsky. Yaroslavl, 1884, p. 152 approx.** Er. 64, 5. Loofs, S. 336. Wed. Dr. Th. Forster, 146. Cp. Dr. Th. Forster, 146, 156; Dr. F. Loofs, 336 – 337. Cp. Dr. F. Worter, 529. Contr. lul. Pelag. I, 3, 10 and Contr. sec Jul. resp. I, 47, 48, 112; II, 36, 164, 176; IV, 104; VI, 26. In Luc. VII, 73; cp. August. Contr. Pelag. 1, 3, 10. In p.s. 38, 29; De Noe 3, 7; In Luc. VII,164; In p.s. 118, 8, 24. Er. 67, 4; In p.s. 118, 22, 27. De Noe 3, 7; Apologia David.3, 10. In Luc. II, 64. Cp. Dr. Th. Förster, S. 150, Anmerk. 111. In p.s. 43, 77; cp. De paradiso 6, 31; De Noe 22, 81. De bono mortis 11, 49; De Cain et Abel I, 3, 10. Wed. Orig., In ep. ad Rom. III, 6 (MPG t. XIV, p. 939). The indicated contradiction in the teaching of St. the father is reconciled by Förster (153 – 156), who claims that in one case St. the father expounds the actual dogmatic teaching (about the innateness of sin) on its own, while in the second he speaks ad hoc, meaning practical goals; in the latter case, he opens himself to greater influence from the Eastern fathers. De Noe 22, 81. Cp. Dr. F. Wörter, 545 – 546. Apolog. proph. David. 11, 56. Apologia proph. David. 13, 62. Apologia proph. David. 9, 49. Peccatum opus est iniquitatis autem operatrix culpae atque delicti (Apologia proph. David. 13, 62). Praecedit iniquitas peccatum sequitur. Radix est iniquitas, fructus autem radicis est culpa. Unde videtur iniquitas ad mentis improbitatem referri, peccatum ad corporis; grevior iniquitas tamquam materia peccatorum, levius peccatum, denique iniquitas per lavacrum remittitur, peccatum tegitur bonis factis et tamquamalis operibus obumbratur; unde bene supra hic ipse ait: beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata (Apologia proph. David. 9, 49). Origen also makes the distinction between iniquitas and peccatum, but differently from Ambrose. “Quod iniquitas in his dicitur, quae contra legem committuntur unde et Graecus sermo ανομίαν appelat iniquitatem, hoc est, quod sine lege committitur; peccatum vero etiam illud dici potest, si contra, quamnatura docet et conscientia arguit, delinquatur – In epistola ad Rom. IV, 1 (MPG t. XIV, p. 956). Cp. Dr. G Capitaine, p. 169, adnot. 3. “One is our unrighteousness, and another is our heel, in which Adam was bitten by the serpent, making subsequent generations of the human race guilty with his plague, so that everyone was limped by his plague.” In p.s. 48, 8. This opinion is held, by the way, by Dr. Th. Förster, who commented on the above quote from De excesu fr. II, 6, writes (153 – 154): “Wie die Gerechtigkeit Christi der reale Quell und Ausgangspunkt einer neuen Gerechtigkeit der Menschen geworden ist, so ist die Schuld Adams der Quellpunkt für den verschuldeten Zustand aller seiner Nachkommen geworden; wir sind mit Adam solidarisch verhaftet, und kraft dieses Zusammenhangs nehmen wir Teil an der über Adam verhängten Strafe und Schuld” [As the justice of Christ became the source and starting point of a new fair judgment of people, so Adam’s sin became the beginning of debt for all his descendants; we, together with Adam, are deprived of freedom and, being firmly connected with him, we receive part of his guilt and punishment - trans. ed.], – Dr. R. Seeberg (“Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte”, 2 B, S. 340): “Er (Ambrose) kennt nicht nur eine physische Erbsünde, sondern es ist der Meinung, dass das ganze von Adam herstammende Geschlecht sowohl wirklich sündhaft ist, als auch der Schuld und Strafe der Sünde verfallen ist" [He (Ambrose) does not know only physical original sin, having the opinion that the whole race, descended from Adam, as truly sinful, also receives guilt and punishment for sin - trans. ed.], and I. Tixeront (“Histore des Dogmes”, II, 279). Cp. I. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des heiligen Augastinus”, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1909. II, 145 – 146. On the contrary, A. Harnack (“Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte”, 3 B., 8 Lief., S. 49, Anm. 2) claims that in St. Ambrose we do not yet find a teaching about imputation to us. sin. Cf. F. Böhringer, 62 and S. Deutsch, 26 - 27, who builds theories on this issue that are not sufficiently substantiated by him. For example, the will of people is so weakened by the sin of Adam that it has ceased to be morally neutral and has become carnal (carnalis); she has fallen under the influence of bodily passions, to which, although reluctantly, she submits and which, despite all her desire, she is not able to overcome. (De Jacob. I, 4, 15; cp. In Luc. IV, 65). For more details see Förster, 146 ff., Deutsch, 18 and Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Lehre”, 178 flg. In p.s. 38, 9; In Luc IV, 67. About death as a punishment for sin, as well as about exceptions to the universal law of death for people, see Dr. I. E. Niederhuber: “Die Eschatologie”, 6 – 9. Contr. Jul. Pelag. I, 3, 10. Ibid. The question is whether St. held on. Ambrose in the doctrine of the origin of the soul of the theory of creationism (as stated by Tixeront, 276), or, like Tertulian (Prof. K.I. Skvortsov, 170), traditionism, is very difficult, since St. We don't find Ambrose. However, based on his teaching about hereditary sin, St. Ambrose could rightfully be classified as a traditionalist (cf. Dr. Th. Förster, 152). However, on the other hand, it is difficult to agree with the statement of Prof. A. Harnack (op. cit., 49) that Ambrose in no way connects his teaching about the heredity and continuity of sin with the idea of ​​Divinity and redemption. Wed. A. Harnack, 49 – 50; I. Mausbach, II, 145; Dr. Th. Forster, 154. Ep. 73, 5: Ergo quia per inobedientiam praerogativa naturalis legis corrupta atque interlita est, ideo scriptum legis existimatum est necessarium; ut vei partem haberet, qui universum amiserat: et cui perierat quod nascendo assumpserat, discendo saltem cognosceret et custodiret. Ep. 73, 9: Habes igitur unum, quia Lex et superflua fuit et facta est non superflua: superflua in eo, quia non fuisset necessaria, si illam legem naturalem servare potuissemus sed quia non servavimus ista lex per Moyen necessaria facta est. Ep. 73, 5; De Jacob I, 5, 17. In Luc. II, 56; In p.s. 118, 18, 37. Based on the position that the affairs of the patriarchs are the secrets of the future (De Ioseph 14, 85), St. Ambrose finds high meaning and moral significance in almost every fact (sometimes even sinful) from the lives of the Old Testament righteous. He, in contradiction with himself, justifies the cohabitation of Abraham with Hagar (De Abraham I, 4, 23: Consideremus primum quia Abraham ante legem Moysi et ante evangelium fuit: nondum interdictum adulterium videbatur, poena criminis ex tempore legis est, quae crimen inhibuit, nec ante legem ulba est rei damnatio, sed ex lege), says that Jacob gave up the stew to his brother, following piety (De officiis ministrorum I, 24, 111), that Moses abandoned Egyptian wisdom, on the one hand, for the sake of God, in order to see and hear Him, and on the other, because he saw in it a harmful absurdity (De oofficiis ministrorum I, 26, 123), and that is why the Jews left Egypt, that they considered it dishonorable and useless to serve the king of Egypt (De officiis ministrorum III, 8, 53). Wed. also De Tobia 2, 6; De off. m. III, 9, 63; Apologia David. 1, 7. In p.s. 1, 31; De exces. fr. II, 109; De interp. Iob et David. IV (II), 2, 9. Er. 75, 5. To the Jews God gave only speciem haerditatis, and not the possessio itself. Ep. 75, 4 De Abraham I, 4, 29; Apologia proph. David. 8, 44. The justification of the law is not true, but secundum speciem. In p.s. 118, 12, 34. In p.s. 61, 12; In Luc. VII, 166. De Jacob I, 6, 20; In Luc. IV, 35. In Luc. VI, 35; V, 2, 22; cp. De interp. Iob et David. IV (II), 4, 18. In Luc. VI, 35: Lex ergo auctor est boni, quae mittit ad gratiam. De Cain et Abel II, 2, 7. In p.s. 118, 18, 36; cp. 21, 12. De officiis ministrorum I, 26, 124. De mut. No. 68. Cp. E. Brehier, 167. A. Martynov, “Teaching of St. Gregory, bishop Nyssa about human nature." Moscow, 1886, p. 18. For details, see Martynov, pp. 18 et seq. Hom. in principle Proverb. 6. Exam. VI, 2, 8; I, 2, 6; 20, 22; In p.s. 118, 12, 20; cp. De off. m. I, 26, 122; In p.s. 36, 28. In p.s. 118, 22, 9; In Luc. VIII, 17; In p.s. 35, 1. Exam. V, 24, 86; cp. In Luc. V, 70; In p.s. 36, 28. In p.s. 43, 70; In p.s. 118, 16, 40; In p.s. 48, 17; De virginitate 14, 92; Exameron VI, 2, 8. In p.s. 118, 12, 19; 7, 36; In Luc. VIII, 17; De virginitate 14, 88. About Origen St. Ambrose, by the way, notes that he was condescending to the teachings of philosophers. De Abraham II, 8, 54. De virginitate 3, 13; cp. De Isaac 8, 67. De excessu fr. I, 42; De abraham I, 2, 4; II, 8, 54; 2, 5; 6, 29; 7, 37; De Noe 8, 24; De off. m. I, 28, 132 – 134; 12, 43; 25, 118; In p.s. 118, 18, 4; Ep. 28, 1. In p.s. I, praef. 2; cp. De Isaac 7, 63; MPL t. XIV, p. 526,adnot. "f". In p.s. 1, 41; cp. In Luc. VII, 103. De somn. II, 25: Quod deus s. immut. 116; Leg. alleg. III, 211 sqq. Cp. Dr. Hans Windisch, 16 – 17. De somn. I, 181, 147; Leg. alleg. II, 32. Cp. H. Windisch, 30 – 31. De confus. ling. 91 sqq. Cp. Dr. H. Windisch, 88. Contr. Cels. VII, 23. Cp. priest Grigory Malevansky, “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy”, 1870, April, pp. 90 – 91. In Iohan. t. XX, 26.Cp. Priest G. Malevansky, “Tr. K. D. A.”, 1870, April, pp. 91 – 92. Hom. in Levit. XII, 1 – 2; In Exod hom. VIII, 6; Comment. in Math. XIII, 8 – 9; XVI, 8. Com. in Iohan. tom. VI, 35. In Iohan. t. XXVIII, 14 (MPG, t. XIV, p. 393). De princ. II, 11, 3. Cp. priest G. Malevansky, “Tr. K. D. A.”, 1870, April, pp. 532 et seq. Wed. Dr. Th. Forster, 136. Dr. W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte”, I, 606. In Luc. IV, 8; cp. Ep. 45, 15. In Luc. IV, 67: “Let us look for a doctor among the angels or archangels. But how can they help me so that I do not sin, when the archangel himself could not restrain himself from sin? How could an angel call me to paradise, when Satan himself and his angels could not preserve the dwelling that they received? – Ibid. IV, 9. In p.s. 43, 25; In Luc. VII, 234; De interpel. Iob et David. III (IV), 11, 28. In p.s. 118, 5, 45; “He loves a free faith who gave freedom. He rejoices when He is loved, for He came into this world because He loved it. He arouses love for Himself - He Who loves everyone, because He is Love... He who loves is a friend, and he who fears is a slave; like a friend who has fulfilled everything that the Lord commanded him, He says: “You are my friends if you do what I command you (John XV, 14).” I. 3, 13. Rus. lane A. Voznesensky, Kazan, 1901, p. 7. Wed. De poenit. I, 3, 13; Ep. 76, 8; De fide V, 7, 90;In Luc. II, 91. “The ecclesiastical Latin writers of the end of the 4th century,” writes A. Harnack (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte”, 27, Anm. 3), “really liked Methodius’s idea that Christ must be born in everyone and that only in this way can redemption be acquired: Ambr. In Luc. II, 26: Vides non dubitasse Mariam... secundum carnem una mater est Christi, secundum fidem tamen omnium fructus ast Christus. On this basis, St. Ambrose considers the heretics to be guilty of the fact that Christ, who was born for everyone, is not born for everyone, that is, that heretics, as heretics, do not partake of the saving fruits of Christ’s redemption (De fide II, 8, 57). “What other reason was there for the incarnation than that the flesh that had sinned should be redeemed by the flesh?” De incarn. 6, 36, 65, 54. Cp. De exces. frat. s. Sat. II, 90. In p.s. 37, 5; cp. Ep. 42, 4. Er. 48, 5; cp. De interp. Iob et David, III (IV), 10, 27. De incarn. dom. saer. 7, 77; De poenit. I, 3, 12; In Luc. X, 56; Ep. 46, 6. De poenit. I, 3, 12; In p.s. 48, 13. De poenit. I, 3, 12; In Luc. X, 42. De poenit. II, 7, 58. Christ was free not only from all personal sin (Apologia proph. David, 3, 10), but also from original sin (Ibid. 11, 57). De fide III, 1, 6; Apologia 5, 22. De Spiritu Sanctu III, 11, 124. De fide II, 7, 54; De Spiritu Sanctu III, 17, 124. De fuga saec. 7, 44; De fide II, 11, 93 – 94; V, 14, 179; In p.s. 118, 5, 41;Sermo c. Auxent. 25: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree, that is, He who took on our flesh in His flesh, and in His body our infirmities and our curses, in order to crucify them, for He is not (Himself) cursed, but cursed in you.” In p.s. 39, 17; In p.s. 118, prol. 3: “The passion of the Lord washed this world to make the nations worthy to praise God with undefiled lips.” De Jacob I, 5, 17. In p.s. 118, 22, 3; In p.s. 47, 17: “Christ washed the world with His Blood, for sin could not be destroyed in any other way.” 3, 9. Sometimes St. Ambrose distinguishes in redemption the meaning of, on the one hand, the cross of Christ, on the other, the death of the Savior (Defide III, 5, 36), but more often merges and identifies them, claiming that the cross of Christ saves and redeems us (Apolog. 6, 24; De Spir. S., prolog. 5; In ps. 118, 21, 21). Since the concept of the coming of Christ embraces His entire redemptive work, St. Ambrose says that the coming of the Savior redeems people (De Iacob I, 4, 14). In p.s. 47, 17; In p.s. 118, 12 36. In p.s. 40, , 15. Cp. Dr. Th. Forster, 137. In p.s. 47, 17; In p.s. 118, 8, 4; De fide III, 11, 87; Ep. 44, 16. De incarn d. s. 6, 54; De fide III, 5, 36. In Luc. VI, 109; cp.De fide III, 2, 8: Decuit enim ut ille nos redimeret, qui creavit. De Jacob I, 6, 25; In Luc. VII, 225. Cp. Dr. Th. Forster, 133; Dr. R. Seeberg, 338. In p.s. 118, 20, 17: “For your sake (Christ) humbled Himself to death, the death of the cross, in order to destroy the fall of your pride, so that what we lost through the disobedience of Adam alone, we would regain through the obedience of the One Lord Jesus.” 18, 32: “If we think about it, we (see) that humility was lacking in paradise, and therefore it came from heaven. Disobedience appeared in paradise, and therefore obedience descended with Christ. The flesh was puffed up, and therefore meek submission could not be found on earth.” 18:34: “Christ, being poor and humble, redeemed the world, for Christ through humility defeated the devil.” In p.s. 35, 4. Disobedience is called by St. Ambrose "infection of ancient sin." In p.s. 61, 4: “Our Lord Jesus, who took upon the flesh of man, in order to purify it in Himself, what should he do first of all, if not to destroy the infection of ancient sin? For just as guilt entered through disobedience, when the commandments of the Lord were despised, so first of all it was necessary to revive obedience and thereby destroy the breeding ground of sin.” In Luc. II, 41; VII, 133; In p.s. I, 37. De Isaac 5, 46; cp. De exces. fr. II, 46. Dr. Th. Förster, 137 – 138. In Luc. II, 3; IV, 19; VI, 101; cp. De Jacob II, 3, 10. In p.s. 35, 1; Ep. 78, 8 (cp. Dr. G. Wilbrand, “Ambrosius”, 28); De Abraham, II, 11, 79; In p.s. 118, 12, 36. Since the New Testament Blood of Christ abolishes the blood of the Old Testament, St. Ambrose says that “Christ sold the Jewish people (what is considered unnecessary is sold) and bought the Christian people with His Blood.” In p.s. 43, 42. In p.s. 38, 27; In p.s. 118, 3, 8. In Luc. V, 46; In p.s. 39, 2; Ep. 7, 12. Er. 76, 9; In p.s. 118, 12.25. In p.s. 118, 15, 34; Ep. 29, 21. De Spiritu Sanctu, II, 7, 65: Qui renovatur Spiritu mentis, induit novum hominem, qui secundum Deum creatas est; De Isaac, 8, 75. Er. 78, 1: “We are not the children of a handmaid, but of a free woman, with which freedom Christ freed us. From this it follows that those who are of faith are the children of Abraham, for they take precedence over the heirs by birth. Law is a teacher; faith is free; let us put aside the works of slavery, let us hold on to the grace of freedom, leave the shadow, follow the sun; let us leave the institutions of the Jews (Gal. 3:24).” In Luc. III, 29: “He came who “called upon the experience of ancient life and in the New Adam recreated the freedom with which he endowed the first Adam, so that the human race would remain without the law of slavery.” De Iacob, I, 3, 9, etc. Er. 7, 42: “We have been redeemed from death and slavery, so that we are no longer subject to the world from which we have renounced... Christ came to earth to take away the sin of the world, in order to forgive sin to all (John 1:29), He humbled Himself in order to give freedom to all (Phil. 2:7), He took on flesh in order to obtain the resurrection of all by His death.” This idea is indirectly confirmed by those passages from the works of St. father, in which he talks about the free will of man and his unconditional responsibility for sins, for example: De Nabuthae 16, 68; De Cain et Abel, II, 3, 11. Ep. 75, 6: Tamquam angus advenit, et totum mundum una sui corporis hostia liberavit. De Ioseph 4, 19. Cp. De Jacob II, 3, 13; Ep. 75, 4. For more information about this, see Dr. I. E. Pruner: “Die Theologiedes heiligen Ambrosius”, S. 23 – 24. De parade. 13, 61; Ep. 43, 3. In p.s. 118, 3, 22; cp. Orig., Selecta in psal. CXVIII, vers. 18; Pitra, “Analecta sacra”, III (1883), 259. De Cain et Abel, II, 3, 11. In p.s. 118, 16, 35: Intellectus spiritales munus est; et ideo quod Dei est, a Domino postulatur. In p.s. 118, 19, 43; De exces fr. II, 109. De Cain et Abel II, 1, 4; De Abraham II, 6, 27. De Cain et Abel II, 1, 4; De Jacob I, 3, 9; De Abraham II, 6, 27, etc. Ep. 45, 15; De poenit. II, 7, 65: Ideo enim et passus et mortuus est Dominus, ut nos redimerit a morte. Hoc excellentissimum indicat pretium suac mortis, quo peccator absolvitur et im novam assumitur gratiam. In p.s. 118, 2, 3; De virginib. I, 8, 47. In p.s. 118, 3, 42; 17, 1; 12, 47; De off. m. III, 15, 94. De Jacob I, 6, 21; cp. In p.s. 44, 1; Ep. 7, 20; In Luc. II, 79. Cp. R. Seeberg, 343. De Cain et Abel II, 3, 11; De poenit. II, 7, 65; In Luc. X, 57; De Tobia 14, 47; De Abraham II, 11, 84; In p.s. 118, 18, 7. De fide II, 7, 55; De poenit. II, 7, 65: “The Lord suffered and died to redeem us from death. He indicated the greatest significance of His death in resolving the sinner and accepting him into new grace.” De exces. fr. II, 46: Itaque mors ejus vita est omnium. De mearn. d. s. 5, 39: Postermo mortuns est, ui illius mors vita fieret mortnorum. Cp. De fide III, 2, 8: Redemptio enim nostra per sanguinem, remissio per potestatem, vita per gratium.Cp. In p.s. 35, 3. Exameron IV, 5, 22; De Jacob II, 7, 39. De poenit. I, 17, 95; cp. De Abraham I, 4, 20; In Luc. V, 30. De Spiritu Sanctu I, prolog. 3; In p.s. 118, 15, 40. Passion of St. Ambrose, as you know, refers to the body and the soul. In p.s. 118, 21, 11; cp. In p.s. 37, 4. In p.s. 61, 12; De viduis 13, 79. In p.s. 36, 64: “The lips of the righteous will learn wisdom... What kind of lips of the righteous are they that will learn wisdom, if not (the lips of) the inner man? There are two special people: one is internal, the other is external; the inner one thinks about what pertains to the mind, speaks about what pertains to the mind, the outer one speaks about what pertains to the body. However, the Lord in His coming united both of them and united the two in one man, so that they would not oppose each other, but would be united in the unity of their wills. Hence: the mouth of the righteous will learn wisdom; for the outer man has already been transformed according to the teaching of the inner man and, having been reincarnated in his nature, he (the outer man) already fulfills his duties, so that the flesh is taught what concerns the inner mind. But so that this does not seem incredible to you, listen to the apostle speaking (Phil. 3:21). that the Lord transformed our humiliated body to make it conformable to the body of His glory.” – De instit. In p.s. 47, 4; cp. Ep. 31, 3. De Spir. S. I, 9, 109; De incarn. d. s. I, 4. In p.s. 38, 36; In p.s. 35, 3; Ep. 71, 4; cp. In p.s. 118, 19, 23. St. Ambrose does not distinguish, in fact, between the “kingdom of God” and the “church of Christ.” Cp. Dr. I. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 184, Anm. 4. Cp. Dr. Th. Forster, 137. De interp. Iob et Dav. IV (II), 2, 9. De Abraham II, 9, 65; De Tob. 20, 74. In p.s. 118, 12, 25; In p.s. 43, 64. De myster. 6, 30. For more details, see Dr. I. Niederhuber, “Lehre”, 79, In Luc. VI, 50; De Cain et Abel II, 3, 12. In p.s. 38, 35. ...qui opus suum supra Christi non constituit fundamentum. Cp. In p.s. 45, 7. In p.s. 61, 19. Non enimlabi poterit qui coeperit esse cum Christo. De virginitate 16, 99. Cp. De Jacob I, 6, 22; In Luc. V, 42. De interp. Iob et David. III (IV), 11, 28. De Cain et Abel. II, 3, 11. In p.s. 118, 20, 33; cp. 118, 18, 37. In p.s. 118, 5, 19 – 20; In p.s. 39:3: “To me, who was waiting (for You), Lord Jesus, You once came, directed my steps in the Gospel, and put a new song in my mouth, that is, the New Testament. Already rejoicing, we sing a hymn to our God, because we have learned the commandments of new virtues; (we have learned the commandments that require) that, following Christ, we should leave everything and love our enemies.” In p.s. 118, 18, 38; 16, 44; cp. De Jacob I, 4, 18 – 19. Hom. In Genes. VI, 3; Hom. Yes. Nav. IX, 8. For more details, see Dr. G. Capitaine, 80 – 83. In p.s. 118, 18, 29; cp. Ep. 31, 4 – 5. In p.s. 35, 5; In p.s. 118, 1, 8. Ep. 44, 5, 6; Ep. 26, 9; In p.s. 118, 1, 8; De interp. Iob et David. IV (II), 4, 18; In p.s. 118, 19, 13. Cp. Orig. Selecta in psal. CXVIII, vers. 151; Pitra, "Anal. s.", III, 395. De interp. Iob et David. IV (II), 2, 9; De Cain et Abel II, 6, 19. In p.s. 118, 18, 37; De interp. Iob et David. I, 5, 12. De Abraham II, 8, 52; In Luc V, 83; In p.s. 40, 28; In p.s. 61, 17. In p.s. 118, 18, 25; De Spiritu Sanctu III, 17, 123. Ep. 36, 3; In p.s. 118, 15, 10; De Cain et Abel II, 3, 11; De Jacob II, 7, 30; De paradiso 11, 56; In p.s. 1, 3. De paradiso 8, 39; In Luc. 10, 62. De paradiso 14, 72; 16, 17. In ep. ad Rom. X, 38; IV, 1 (MPG t. XIV, p. 963 – 964). In I Reg. hom. II (MPG t. XII, p. 1020 – 1021); In Ierm. hom. I, 16 Cp. priest G Malevansky, “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy”, 1870, May, pp. 259 – 260. Comment. series in Math. 69. Dr. G. Capitaine, 108 – 109. De fuga saec. 2, 6; cp. In p.s. 118, 12, 13; De Helia 21, 77, 89; De poenitentia II, 2, 11; De Cain et Abel II, 3, 11. De Cain et Abel II, 3, 11. In p.s. 118, 8, 57; 2, 21. In p.s. 118, 19, 33. Cp. Ibid. 20, 13, 14, 42. De fide V, 6, 83, 84; De Cain et Abel I, 7, 27; Exhortatio virginitatis 7, 43. In p.s. 118, 15, 31; cp. In p.s. 43, 50. De poenitentia II, 11, 99 – 100. In Luc. II, 84; In p.s. 118, 2, 21; 20, 42; De poenitentia II, 2, 11. In p.s. 118, 19, 30; 12, 16, 17, 10, 35. This text by St. father differs from Hebrew and Greek. Wed. Förster, 158 and Dr. F. Worter, 583. E. Brehier, 223. Dr. H. Windisch, 26. De migrat. Abraham 44; De praem. et paen. 27. Cp. Windisch, 26. Quis rer. div. heres. 91. De virtut. 216. Cp. Windisch, 28. De Somn. I, 60; Leg. alleg. II, 89; Quod deus s. imm. 4; cp. E. Brehier, 218 – 219 and Windisch, 28. Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 186. More details from N. N. Glubokovsky, 174 – 186. Cf. Also Windisch, 27: Bisweilen gilt wohl die Tugend als Lehrmeisterin, die zum Glaube hinführt. Da muss der Mensch in der Tugend bewährt sein, ehe er zu glauben vermag. In Iohan XXXII, 9 (MPG t. XIV, p. 784); In Math. t. XVI,9. Com. in ep. ad Rom. IV, 6 (MPG t. XIV, p. 981). In Math. com. Ser. 69; Contr. Cels. I, 9 – 11; VII, 49; De princ. IV, 12; In Iohan XIX, 1 (MPG t. XIV, p. 529); In Math. XII, 15 (MPG t. XIII, p. 1017). Com. in ep. ad Rom. IV, 6 (p. 1017). Com. in ep. ad Rom. IV, 5 (p. 974); Com. in Math. set. 69. Comment. in Math. Series. 69. Cp. Bontetsch, N., “Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede” in Texte und Unterstesuchungen heraus gegeben von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack, N. F. I Band, 2 Heft. S. 64. Moralia, Regula VIII. Rus. lane Part III, p. 301. Ep. 22.21; In p.s. 43, 1; In Luc. VIII, 42; Ep. 73, 11. De officiis minisrorum I, 29, 142; In p.s. 61, 5; De mysreriisV, 28. De poenitentia I, 11, 48. De Spiritu Sanctu I, 3, 45; De fide IV, 1, 1. In Luc. II, 12; In p.s. 118, 20, 56. De Spir. S. I, 2, 30. Cp. Dr. R. Seeberg, “Lehrbuch der DG”, 2 B., pp. 334 – 335. De Spir. S. I, 3, 45; cp. De poenitentia II, 2, 7, 12. De Jacob I, 1, 1. Cp. Dr. R. Seeberg,335. De parade. 2, 7; cp. De incarnation d. s. 9, 89 sqq.; De fide I, 3, 21. Interpreting the words of the Savior: “From the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of heaven has been taken by force, and those who use force take it away” (Matthew 11; 12), St. Ambrose notes (In ps. 43, 35): “The winner is the one who, while on earth, does not know captivity through unbelief.” If faith is the grace of God, then he who has faith also has grace; the one who not only has faith in God, but also suffers for the name of God, he, according to St. father, has double grace. Fides Dei donum est; sicut habes scriptum: Quia a Deo vobis datum est, non solum ut credatis in cum, sed etiam ut pro illo patiamini (Philio. I, 29)… Non una autem, set duplex gratia est, ut omnis qui credit, et patiatur pro Domino Jesu. Habet igitur qui credit suam gratiam: habet autem alteram, si fides ejus passionibus coronetur (De poenitentia I, 11, 49 – 50). De Abraham I, 3, 21; De fide I, 12, 78; In p.s. 40, 4. However, this moral element does not cross out the strictly religious element. Wed. In p.s. 118, 9, 12: Aliud est autem in mandatis Dei credit, cito efficit ut sun in mandatis Dei, et in ipsis conversetur. Per fidem igitur scientio assumitur, per scientiam disciplina. Quod enim scimus placere Deo posse, in eo nos conversatio ipsa delectat. Denique scriptum est: Nostra autem conversatio in coelis est (Philip. III, 20) Praecessit scientia, secuta est conversatio. De mandatis Dei credere diximus. In mandatis autem Dei credere, hoc est in ipsis esse, et credere vera mandata sunt. Nisi enim credideris mandatis Dei, eorum etique scientiam, quae per mandata Dei docemur, habere non poteris. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 28. De Off. m. I, 29, 142. Cp. De off. m. I, 25, 117; I, 26, 124. De Ioseph 14, 81; De Cain et Abel II, 2, 8. De Cain et Abel II, 7, 25. De interp. Iob et Dav. II (III), 4, 16. “The sacrificial death (of the Savior) at St. Ambrose is valued not only for its objective significance, but also as a proof of God's extraordinary love, which motivates man to reciprocate love and to reject superbia, following the example of humilitas Christi. This clearly outlines the individual assimilation of salvation.” Dr. W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der KG”, I, 607. Er. 78, 5 – 7. At the same time, St. Ambrose explains (7): “For the sake of an example, the Apostle cited that you can have such faith that you can move mountains, but not have love. “How is it that he who has all mysteries and all knowledge, how does he not have love, when John says: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1), and above he said: “For whoever is born of God does not sin” (1 John 3:9).” Sometimes, however, he places faith, this primary virtue, above love. De viduis, 6; In Luc. VII, 146. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 19; De poenitentia I, 11, 49 – 50. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 19. In p.s. 36, 65; In p.s. 118, 16, 24. Er. 7, 2. Sometimes together with the faith of St. Ambrose also considers mercy and mercy (gratia et misericordia) to be redemption. Ibid. 3. Christian liber ex fide. Since the law was powerless to make man free, God added grace (adiunxit gratiam - De Iacob I, 4, 13). Freedom is based on this grace, acquired by faith. The last gratiam libertatis or libertatem gratiae St. Ambrose contrasts the yoke of the Old Testament law. Hence the Christian, as liber ex fide, is opposed to the Jew, as servo sub metu. The first, by the way, means the spirit, and the second - the letter of the law, from where: “Where the spirit is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17) and where there is faith, there is freedom, and where there is freedom, there is grace, and where there is grace, there is the inheritance. How can one become free by denying the saving Blood with which we have been redeemed (Eryu 75, 4 sqq)? De fuga saeculi 2, 9; In p.s. 118, 20, 24. De poenitentia I, 12, 53. In p.s. 40, 23; In p.s. 118, 11, 17; cp. In p.s. 43, 10. De poenitentia I, 11, 52. In p.s. 1, 51 – 56; 118, 20, 24. In Luc. X, 21. The name of the Antichrist St. Ambrose applies not only to the enemy who will come at the end of the world, but also to the Arians, Sabelians and in general to all those who deny the Divinity of Christ. (De fide II, 15, 35; In Luc. I, 131). Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 138 – 139. Comm. in Iohan. t. VI, 17. Exhort. ad Martyr. 30: Apart from baptism it is impossible to obtain remission of sins: In Cant. IV, 88 (MPG t. XIII, p. 186). Contr. Cels. IV, 5; Sel. in p.s. LXVIII, v. 5 – 6; XCII, v. 5; Contr. Cels. IV, 26; Comm. In iohan. t. VI, 17. In Levit. hom. VIII, 3; Comm. in Math. t. XV, 23; In Luc. Hom. XIV (t. XIII, p. 1831); Comm. in ep. ad Rom. V, 9 (t. XIV, p. 1047). De Abraham II, 11, 79; De Helia 22, 84. In p.s. 118, 3, 14; In Luc. VIII, 78: He who has received baptism has no need to repeat it; De Spiritu Sanctu III, 4, 28. The spiritual grace of baptism operates only when the believer is baptized not just into God, but in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (De mysteriis 4, 20). However, according to St. Basil, St. Ambrose allowed baptism in the name of Jesus or one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but under the necessary condition that the faith be “healthy”, so that qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem signavit (De Spir. S. I, 3, 44). Cp. I. Tixeront, “Histore des Dogmes”, II, p. 311. It is also necessary that baptism be performed by an Orthodox priest, through whom Christ Himself acts (In ps. 118, 3, 15; De mysreriis 5, 27); on the contrary, the baptism of heretical priests is not valid (De mysreriis 4, 23). De parade. 9, 45; De excas. fr. II, 40; De Abraham. I, 8, 74. De poenitentia II, 2, 10; cp. De Isaac 6, 53. De officiis minisrorum III, 18, 107. De paradiso 9, 45. Cp. De excesssu fr. II, 36, 40; De Jacob I, 5, 18. In p.s. 37, 10; De Jacob I, 5, 18. De Jacob I, 5, 18; In p.s. 37, 10. Cp. De poenitentia II. 2, 9. De excesssu fr. II, 36. Cp. De paradiso 9, 45. Ibid.; De excesssu fr. II, 40; In p.s. 118, 11, 15. Apologia David 12, 59; De mysreriis 7, 35 – 37. De mysreriis 6, 32; Ep. 79, 24. Apologia David 8, 45: Et bene lavatur ab injustitia vel iniquitate, quae maior est, emundatur a delicto, quod minus est. In Luc. I, 37. This place is literally repeated by St. Augustine in Contr. Iul Pelag. I, 3, 10 and Contr. sec. Iul. resp. IV, 121. We saw above that hereditary sin is sometimes designated by St. Ambrose, as iniquitas calcanei. The idea of ​​this iniquitas in the Gaul and, in particular, in the Milan church was in connection with the washing of feet, a ceremony to which was attributed the meaning of baptism, that is, the power to release haereditaria peccata. This is indicated in De mysreriis (6, 32) and St. Ambrose, when he says: “Peter was clean, but the washing away of his inherited sins was required; our personal sins are washed away in baptism.” Cf. Dr. Fr. Worter, 545; I. Tixeront, 312; G. Rauschen, “Florilegium patristicum”, Fasciculus VII, Bonnae MCMIX, S. 82; Anm. 6, 8. In Luc. II, 79; In Luc. II, 83: “The Lord Himself was baptized, not because He needed baptism, but in order to purify the waters with His sinless Body, so that they might acquire the grace of baptism.” De interp. Iob et Dav. IV (II), 10, 36. De Spiritu Sanctu II, 4, 28. De Spiriu Sanctu II, 66, 64; III, 10, 64. De Spiritu Sanctu I, 6, 79. De Spiritu Sanctu I, 5, 71. De Spiritu Sanctu III, 16, 109 – 112; 4, 28. De Spiritu Sanctu III, 16, 112. De Spiritu Sanctu III, 17, 120; In Luc. VI, 53. De Spiritu Sanctu II, 7, 64. De mysreriis 4, 19. Cp. S. Deutsch, 40 – 41; Forster, 168. De Spiritu Sanctu I, 6, 76. De mysreriis IV, 20: Ideoque legisti quod tres testes in baptismate unum sunt, aqua, sanguis, et Spiritus (I John. V, 7); Quia si unum horum detrahes, non stat baptismatis sacramentum. De Spiritu Sancto I, 6, 77. St. Basil the Great wrote (Comm. in Isaiam cap. IV, 137): “Perhaps... there are three concepts of baptism: as cleansing from defilement, as rebirth by the Spirit and as fiery torture in judgment... in the next century... Those who did not hear divine instructions at all and sinned before they knew the word, are as if defiled and have a need for cleansing with water. And those who, after taking life to themselves, are malicious, those, being guilty of blood, have a need for fiery cleansing.” St. Hilary, in addition to water baptism, distinguishes the following four: 1. Holy Spirit; 2. pre-trial fire; 3. death and 4. blood. I Tixeront, 311. Cp. MPL t. XV, p. 1227, adnot. "a". In p.s. 118, 3, 14. Cp. 3, 15; De officiis minisrorum III, 18, 103: “Divine grace burns our sins with fire and cleanses us with water. For sin is washed away and burned away. Why does the apostle say: “Everyone’s work, what it is, will be tested by fire” (1 Cor. 3:13) and below: “If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss, however, he himself will be saved, however, as if through fire” (15). Ibid. 75, 51 – 53. However, here too St. Ambrose is not entirely consistent. Thus, in De Abraham (II, 11, 84) he writes that if someone has not received baptism due to negligence or because it was impossible for him to be baptized, although he is freed from afterlife torment, he may not receive heavenly bliss. Meanwhile, about Valentinian II St. his father says that after his death he entered heaven. De institutione virgines 17, 104: “Ampluis nobis profuit culpa, quam nociut: in quo redemptio quividem nostra divinum munus invenit.” De Iacob I, 6, 21: "Jacta est mini culpa meamerces redemptionis, per quam mini Christus audenit; proper me Christus mortem gustavit; fructuosior culpa quam innocentia." In p.s. 39, 20: “Felix ruina, quae reparatum in melius.” Er. 45, 15; In p.s. 118, 20, 19. In Luc. V, 61; cp. Ep. 71, 9. The expression possidere terram consolationem habere in St. Ambrose, in relation to the conversation on the mount (Matthew 5; 4 - 5), means a blissful stay in paradise - incolatus or requies paradisi. In p.s. 118, 10, 14. Meanwhile, it should be noted that St. Ambrose, following Cyril of Jerusalem together with Didymus, taught about the angelic world as an image of the abundant outpouring of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Th. Schermann, “Die gr. Q.”, 76. De Ioseph 14, 82; De petr. 10, 43; De Helia 19, 69. In Luc. I, 17. This thought is literally repeated by St. Augustine in De naturaet grat. 63, 75. In p.s. 118, 16, 19: “Quia non a primo homines esse perfecti, sed per processum virtutis ascenduut. In Luc. V, 25; De mysreriis 1, 1: “Renewed through baptism, you hold to the way of thinking that befits experienced people.” Cp. De poenitentia II, 2, 11. De Cain et Abel II, 2, 8: “Hig ergo cognoscimus quod omnia fides nos comendare deo debeat; cum fidem habuerunus, claboremus ut opera nostra perfecta sint, siquiden hoe plenumest et perfectum sacrificium sient ipse Dominus docet diceus de dome et datis suis: Obsevabitis offere mihi in diebus festis meis (Num. XXVIII, 2), nihil detrahentes neque dispertientes, sed plena et integra et perfecta offerentes.” In Luc. VII, 104: Fidelis... ut et fide etoperibus adprobetur. In p.s. 118, 3, 47. St. Ambrose apparently wants to distinguish between the meaning of justitia and jstificatio. By the first, he most often means either the knowledge of God’s commandments, or the fulfillment of these commandments, or a virtuous life, by which a person justifies God (Cf. In ps. 118, 22, 18; 20, 28); under justificatio - then divine grace-filled help and, in the proper sense, justification (In ps. 118, 15, 29 - 30), then the humble consciousness of a person’s fulfilled duty: “Even if we do any good deed, then we must still confess our sins, for this is the justification (justificatio) of the Lord (In ps. 118, 15, 30).” But more often he confuses the meaning of these concepts (cf., for example, In Luc. I, 20; In ps. 118, 18, 30) or fills these words with other content, for example: “All the commandments of the Lord are truth (justitia) and without truth (justitia) they cannot be (In ps. 118, 22, 21).” “It is not enough to appeal to the Lord, but one must also seek His justifications (justitias). He gains justification who ascribes to divine providence everything that he finds fair in all creatures and especially in rational beings, although also unreasonable ones (In ps. 118, 19, 13; cp. 14, 15).” Hymns, psalms, singing are for us the justifications of the Lord (In ps. 118, 7, 25); but it is not enough for anyone to have the Lord's song justificationes; he still must “free himself from the slavery of bodily passions” (Ibid. 28). “Training in the justifications of God and the knowledge of heavenly truth does not allow the soul of man to sleep the sleep of this age (In ps. 118, 4, 14; cp. 4, 12).” Ibid.; De Abraham II, 3, 8. De Cain et Abel II, 2, 8. De Cain et Abel I, 4, 12. Wed. Basil. M., Hom. in p.s. I, 4: “Exercising in virtue is like a ladder... Those entering a virtuous life must first establish their feet on the first steps and from them continually ascend higher and higher.” (Russian lane, part 1, Moscow, 1891, p. 155). In p.s. 1, 18; In Luc. V, 46: "Prius enim untisquisque sanatus est, ut paulatium virtutibus procedentibus ascendere posset ad montem." The law of gradual moral development and improvement is subject to both each individual individual and all of humanity and the human spirit in general. Compare De Abraham II, 2, 5: "Processus viri sapientis (Ambrosiam) propositus nobis ad imitandum seriptus est ad experimentum, non perfectio. Adhuc enim reformat se mens in Abraham, quae in homine primo lapsa est, et ideo per gradus et incrementa se colligit. De fuga saeculi 7, 44; cp. De excesssu fr. II, 40. De Jacob I, 5, 18; In p.s. 37, 10; 118, 11, 15; De paradiso 9, 45; De excesssu fr. II, 40; De poenitentia II, 2, 9. Wed. MPL. XV, p. 1243, and. "d". For more details, see Dr. I. E. Niederhuber “Die Eschatologie”, 61 – 62. Exameron II, 4, 15 – 16. Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 46 – 47. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31; Exameron II, 4, 15. In p.s. 118, 12, 10; De paradiso 12, 54: “In haec saecularia et mundana deciderat (dialobus).” In p.s. 43, 54: “Saevissimus rex diabolis est.” In p.s. 38, 18; 118, 1, 13; 20, 22; Contr. Auxentius 6. In p.s. 118, 20, 45; 1, 13. In p.s. 35, 27: “Sicut sancti membra sunt Christi, ita impii membra sunt diaboli.” Ibid. We find the same thing in Origen – De oat. 27 (MPG t. XI, p. 516). Cp. Comm. in ep. ad Rom. V, 9 (MPG t. XIV, p. 1046). In p.s. 43, 1: "Luctandum est igitur adversus carnis hujus illecebras, et fervorem sanguinis: luctandum est adversus nequitias spiritales. Nemo gravior domestico adversario: nemo nocentior hoste eo, cui coclestis substantiae potestas suffragatur." Ibid. 33: “Quis tamen tam inimicus et hostis tuus, quam princeps istius mundi, et ejis socii, qui persecutisunt usque ad crucem Dominum Jesus, ejus potentiam nescientes?” De paradiso 12, 54; De fuga s/ 7, 71; De patriarchis 11, 56; In p.s. 38, 30; In p.s. 35, 25. In p.s. 118, 16, 16; Ep. 51, 12. In p.s. 118, 1, 13; In Luc. VII, 150. In p.s. 118, 20, 46; Ep. 29, 23. In p.s. 118, 19, 7; De bono mortis 6, 23. De parade. 2, 9; cp. De off. m. I, 5, 19 – 20. However, we ourselves often give the reason for temptation, and at the same time the beginning of sin, while the devil only fans the spark of sin and then ignites passion. De off. m. I, 4, 15 – 16. Cp. Origen., De princ, III, 2, 2, 4. In Luc. IV, 39; In Lu. IV, 17: “The devil usually wounds a person’s mind with three arrows: food (gula), pleasure (jacluntia) and selfishness (ambitio). These three things are the matter of all sins. Wed. Ibid. 35; In p.s. 118, 20, 46. De parade. 12, 55; In p.s. 118, 5, 12. De parade. 15, 73; In Luc. IV, 26; In p.s. 37, 23. In p.s. 118, 17, 3; In p.s. 36, 25 – 28. In p.s. 118, 14, 36; 16, 12; De off. m. I, 4, 13, 20; In Luc. IV, 35; Ep. 41, 7. De parade. 2, 9; In Luc. IV, 62. De parade. 12, 65. Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 59, Anm. 1. In p.s. 118, 16, 12; cp. In p.s. 26, 56; 36, 31. In p.s. 118, 8, 42: Vinculis enim peccatorum snorum unusquisque constringitur, sicut ipse legisti nos vinculis carnis ellecebra (Iacob I, 1)… Sant et diaboli vincula Denique scriptum est: Hang antem filiam Abrahae quam ligavit Salanas decem et vito annis (Luc. XIII, 16). Ligat nos etiam diabilus criminum nexi: ligat nos vinculo fornicationis, vinculo adulteri, vinculo perfidias, qua Christus negatur, vinculo invidiae qua frequenter etiam frater appetitur, vinculo erudelitatis qua nonnumquam socuis et conformis occiditur. De parade. 2, 10: “Non metuamus eum, qui eo usque infirmus est, ut ipse casurus in terram sit; accepit quidem temptandi licentiam, sed non accepit copiam subruendi, nisi sua sponte labatur infirmus affectus, qui sibi auxilium non norit accersire. In p.s. 118, 21, 11; In p.s. 37, 38. De parade. 12, 55; In p.s. 118, 20, 45. Ibid. ; Exameron VI, 6, 39. Exameron VI, 9, 55; In Luc. V, 107; De Isaac 8, 79. De Abraham II, 2, 5; De bono mortis 2, 5. Exameron VI, 9, 55; In Luc. VIII, 48; In p.s. 118, 4, 6; De parade. 12, 54. De bono mortis 2, 5: “Sunt enim velut vincula quaedam corporis huius et quod est gravius vincula temptationum, quae nos alligant et ad iniuriam captivitatis adstringunt quadam lege peccati.” De Cain et Abel II, 10, 36: “Inseritur hoc loco dogma de incorruptione animae, quod ipsa vera et beata vita sit, quam unusquisque bene conscius vivit multo purius et beatius, cum hujus carnis anima nostra deposuerit involucrum et quodam carcere isto fuerit absoluta corporeo, in illum superiorem revolans locum, unde nortis infusa visceribus conpassione corporis hujus ingemuit, donec commissi gubernaculi munus impleret, ut carnis hujus inrationabiles motus rationabile ductu regeret et cohereret.” Cp. Cicero, De rep. VI, 14 – De Abraham I, 2, 4 Ep. 34, 4. Cp. Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Rom. VII, 4 (MPG t. XIV, p. 1110 – 1111). Cp. Dr. G. Wilbrand, “S. Ambosius”, 30 – 31. – De excessu fr. II, 20. In Luc. VIII, 50; De Cain et Abel I, 3, 10. De poenitentia II, 8, 74. In p.s. 118, 20, 46; In Luc. VIII, 50. In p.s. 36, 13; In Luc. VIII, 49 – 50; De fide V, 13, 109; De poenitentia Ii, 8, 74; Ep. 70, 20: “The movements of the body are serious opponents of our soul.” In Luc. VIII, 50. Sometimes the lust of the body of St. Ambrose equates the soul with the masculine principle, and the soul with the feminine, and says that even if the soul succumbs to lust, it suffers from an alien burden and gives birth to sins. In Luc. VII, 143 – 144. In p.s. 118, 4, 8: “Whoever is seduced by the beauty of a woman, who is captured by passion for her, they are flesh.” Cp. De Noe 3, 6. In p.s. 36, 16; In p.s. 118, 14, 15. In p.s. 37, 5; De paradiso 12; 54; In p.s. 118, 11, 15. Cp. Origen, Selecta in ps. CXVIII, vers. 83; Pitra, “Analecta sacra”, III (1883), 284. De Isaac, 8, 65. St. Augustine at this point literally repeats St. Ambrose. Contr. Iul. Pelag. II, 5, 12. De virginitate 15, 94 – 95. De Jacob I, 1, 5. Cp. De Maccabaeis liber seu de rationis imperio 2 (Flavii Iosepi “Opera”. Recognovit G. Dindorfius. Volumen secundim. Parisiis, MDCCCXLVII, p. 393). Philo lists the following four affects: pleasure, lust, fear and sadness (De Abraham 236); the worst among them is pleasure, which is inherent as the beginning of all passions (Leg. alleg. III, 113). Accordingly, by four παθη he indicates four ε ὔ πάθειαι, the best among which is joy (Quaest. in Genes. II, 57; Congr. erud. gr. 36; De praem. et poen. 5, 413). Ibidem. Cp. Mac. 239, 2. The teaching of St. Ambrose on the development of virtues and passions can be presented in this form: fortitudo, justitia iracundia, concupiscentia iniquias, timor gratulatio tristitiâ Passiones secundaê secundum animam secundum corporus superbia, avaritia, libido vorandi, effusio luxuriaê ambitio, contentio, invidia atque lasciviae Wed. Basil. M., Hom. adversus iratos, 1: “Passion, as soon as it rejects the suggestions of reason and takes possession of the soul, makes a person already a perfect beast and does not allow him to be a man, depriving him of the help of reason (Russian translation, part 4. Sergiev Posad, 1892 - 3, p. 152). De Abraham II, 4, 13; 8, 45. Philo says that the body is tartarus, and the passions of the body are the flame of tartarus. Quest. in Genes. IV, 234, 432. Read more in E. Brehier, 241 – 242. De virginit. 15, 96. Adolescence is distinguished by a special swiftness of the flesh, a special mobility towards sin (In ps. 118, 16, 45; cp. Basil. M., Comm. in Isaiam prophetam 108). “Two things,” says St. father, - wine and youth kindle a person equally" (De virginibus III, 2, 5). Youth is close to downfalls because the ardor of various passions is excited by the burning of fiery age (De viduis 2, 12). Youth has no strength (spiritual) and is not rich in reasoning; she is inflamed with vice, disdainful of mentors, prone to amusements (De interpellatione Iob et David I, 7, 21). However, the young man sins not only due to the weakness of his age, which is prone to sin, but also due to ignorance of divine commands (De obitu Valentiniani 13). In Luc. IV, 62; De officiis ministrorum I, 4, 15. In p.s. 61, 18; In p.s. 1, 25. De Noe 22, 80; De Cain et Abel I, 6, 24. In p.s. 47, 3; De obitu Valent. 64. In Luc. VI, 107; Exameron I, 3, 9. Ibidem 7, 37; In Luc. VI, 107. In p.s. 43, 77; In p.s. 36, 45. De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 44. De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 4, 14. In p.s. 118, 3, 18: “This life in the body is a shadow and an image, and not the truth. And therefore a man walks in an image, and we find ourselves in the land of the shadow of death. But if someone directs his intelligent eyes not to the physical, but to the spiritual, so that he can say: “The Spirit is before our face, Christ the Lord,” he will be worthy to say: “In his shadow we will live” (Lamentations 4:20). Christ is life, and therefore whoever lives in the canopy of Christ lives in the canopy of life.” Ep. 2, 22: (Chrisus) venturus erat, ut vitam hanc de somno resuscitaret; et somnium esse hunc vivendi, usum doceret, in quo diversae commutationum vicet tamquam ebriae, et nihil solidum, nihil firmum, tamquam dormientis somnium videntes non videmus, et audientes non audimus, et manducantes non satiamur, gratulantes non gratulamur, currentes non pervinimus. Vanae spes hominum in hoc saeculo, quae non sunt, tamquam quae sint, sequenta arbitrentur. Itaque inanes et vacuae rerum species tamquam in somnio venerunt, abierunt: astiterunt, evanuerunt. Circumfusae et dispersae sunt, teneri videntur, et non tenentur. Denique ubi quis audivit dicentem: Surgi qui dormis (Ephes. V, 14), et de saeculi istius somno exsurrexit, falsa haec intellexit omnia: evigilavit et fugit somnium, fugit potestas, abiit cura patrimonii, formae venustas, honorum studium. Haec enim somnia sunt, quibus non moventur, qui vigilant corde: sed dormientes exagitantur. Cp. Philo, De Iosepho, 126. Cp. Dr. G. Wilbrand, “S. Ambrosius”, 3. De Nabutae 15, 64. Cp. Philo, De somn. II, 133. Ep. 2, 22; Exameron VI, 8, 51. Cp. In p.s. 118, 10, 40. Exameron VI, 8, 51. We find the same statement in St. Basil the Great. Homil. in illud, Attende tibi ipsi, 5 (MPG t. XXXI, p. 209 – 212). De interpellatione Iob et David, II (III), 5, 22; In p.s. 36, 77. Cp. De interpellatione Iob et David I, 1, 2. In p.s. 43, 54; In p.s. 118, 21, 11; cp. In Luc. IV, 30. Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, SS. 47 – 61: Das “Reich dieser Welt”, als Domäne Satans. De poenitentia II, 8, 73; In p.s. 118, 22, 9. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 8, 23. De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 45. Ibid.; In p.s. 118, 22, 24; In p.s. 1, 55. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31. In p.s. 45, 16. Cp. Philo, De somn. I, 151. De Abraham II, 8, 59. Since the pagans and sinners inhabiting the earth are lifeless and dead, then St. Ambrose says that this whole world was empty (vacuus erat) until Christ filled it with believers. In p.s. 48, 23. In p.s. 118, 14, 3; cp. De bono mortis 2, 6. De bono mortis 2, 4 sq.; cp. De excessu fr. II, 30 sq.; In p.s. 118, 18, 3. Cp. Dr. C. Siegfried, 388 – 389. De institutione virginis 5, 34. De Abraham II, 1, 3. Cp. Dr. C. Siegfried, 389 Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 61. In p.s. 118, 16, 34; Exameron I, 4, 14; In p.s. 118, 16, 13. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in p.s. XXXIII, 10 (vers. 15): “It is impossible to take up good without stepping back and completely avoiding evil, just as it is impossible to regain health without freeing yourself from illness, or to warm up before the chill has completely passed. All this does not go together with each other. Likewise, those who want to lead a good life must free themselves from contact with evil” (Russian translation, part 1, M. 1891, p. 251). De cain et Abel I, 1, 4: Hoc sobrii solit esse judicii, ut repudiato malo velut enutriat quod bonum est atque confirment. De officiis ministrorum I, 39, 194: Neque enim consentaneae sunt vitiis vitutes, sed sibi constant. De Cain et Abel II, 4, 16. (Cp. Philo, De sacrif. 134); In p.s. 118, 16, 45. It was said above that this denial of sin and the devil occurs in baptism, when a person dies with Christ to the devil, the flesh and the world. However, as is clear from the works of St. Ambrose, this denial and death of a person to the world does not happen just once at baptism, but constantly throughout a person’s earthly life. ain et Abel II, 4, 16. (Cp. Philo, De sacrif. 134); In p.s. 118, 16, 45. In p.s. I, 16, 17, 23; In p.s. 118, 2, 3. De fuga saeculi 1, 2 – 3. Cp. Orig., De princ. III, 1, 18, 22. De Abraham II, 6, 27; cp. Apologia prophetae David 2, 8. In p.s. 118, 19, 33: Semper homo, etiamsi sanctus, et justus sit, debet orare: ut exaudiat eum Dominus secundum misericordiam suam, non secundum merita virtutisalicujus; Quia rara virtus multa peccata: et secundum judicium suum, at infirmis opem ferat. In p.s. 43, 1. In p.s. 35, 23. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in p.s. XXIX, 5 (vers. 8): "Although I was beautiful by nature, I became weak, because I was killed by sin, through the malice of the serpent. Therefore, You added to my kindness, which I received from You at the first dispensation, the strength to fulfill my duty." In Luc. III, 37; In p.s. 43, 1. In p.s. 118, 1, 18; De poenitentia II, 2, 11. In Luc. II, 84; cp. August., De gratia Christi 44, 48. In Luc. X, 91; De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 157/ De mysteriis 1,3: “Open your ears therefore and enjoy the fragrance of eternal life which flows to you in the sacraments.” In p.s. 118, 15, 28; 18, 26. In Luc. X, 49; In p.s. 1, 33; In p.s. 118, 18, 28, 26. In p.s. 118, 8, 48. On the sacrament of baptism, see Stanislaus Lisieckt: “Quod s. Ambrosius de ss. Eucharistia docuerit, inquiritur”, especially page 2: De vero animae eibo, qui in s. Eucharistia continetur. In p.s. 118, 14, 2. The sacrament of repentance will be discussed below. De Spiritu Sancto II, 9, 93. De Spiritu Sancto I, 5, 64, 71. De Spir. S. I, 5, 66, 71; II, 7, 64. In p.s. 118, 20, 40: Examinam ergo et tribuat Deus merita sigulorum, et quemadmodum pro mensura dat gratiam; ne supra mensuram sit: ita pro mensura dat misericordiam. De Spir. S. I, 9, 93. In p.s. 35, 18. In general, the scope of the word gratia in St. Ambrose is very extensive, and he uses it in many different meanings. Wed. Worter, 508 flg. Cp. D.I. Tikhomirov, s. 254 – 255. In Luc. VII, 98; In p.s. 1, 33. Ep. 64, 2. Cp. Philo, De fuga et invent. 137 – 139; Quis rer. d. her. 79: “The divine word is invisible manna, it is the heavenly incorruptible nourishment of the soul.” De officiis ministrorum I, 32, 165. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 20. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 20; cp. Ep. 65, 5; In p.s. 118, 12, 28. In p.s. 118, 14, 12; 22, 11: Verbum tuum, quod est verae sapientiae donorumque operum fundamentum. In p.s. 48, 5; De bono mortis 5, 20; cp. De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 4, 18. In Luc. VII, 101; In p.s. 43, 3. Apologia proph. David 8, 45. In p.s. 118, 19, 35.Cp. De fide V, prol. 15. Ibid. 2; cp. In p.s. 118, 5, 24. In p.s. 118, 22, 23; cp. De Abraham II, 5, 22. In p.s. 43, 51; In p.s. 118, 8, 59. In p.s. 118; prolog. 1; In p.s. 1, praef. 10. In Luc. II, 87; cp. De mysteriis 9, 56; Exameron III, 17, 71: Ascendat in te gratia ecclesiae. In Luc. VI, 52; In p.s. 39, 11. Exameron VI, 3, 13; In p.s. 118, 8, 57: Per Ecclesiam in omnes gentes diffusa est misericordia Domini, in omnes gentes diffusa est fides. De viduis 3, 20; cp. Ep. 2, 1; De virginibusI, 5, 22. De poenitentia I, 15, 86. De Abraham II, 10, 72, 75; Apologia proph. David 17, 82. In p.s. 39, 11; Exameron III, 17, 711. In p.s. 40, 30; In Luc. II, 88; VIII, 56. De Abraham I, 9, 87; cp. Ep. 42, 12. De Isaac 8, 64. St. Ambrose in his works develops the doctrine of the bishop and priests as people of high faith and maturity of morals (Ep. 63, 49. 50. 51), rising with their pious life above the life of ordinary believers (Ep. 63, 64), alien to even the slightest shortcomings (Ibid. 59), natural leaders of people to moral perfection (Ep. 2. 5; cp. De off. I, 25, 116) and those who suffered for them (In ps. 37, 32; De obitu Theodosii36). Cp. Ep. 19, 2; In Luc. II, 7. In Luc. VII, 95; cp. De poenitentia II, 4, 24. In p.s. 40, 32; De viduis 1, 4. In p.s. 39, 10; Apologia proph. David 17, 85, 83. De poenitentia II, 4, 25. In p.s. 118, 15, 35; Civtas Dei Ecclesia est: Ecclesia corpus est Christi. Apologia proph. David 17, 83. De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 19: “When the connection of the human race is broken, (then it collapses) the union of St. a church that is united by the unity of faith and love into one closely connected and inseparable body.” De Spiritu Sancto 10, 101 sqq. – Cp. Dr. I. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 205 – 206. If we are one in the Father and the Son, then this is not a matter of nature, but of grace (De fide IV, 3, 37), which we received and lives in us (Ibidem 3, 35). De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 19. De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 23; 3, 20. Read more about this in Dr. I. Niederhuber “Die Lehre”, 211 – 212. De Noe 26, 94; De Abraham II, 6, 28; De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 19. De inkarn. 5, 34: “Faith is the foundation of the church.” De patriarchis 5, 27. De officiis ministrorum I, 29, 142; In Luc. V, 11, 92. De poenitentia I, 15, 80 sq.; II, 10, 92; In Luc. V, 92. De obitu Pheodosii 35; De obitu Valentiniani 52, 86; De excessu fr. I, 80. In p.s. 118, 22, 5. Cp. De obitu Pheodosii 80. In p.s. 118, 22, 5. Cp. Orig., Selecta in psal. CXVIII, vers. 169. Cp. Pitra, “Analecta sacra,” III, 312. In Luc. V, 11. Cp. De Abraham II, 11, 93. De Cain et Abel II, 3, 11. Cp. Philo, De sacrif. 121. By this we do not want to say that the Christian ethics of the East was completely alien to the Stoic. On the contrary, Stoic thoughts, as we have already seen, are found in Clement, and in Origen, and even in St. Basil (not to mention the Jew Philo). Cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 8, 25 – 26; 9, 27; II, 9, 49. De off. m. I, 22, 98; 24, 105 – 106; 47, 227 – 228; 26, 124. De off. m. I, 25, 119 sqq. A more detailed question about the attitude of St. father to the Stoic-Ciceronian teaching on morality will be examined by us below. Now let us only note that to the more or less developed Stoic ethics of St. Ambrose turns, in fact, when he has to expound, or, more precisely, re-formulate the theory of Christian morality. Usually he is faithful to the principles of Christian ethics. De posterit. C. 16; De monar. I, 6 (M. II, 218). Leg. alleg. I, 82; Quod D. sit immut. 92 – 93. Cp. R. Thamin, “St. Ambroise et la morale chrétienne,” p. 58. De vita Mosis I, 48; cp. De Iosepho 29, 31; De plantat. 121. De fuga et invent. 117 – 118. Leg. alleg. I, 48; De somn. II, 76. Com. in Ioh. t. II, 7; De princ. I, 2, 13; 8, 3. Contr. Cels. VII, 35, 51; I, 68; VIII, 57; Homil. in Numer. XXV, 3; Sel. in p.s. XXIV, vrs. 17 – 18. Creations of St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, in Russian translation. Issue I: “Commentaries on the book of the prophet Daniel.” Kazan, 1898, p. 23. De officiis ministrorum I, 9, 28. Exameron VI, 7, 42; De obitu Pheodosii, 25: Apud Dominum omnium virtutum abundantia est; quia Dominus virtutum est (Ps. XXIII, 10). In Luc. VIII, 65; De Isaac. 8, 78 – 79; De fuga 6, 35 – 36; De Abraham II, 5, 21. De Abraham II, 3, 11; Exameron IV, 2, 5. Apologia proph. David 17, 81. De migrat. Abraham 127 sqq. Exameron VI, 8, 44; 7, 42. De bono mortis 5, 17: Fugiamus ergo haec mala et exaltemus animam nostram ad illam imaginem Dei et similitudinem. Fuga malorum similitudo Dei est et virtutibus imago Dei adquiritur. Leg. alleg. III, 146; De congr. erud. 7; Qu. rer. div. heres. 117 sqq. Cp. S. N. Trubetskoy, 115. Hom .in Humer. XX, 2; Comm. in Iob. XXXII, 9; cp. Hom. in Genes. XV, 6. St. Ambrose (in relation to the narrative of the book of Song of Songs) indicates here, among other things, the following four degrees of the soul's relationship to Christ: Primum etenim caritatis impatiens et verbi moras non ferens rogabat, ut oscula mereretur, et meruit desideratum videre, introducta quoque est in cubicukum regis. Secundum cum mutua misceret alloquia, in umbra ejus requievit, et subito verbum ei de medio sermone discessit... Tertio cum in cubili et noctibus, in civitate et foro et plateis quaesitum non repperisset... Quarto ipsa jam ab eo dormiens excitatur (6, 50). However, in another place in the same book (8, 68) such degrees of closeness of a person’s soul to its Bridegroom, St. the father counts only three: In primo quasi in institutione adhuc umbras videt anima necdum verbi adpropinquantis revelatione commotas, et odeo adhuc ei dies evangelii non refulgebat, in secundo sine umbrarum confusione odores pios carpit. In tertio jam perfecta requiem in se verbo ministrat, ut convertatur super eam et caput suum reclinet atque requiescat, ut convertatur super eam et caput suum reclinet atque invitat ad agrum suum. De officiis ministrorum I, 47, 229. Ep. 63, 71. The word moralitas was first used by the writer Macrobius. For him, it does not have a specifically ethical meaning and is used to designate the distinctive qualities or character of styli. St. Ambrose was the first to give this word a specific moral connotation, precisely by using it in the sense of morum probitas. Cp. Dr. Rudolf-Eisler, “Wörterbuch philosophischen Begriffe”. 2 Auflage, 1 Band. Berlin, 1904. S. 692. Dritte Auvgabe, 2B., Berlin, 1910, S. 824. Wilhelm Wundt, “Ethik”. Eine Untersuchung der Thatsachen und Gesetze des siulichen Lebens. Stuttgart, 1886, S. 17. Anm. 2. Du-Canges, “Glossarium mediae et infunae latinitatis.” Tomus quartus. Parisiis, 1845, p. 543. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 18. Virtue for him is not any separate act, but a certain virtuous state (habitus, ἒ σις). Comm. in ep. ad Rom. III, t. (MPG t. XIV, p. 925); cp. Hom. in Genes. I, 4; cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, 131, 138 and. 3. In Luc. I, 18. Such a definition of virtue, as a certain moral disposition, already existed in ancient ethics. Thus, Aristotle already taught that virtue is a well-known mood or a well-known skill acquired through exercise - ἒ σις (Eth. Nic. lib. Iib, II, cap. V, v. 1, 6; Iib. 1, cap. VII, v. 13 - 16; cf. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, “Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in relation to their doctrine of morality". St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 118 next, 107). The Stoics probably borrowed from Aristotle the definition of virtue as a well-known state of mind - διάθεσις. Thus, according to the teachings of the ancient Stoa, “virtue is a certain disposition or strength of the guiding part of the soul arising through reason” (Zeno, Fragm. 202 - “Stoicorum veterum “fragmenta” collegit Ioannes ab Arium. Vol. I, “Zeno et Zennonis discipuli”, Lipsae, MCMV, p. 50; P. Barth, “Die Stoa”. Zweite, durchgesehene und sehr erweiterte Auflage, Stuttgart, 1908, S. 157; cp. Zeller, “Die Philosophie der Grechen”, 3 Th/, 2 Abth. 1881 3, S. 246. Anm. (Tuscul. IV, 15, 34), who, however, unlike Aristotle, who allowed degrees in the virtuous disposition (Categoriae VI, 5), considers the virtuous διάθεσις to be something unchangeable (cf. P. Barth, S. 157, Anm. 2). Stob., Eclog. II, 110 – 112; Plut., De sto. rep. VII, 1 – 3; De virt. mor. II; De Alex. Virtut. I, XI; Diog. I, VII, 125; Cicero, De officiis I, 5, 15; II, 10, 35; Acad. post. I, 10, 38. De officiis ministrorum I, 27, 129; II, 9, 49: Est ergo individuum sapientiae atque iusaitiae contubernium, sed vulgi usu dividitur una quaedam forma virtutum, ut temperantia sit in despiciendis voluptatibus, fortitudo spectetur in laboribus et periculis, prudenria in delectu bonorum, sciens commoda et adversa distinguere iustitia, quae sit bona custos juris alieni et vindex proprietatis, suum cuique conservans. Ibidem; De excessu fr. I, 57. De officiis ministrorum I, 25, 118 – 119. In Luc. V, 63; De off. m. II, 9, 48. “Every single sin,” writes Origen, “this act of adultery, breaks the union of the soul and the Word, since the violation of one commandment is a violation of the whole law. And just as we call the lewdness of evil and untruth one and the same lewdness, so we must consider the virtues of goodness and justice to be one and the same virtue.” De princ. II, 5, 3. Russian translation by N. V. Petrova. Kazan, 1899, p. 123.Cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, 134. In p.s. 118, 1, 15. Cp. Orig., Select. in p.s. CXVIII, vers. 6. Cp. Pitra, “Analekta sacra”, III, p. 254. In p.s. I, 30; In Luc. VI, 77: “There is a great difference between someone who does something out of necessity and someone who chooses good of his own free will”; In p.s. 118, 14, 24: “Only a willing servant (of God) receives a reward”; De Jacob I, 3, 10: “Man freely follows his own will in his actions, why should he who has fallen into sin blame his own will in this case.” Exameron I, 8, 31: “Our sins should not be blamed on nature, for it is in our power either to extinguish passions or to inflame them even more.” Cp. De Cain et Abel II, 7, 25; De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 11, 29 – 30; De Jacob I, 1, 1; De patriarchis 4, 17; In p.s. 43, 77; In p.s. 118, 20, 27. Above we saw that St. Ambrose, trying to prove the impossibility of a person achieving justification on his own, pointed to the weakness of a person’s will, to the fact that the latter cannot even wish for anything good. Now, well aware that without free will there is no virtue, St. Ambrose strenuously insists on free will, arguing that Christ made the will of man unconditionally free. “What is the use of forgiving sin if the tendency to sin remains? This would not mean healing the ulcer, but closing it. He (Christ) was pleased to heal the wound in such a way as to heal the will (affectus), so that no form of disobedience remained (in ps. 61, 4). "Here we are dealing with one of those cases when St. Ambrose, in his desire to more sharply emphasize a well-known thought or position, exaggerated its actual meaning and thereby fell into contradiction with himself, and S. Deutsch (15 - 16) tried in vain to reconcile the just indicated contradiction. Cp. Aristot., Eth. Nic. lib. X. cap. 8, v, 5 (cf. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, 109). Cicer., De officiis, I, 5, 17; Acad prior.. II, 12, 37 sqq. Cp. Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Rom. II, 1. De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 143. Cp. Cicero, De officiis I, 6, 19; 5, 17. De off. m. I, 18, 77; cp. Cicero, De officiis III, 8, 37. De poenitentia I, 5, 24: Quod si non ex toto corde omnem humiliat peccatorem, quanto magis non ex toto corde humiliat eum, qui non ex toto corde peccavit. Nam sicut dixit de ludeis: Populis hic labiis me honorat, cor autem corum longe est a me (Esa. XXIX, 13; Matt. XV, 8); fortasse et de aliquibus lapsis dicat: Isti labiis me negarunt, sed corde mecum sunt. Vicit eos poena, non avertit perfidia etc. Phraedo, 82 AB; Meno, 71 – 72 A; 99 A; Rep. X, 619 C; III, 402 A; 522 A. E. Brehier, p. 272 and not. 2. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, p. 219 – 220. ῖήμη Diog. L., V, 18. Cp. E. Brehier, 272. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, 140. Eth. Nic. lib. X, cap. VII, v. I. Cp. prof. A. A. Bronzov, 108. De somn. I, 167 – 168; De Abraham 52. Ibidem; cp. De Joseph. 1. Cp. prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 400, 1084. De Abraham 119 – 123; Leg. alleg. III, 39 – 41. Wed. prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 398, 400 – 401. Leg. alleg. I, 43, 64 – 65. This same sage, like among the Stoics, is αυομαθής and αυτοδιδακτος. De fuga et invent. 166. Quis rer. div. her. 68 – 69. Cp. R. Thamin, 58; Book S. N. Trubetskoy, 155. De Abraham 119 – 123; Leg. alleg. III, 39 – 41; Quest. in Genes. IV, 138; De vita contemplat. 4 (M. II, 476), Russian. lane Smirnova N.I. for the dissertation: “Therapists and the essay of Philo the Judeus on the contemplative life”, Kyiv, 1909, p. 11; Dr. E. Hans Windisch, “Die Frömmigkeit Philos”, S. 76 – 78; 60 – 62 flg; prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 358 – 359; E. Brehier, 261 – 265; Book S. N. Trubetskoy, 157; Dr. E. Zeller, III, 2, S. 406 – 407. Leg. alleg. I, 63 – 65; De somn. II, 243; De poster. Cain 128. Sel. in Genes. 38 (MPG t. XII, p. 120). Select. in p.s. XVIII, vers. 46; in p.s. C.L., vers. 5. Select. in p.s. CXXXIII, vers. 1; in p.s. XVIII, vers. 3; Contr. Cels. VI, 69. Cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, 149. Hom. in p.s. XXXIX, 5 (vers. 8). Comm. in Isaiam proph., prooem. 6. Cp. Sieegfried, 389 – 391. De Abraham II, 2, 5; 7, 39. De cain et Abel I, 6, 24; De officiis ministrorum I, 10, 31 – 33. De Cain et abel II, 1, 6. De paradiso 3, 14; De officiis ministrorum I, 50, 251. De Iacob I, 1, 1: “For teaching, a good word, full of prudence, is necessary ... for virtue can be learned.” Wed. De Maccabeis seu de rationis imperio 2. Leg. alleg. I, 19, 63 – 64. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 21; De officiis ministrorum I, 24, 115. De excessu fratri. I, 57; In Luc. V, 62. It is especially important for us to cancel here that St. Ambrose was the first to introduce into church literature the name “cardinal virtues,” a term that so soon acquired indisputable rights of citizenship in systems and works on Christian ethics. Cp. D. Leitmeir, S. 77; Dr. W. Gass, 169. De paradiso 3, 14 sqq; De officiis ministrirum II, 9, 49. De Cain et Abel II, 6, 21. In his first creation (De excessu fr. I, 50) St. Ambrose also gives another division of virtues, which, however, is too random in nature: “If passion and anger are the educators of other vices, then I would rightly call purity and meekness the parents of virtues; However, just as piety is the first of all goods, it is also the nursery of virtues.” In the interpretation of the Gospel of Luke (V, 50 sqq) St. the father proves that in the four (why only four?) Beatitudes the foundations of the four cardinal virtues are given. The same scheme for dividing the main virtues of St. Ambrose, copying Cicero, develops it in detail in De officiis ministrorum. We must once again make a reservation that such a division of virtues is only being outlined by St. Ambrose, but is not presented clearly and is not carried out consistently by him. In p.s. 118, 16, 14. Each age, for example youth (De officiis ministrorum I, 17, 65 sqq), old age (De off. m. I, 43, 212), has its own priority duties and virtues. De off. m. I, cap. 35 sqq. Cp. E. Brehier, 115 – 116. Quis rer. div. heres. 182. De congress. erud. grat. 79. Contr. Cels. VI, 13; cp. De prins. III, 3, 2. Cp. In Lev. hom. Vi, 4; Eragm. in Prov., cap. I, vers. 2. Hom. in principle proverb. 3 – 4. Hom. in principle proverb. 4. Ibidem. 6. Rus. lane Part IV, c. 187. De paradiso 3, 14; In p.s. 118, 5, 36. De officiis ministrorum I, 25, 118; 26, 124 – 125. Exameron VI, 9, 67; De Noe 31, 117. De officiis ministrorum I, 50, 252 De Spiritu Sancto II, 12, 130. De Interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 2, 3. In p.s. 37, 34; 36, 65; De Helia 10, 35; In Luc. VII, 107; De fide I, 10, 62; cp. De paradiso 3, 15. Cicero, De officiis I, 43, 153. Cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 25, 119 – 120. Ibidem I, 24, 115; 25, 116 – 118; 27, 126. Cp. Dr. P. Ewald, 73; Anm. 1. So Solomon asked God to give him the gift of spiritual understanding (intellectus spiritalis munus) (In ps. 118, 19, 47; 16, 35) and David begged God: Da mihi intellectum, ut discam madata tua (Ps. CXVIII, 73) (In ps. 118, 10, 6). Apologia David 16, 76: Doctrina caelestis and operatio divina can change the mood and inclination of a person and instill in sinners the desire for piety in the heart Cp. In p.s. 118, 1, 2; De Jacob I, 3, 9. In Luc. VII, 86; cp. In p.s. 118, 18, 46. In De officiis ministrorum II, 3, 8 St. Ambrose, repeating Cicero, denies as an empty pastime all knowledge that does not have practical application. Cp. Cicero, De officiis I, 6, 19. For more details, see Dr. H. Windisch, 53 – 60. Select. in p.s. CXL, v. 3; cp. In Lev. hom. VI, 6 (MPGt. XII, p. 490); Ibidem XI, 2 (p. 532). Proem. in regul. fusius tractat. 3. In Luc. VII, 136, 146; De excessu fr. II, 97; In p.s. 1, 21. We have already spoken above about man’s primary duty in relation to God—faith in Him. De Abraham I, 2, 3 – 4. Cp. R. Thamin, 325. De fuga saeculi, 2, 10; De Jacob I, 3, 1. In p.s. 118, 21, 22; De Abraham II, 2, 5. In p.s. 118, 22, 21; 13, 3. De officiis ministrorum II, 30, 153. De virginitate 9, 53; Ep. 78.5 sqq. In p.s. 118, 16, 44; Ep. 78, 9, 6. In p.s. 118, 16, 44; cp. Ep. 78.5 sqq. In p.s. 118, 21, 7; De off. m. I, 7, 126. De institut. Virgin. 2, 10. In p.s. 118, 8, 45; In Luc. II, 70: Vae mihi est, si non oeccata defkevero, vae mihi, si non media nocte surrexero ad confitendum Tivi; De Cain et Abel II, 6, 22; In p.s. 118, 7, 31 – 32. In p.s. 118, 8, 48; In p.s. 36, 66. In p.s. 118, 19, 18: Qui rogat itaque, semper roget: et si non sempet precatur, paratum semper habeat precantis affectum. De virginivus III, 4, 20. In Luc. VII, 88; De poenitentia I, 8, 37. De Cain et Abel I, 9, 39. De obiru Valentiniani 34. De institutione virginitatis 2, 8. In p.s. 118, 22, 8: Et tu si saccularia petas, si flagitiona postules, oratio non ad Deum dirigitur, sed in peccatum. De obitu Valentiniani 32. Quest. in Genes. II, 11 (see E. Brehier, 253). In Genes. 228 (II, 426 M.). Cp. at Dr. G. Capitaine, 145 sqq. Libel. de oratione 28 (MPG t. XI, p. 521). Regul. brev. traet., interrog. LXXVI. Hum et miseric et judec. (MPG t. XXXI, p. 1708). Regul. fus. treat., interrog. III, 1. De officiis ministrorum I, 28, 135. De officiis ministrorum III, 22, 128. Cp. what was said above about the church. De officiis ministrorum I, 11, 38. People are rationabilis naturae suboles. De Abraham II, 6, 28. De officiis ministrorum I, 32, 169. Cp. Cicer., De officiis I, 16, 50. De officiis ministrorum I, 33, 170; cp. II. 24, 124: “Injustice should least of all take place in the church.” De officiis ministrorum I, 29, 124. De officiis ministrorum I, 28, 135: “By the will of God or by virtue of a natural connection, we are obliged to help one another”... The Stoic justification of love for people or the virtue of justice is brought to the fore by St. Ambrose in his earlier works, written under the influence of Philo: for example De paradiso 3, 18; 3, 22; De Noe 1, 2; 12, 40; De Abraham II, 10, 68. This unification is not without contradictions, however. So in De paradiso 2, 9 St. Ambrose states: “In the moral field, what harms one, then benefits everyone in general, just as the devil harmed Judas, but, besides him, crowned all the apostles who defeated the temptations of his malice”; in De officiis ministrorum (III, 4, 25) he writes something completely different: “By the law of nature, the same thing is useful both for individuals and for the whole society. And, on the contrary, what is not useful for everyone is harmful.” In this case, St. Ambrose approaches the Stoic understanding of virtue, which distinguished justice in relation to God, people and oneself (Stob., Ecl. II, 106). And St. the father reasons: “Justice requires that we first of all love God, then the fatherland, then our relatives and, finally, all other people (De officiis ministrorum I, 27, 127).” “Many types of justice. One manifests itself to relatives, the other to everyone in general, the third relates to God or helping the poor” (De excessu fr. I, 58). In the sense of love, St. Ambrose often uses the word “justice” in his later works: for example, In ps. 118, 16, 14;In ps. 35, 6 – 7; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 33, 172; Ep. 63, 84. Ep. 63, 84. Repaying insults with good is Christi judicia. In p.s. 118, 14, 28. Ep. 63, 83; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 28, 136. De officiis ministrorum I, 7, 24. Sometimes St. Ambrose indicates another, stoic (more about this will be said in the third part of this study) division: first of all, you need to love God, then the fatherland, then relatives and, finally, all other people. De officiis ministrorum I, 27, 127. De officiis ministrorum III, 9, 59. De officiis ministrorum III, 4, 27; In p.s. 118, 7, 20: “The righteous does not turn away from the sinner, even when attacked by the latter; and when he is offended, he considers this to be a consequence of the sinner’s irritation, and not (a manifestation of) immorality, and (therefore) he tries hard to get him medicine, to sympathize with him and to suffer not for himself, but for him...” De officiis ministrorum I, 21, 94. In Luc. V, 21; In p.s. 118, 12, 51; Ep. 29, 10 De Isaac 3, 10; Ep. 87, 3; 4, 3. De officiis ministrorum II, 14, 66. De obitu Theodosii 26; In Luc. II, 90; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 24, 115. Basil. M., Homil. in divit. 5, 7. One cannot, of course, help but see some artificiality in this reasoning. De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 16. De officiis ministrorum III, 3, 21 De officiis ministrorum I, 28, 137. De officiis ministrorum III, 2, 3. Basil. M., Hom. in divit., passim. De officiis ministrorum III, 6, 37. Ibidem. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in illud Lucae: Destruam ect., 8. Cp. De Nabutae 12, 53; In p.s. 48, 27; De officiis ministrorum II, 21, 107. De Tobia 16, 54. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in illud Lucae: Destruam ect. 8. De Nabutae 14, 59; De Helia 20, 76; De officiis ministrorum I, 11, 39. De officiis ministrorum I, 39, 147 – 149. De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 144. De officiis ministrorum Ii, 28, 136. Ep. 63, 105; De Abraham I, 5, 32. De Abraham I, 5, 34. More detailed discussions of justice, as well as the division of benevolence into separate types, St. Ambrose borrowed from Cicero's De officiis. For example, justice must be observed in war (I, 20, 140), exaltation of benevolence (I, 32, 167), courage as an integral element of benevolence (I, 33, 173), the need to be affectionate (II, 19, 96), the need to listen to public opinion about oneself (II, 7, 29; I, 47, 226; 50, 246), etc. For more information on this, see the third part of this book. De officiis ministrorum II, 28, 142. De Nabutae 8, 40. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in illud Lucae: Destruam ect. 6 De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 146; De Nabutae 12, 53. Cp. Basil. M.; Ibidem. De Isaac 3, 10; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 29, 139. De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 149. De officiis ministrorum I, 11, 38; De Nabutae 8, 40; In p.s. 118, 3, 37. De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 158. In p.s. 118, 8, 25. Cp. Origen., Select in ps. CXVIII, v. 58; Pitra, “Analecta sacra,” III, 274. In p.s. 118, 15, 15; cp. De officiis ministrorum II, 30, 152; III, 4, 24. Cp. Basil. M., Hom in ps. XLIV, 8. In p.s. 118, 15, 22; cp. 13, 28. In Luc. IV, 46: “You expect heavenly mercy in vain if you only envy the fruits of someone else’s virtue.” De officiis ministrorum III, 10, 66 – 68; II, 24, 119; Ibidem III, 11, 73; 12, 76. Cp. In p.s. 35, 12: “Isn’t it the nature of the highest stupidity and madness to seek hatred and to esteem evil above all arts, which none of the good seeks?” De officiis ministrorum III, 9, 65. Ibidem III, 12, 76; I, 50, 254. De officiis ministrorum III, 21, 124; 22, 125 – 128, 131 – 134; II, 7, 37. De helia 20, 76. Cp. Dr. Chr. E. Lauthardt,179 Quod det. pot. inside. sol. 85. De plant. 22; Quod det. pot. inside. sol. 89. Quis rer. div. heres 92 sqq. Cp. Dr. H. Windisch, 24 – 26. Only one who avoids earthly things leads a virtuous life and becomes a friend of God. Quis rer. div. her. 76. De migrat. Abraham 9, 16. Dr. Ch. E. Luthardt, 60 – 61; Dr. C. Siegfried, 224. Leg. alleg. III, 129, 132, 134. N. Bonwetdch, “Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyrs zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Leibe”, S. 65 (in “Texte und Untersuchungen”, N. F. 1 Band, 2 Hefr). St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, “Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel.” Vol. 1, Kazan, 1898, p. 170. Sermo de legend. libr. gent. Rus. lane Part 4, page 319. Hom. de grat. actione, 3 Rus. lane Part 4, page 51. Hom in illud, Attende tibi ipsi, 7. Rus. lane Part 4, page 43. Hom. in illud, Attende tibi ipsi, 3; Hom. in principle proverb. 15; Comm. in Isaiam proph. cap. VIII, 213; Hom. in p.s. LXI, 1. Comm. in Isaiam proph. c. 5, 174. Rus. lane part 2, strew 191. Sermo ascet. 1 (MPG t. XXXI, p. 872). Ibidem 5, 16; In Luc. IV, 37: “We are not fighting for earthly things.” De Spiritu Sancto III, 8, 50. De Cain et Abel Ii, 2, 9. The bonds of St. Ambrose names not only pleasures, honors and marriages, but also the very desire to live. In p.s. 118, 3, 32. In p.s. 47, 12; De Spiritu Sancto II, 3, 27. De Jacob II, 7, 30; cp. In p.s. 118, 5, 31. In p.s. 48, 25: “People are stupid who think about the present and not about the future.” In p.s. 118, 3, 46; 6, 31: “The righteous does not confine his mind within the boundaries of the earthly and bodily, but directs it to the heavenly, so that his conversion will be in heaven.” Cp. De fuga saeculi 5, 25. In p.s. 36, 79; In Luc. IV, 32. De excessu fr. II, 123 – 124. In p.s. 118, 15, 11; cp. Ep. 7, 17. In p.s. 118, 14, 3; De virginitate 17, 108 – 109. De virginitate 17, 107. Russian translation by A. Voznesensky, p. 154. De excessu fr. II, 33; De Abraham II, 7, 41. De bono mortis 12, 56, 57. In p.s. 118, 3, 31; cp. In p.s. 37, 3. De Isaac 6, 54; In p.s. 37, 5. Exhortatio virginitatis 9, 59; Ep. 29.14: “Our soul, if it wants to get closer to God, must rise above the body and constantly cleave to the Supreme Good - this Divine Good, which is ever present, which was in the beginning and which was with God, i.e., to the Word of God.” Exhortatio virginitatis 7, 47. De officiis ministrorum I, 37, 185. In p.s. 37, 52; cp. Ep. 39, 6: “No one carnal (carnalis) can be in Christ.” Exhortatio virginitatis 9, 58. De Jacob I, 1, 4. Cp. De Maccabaeis liber seu de rationis imperio 3. De officiis ministrorum I, 47, 228; 22, 99; 3, 12. De paradiso 15, 77: “The law of the flesh opposes the law of the mind, and we need to work and strive to cleanse the body and bring it into slavery.” De officiis ministrorum I, 38, 187. De Jacob I, 1, 1. Cp. De Maccabaeis… 2. De officiis ministrorum I, 36, 180; In p.s. 118, 19, 19: “He deserves praise who fought first of all in himself, who tamed the flesh that resisted him with the power of his mind, purified him with moderation and brought him into a state of slavery.” De poenitentia I, 13, 61; cp. In p.s. 118, 4, 7: “Whoever lives according to the will of the body is flesh; whoever lives according to the commandments of God is spirit. So let not our soul be flesh.” Cp. Exhortatio virginitatis 10, 68. De bono mortis 6, 25; cp. 7, 27. De officiis ministrorum I, 24, 115. De Jacob I, 2, 8; II, 10, 43. De Cain et Abel I, 6, 23. St. Ambrose has a negative attitude towards all passions with the exception of anger, which, in his opinion, can only be calmed and pacified, but not eradicated (Ep. 63, 60; De Noe 23, 84; De Iacob I, 1, 1; De officiis ministrorun I, 21, 90), why is he out of condescension towards nature It is also allowed by God Himself: “Be angry and do not sin” (Ps. 4: 5), that is, be angry, but do not fall into sin, do not harm yourself (Ep. 63, 60; De officiis ministrorum I, 3, 13; Exhortatio virginitatis 11, 77). Sometimes St. the father directly expresses anger as an emotion that is completely natural and legitimate (cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 21, 96). In p.s. 118, 17, 15; 8, 18. Sometimes the soul is equated to the land that needs to be cultivated. In p.s. 36, 12. De Noe 29, 107 – 108. Cp. Philo, De agricultural. 20 – 22. The Holy Father, like Basil the Great, approves of vegetarianism. Exameron III, 7, 28; cp. Bas. M., In Hexaem. hom. V, 1. Just like St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose goes to extremes in his praise of fasting, pointing, for example, as an incentive to fasting to the pleasantness of satiety after a long fast. De helia 9, 32; cp. Basil. m., De jejunio hom. I, 8. De Jacob I, 2, 5; cp. De maccabaeis... 2. De Helia 8, 22; cp. Basil. M., De jejunio hom. I, 7. Ibi 7, 21; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem. Ibidem 7, 20; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem. Ibidem 6, 17; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem 6. Ibidem 2, 2; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem. Ibidem 2, 3; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem. Ibidem 5, 14; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem 9. Ibidem1, 1; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem 9. De Helia 1, 1; cp. Basil. M., De jejunio hom. I, 9. Cp. In p.s. 36, 55; 43, 1; Ep. 63, 15. De Helia 4, 7: “Fasting and almsgiving free from sin.” Ibidem 4, 9; cp. Basil. M., De jejunio hom. I, 4. Ibidem 10, 34; cp. Basil. M., Ibidem I. De fuga saeculi 2, 8; In p.s. 38, 31. In p.s. 118, 20, 3; cp. 18, 32; De officiis ministrorum II, 14, 67; De viduis 10, 62; De poenitentia II, 10, 91. In p.s. 118, 3, 41; cp. Basil. M., Sermo de renunt. saecul. etc. 10: “Humility is the imitation of Christ, but exaltation, free-thinking and shamelessness are the imitation of the devil.” In p.s. 118, 14, 46; 20, 20; De obitu Theodosii 27. De officiis ministrorum I, 18, 70. In p.s. 118, 14, 20; De officiis ministrorum I, 18, 70. De officiis ministrorum I, 29, 142. In Luc. prol. 3: “Through humility, abstinence and faith, a person, as if by steps, reaches immortality. De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 6, 22; cp. Basil. M., Sermo de renunt etc. 10: “Prosperity of the soul is success in humility.” In p.s. 118, 3, 41. This statement of St. father receives special significance and deserves all the more attention because the virtues in paganism of St. Ambrose, strictly speaking, does not recognize it. In Luc. VIII, 40. Cp. Basil. M., Sermo de renunt. saecul. etc. 10: “Humility is the most excellent of virtues.” De officiis ministrorum I, 18, 67 – 68. De institutione virginnis 1, 5; cp. De Cain et Abel I, 9, 37. De interpellatione Iob et David II (III), 3, 8. Cp. E. Klosstermann, “Die Uederlieferung der Ieremiahomilien des Origines” in “T.u U.”, N.F.I.B., H. 3. Leipzig, 1897, S. 57, Anm. 3. In p.s. 38, 6; cp. De Jacob II, 4, 14. De officiis ministrorum I, 23, 102 – 103. De officiis ministrorum I, 2, 8; In p.s. 37, 46. De officiis ministrorum II, 4, 15. De Jacob I, 8, 35; In p.s. 1:25: “Whoever strives for the eternal chooses virtue, and whoever strives for the present chooses pleasure.” Cp. De officiis ministrorum II, 27, 133. De Jacob I, 8, 34. “On the other hand, in case of need, the righteous for the sake of Christ will not regret not only all the joys of this world, but also his very life.” Ibidem 8, 33. In p.s. 36, 12; cp. Ep. 27:6: “You see what the righteous possesses: the commandments of the Lord, His instructions, His commandments. In them he is rich, in them he grazes, in them he enjoys, as it were, all the riches.” De Nabuthae 14, 60. On the contrary, the inexperienced sinner is depicted by St. father poor and naked. In p.s. 118, 1, 14. In p.s. 1, 25; De officiis ministrorum I, 9, 29; De viduis 6, 35: “Will anyone prefer the deceptive images of present joys to the enjoyment of future happiness?” (Russian translation, p. 84). Exameron VI, 8, 51; Ep. 81, 12: “What is more stupid than, having abandoned the heavenly, to adhere to the earthly and, having rejected the permanent, to invent the transitory and perishable?” In p.s. 118, 4, 4: “Life deceives us, like a harlot, embellishes her face with the colors of pleasures and bodily pleasures, in order to hide the truth in them and deceive those approaching her with a corrupt appearance.” In p.s. 48, 24; In p.s. 61, 32; cp. De Nabuthae 8, 39. De officiis ministrorum I, 49, 241. De officiis ministrorum I, 7, 23. Ibidem II, 14, 66; I, 38, 191; In p.s. 118, 8, 15. De Abraham II, 6, 33 – 34; 10, 68. De Noe 32, 122; De officiis ministrorum II, 4, 15. De Nabuthae 7, 36; Ep. 2, 26; cp. Philio, De Iosepho 144. Cp. Dr. G. Wilbrand, “S. Amrosius”, 4. De officiis ministrorum I, 49, 244. Ibidem I, 9, 28. “If the rich does not know how to lavish and do good to the poor,” says St. father, then he is no longer the master of wealth, for he, like a slave, guards what belongs to others, but does not use his own like a master (De Nabuthae 15, 63; 14, 58), and his wealth itself becomes covered with mold, for it is like a well: the more they draw from it, the purer and more pleasant the water becomes.” (De nabuthae 12, 52; cp. Basil. m., Hom. in illud Lucae, Destruam etc. 5). De officiis ministrorum II, 5, 16. Cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 16, 61. De nabuthae 15, 63; 2, 4; 12, 50. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in divit. 5. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 7, 21; De officiis ministrorum I, 16, 63: “Perhaps then (at the Last Judgment) the Lord will say to the thief of someone else’s property: “(Now) you were rich, why did you appropriate someone else’s property for yourself? (After all) need did not oppress you and poverty did not oppress you? Isn’t that why I made you rich, so that you would have (no) excuse (for your untruths)” etc; cp. Ibidem 64. Cp. In Luc. V, 53: Paupertas enim midia est.; cp. Ibidem VIII, 13. De Jacob I, 7, 27 – 28; 8, 35; De officiis ministrorum III, 17, 98. Exhortatio virginitatis 14, 91. De officiis ministrorum I, 15, 58. De officiis ministrorum II, 3, 19. In p.s. 118, 7, 6. Cp. Orig., Select in ps. CXVIII, v. 50. Pitra, “Anal sacra”, III, 272. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 2, 3; IV (II), 3, 12 In p.s. 118, 7, 6; In p.s. 37, 59; De Jacob I, 7, 31. De officiis ministrorum I, 48, 234. De officiis ministrorum II, 5, 21. In p.s. 118, 21, 18; cp. 5, 41. De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 3, 12. De iacob I, 7, 31; In Luc. VII, 130. De bono mortis 8, 31; 4, 14; 5, 16. De bono mortis 2, 7; De Cain et Abel II, 10, 35. De bono mortis 4, 15; In p.s. 118, 11, 24. De excessu fr. II, 42; De bono mortis 2, 7; 7, 28; 4, 15; In p.s. 61, 17; De obitu Valentiniani 45; De Cain et Abel II, 10, 35; In p.s. 118, 18, 3. In p.s. 61, 19; De bono mortis 4, 15. De bono mortis 4, 15. Cp. De excessu fr. II, 44; De bono mortis 3, 9; De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 3, 11. De bono mortis 2, 3; De excessu fr. II, 36. De Isaac 4, 28; De bono mortis 3, 9. In p.s. 118, 11, 15; cp. In p.s. 36, 72. De virginibus III, 7, 32. De virginibus III, 7, 32 sqq. St. Augustine, who discussed the same issue, expresses his opinion reluctantly, but still he is against suicide even in cases where a person’s virtue is in danger. “After all, virtue,” he argues, “is in the soul, but no one can take possession of the soul.” De civit. Dei I, c. 19. Cp. Leitmeir, 108. Man cannot achieve good otherwise than through temptation and suffering, wrote Clement of Alexandria (Cf. K. Skvortsov, p. 239). For his part, Origen recognized the significance only of that virtue that is tempered by trials (Hom. in Num. XIV, 2.), and the wrath of God, manifested in the disasters sent by God, was considered an educational tool for people (In Ierem. hom. XIX, 1). De Cain et Abel II, 6, 22. Apolog. 6, 30; In Luc. IV, 41. De interpellatione Iob et David II (III), 1, 2. In p.s. 118, 14, 16; De fuga saeculi 7, 39. De poenitentia I, 13, 62. De paradiso 2, 9; De fuga saeculi 7, 39. De paradiso 11, 53. Origen also recognizes the degrees of virtue along which a Christian must climb until he reaches the highest. In Numer.. hom. XXVII, 5, 9; Comm. in ep. ad Rom. VI, 5 (MPG t. XIV, p. 1068). In p.s. 36, 52. And De fuga saeculi (2, 9) St. Ambrose counts six degrees of moral perfection, in relation to the six cities of refuge; but this division suffers from complete artificiality. In De Isaac (6, 50) he speaks of a fourfold elevation of the soul to God the Word. In Luc. I, 31: Et erit magnus coram domino. Non corporis hic, sed animae magnidudinem declaravit. Est coram domino magnitudo animae, magnitudo virtutis, est etiam parvitas animae et pueritia virtutis. Juxta enim animae et corporis numeramus aetates, non pro ratione temporis, sed pro qualitate virtutis, ut vir perfectus ille dicatur qui careat errort pueritiae et lubricum adulescentiae animi maturitate non sentiat, pusillus autem qui nullum adhuc virtutis videatur habuisse processum. De officiis ministrorum II, 20, 101. Cp. In p.s. 118, 16, 19: “An imperfect soul desires only to avoid judgment for sin, but a perfect soul desires to obtain the kingdom of heaven as a reward.” Demonstr. evang. 1, 8: “ Ωστε ῆδη τ ῇ Χριστοῦ Ἓ κκλησια δύο βίων νενομοθετῆσθαι " Ο Σ ” δποβερηκώς άνθρωπινώτερος … De officiis ministrorum I, 11, 36. De viduis 12, 72; Exhortatio virginitatis 3, 17; De virginibus I, 5, 23; De officiis ministrorum II, 17, 87. De Cain et Abel I, 6, 23. B De off. m. I, 30, 152 St. Амвросий говорит, что даже из священнослужителей не все могут раздавать имеющееся у них, но что он не считает таких несовершенными, если только они усердно исполняют своё служение. Cp. Ibidem I, 11, 37. Отсюда, между прочим, можно видеть ошибочность следующего утверждения Г. Ульгорна («Христианская благотворительность в древней церкви». Перевод с немецкого. СПб., 1899, стр. 245): «Амвросий с полным правом напоминает Симмаху, что те, кто делаются священниками, отказываются от своей собственности». True, in his refutation of the report of Symmachus, St. Амвросий пишет, что священник свободу своего служения покупает ценой потери всего своего имения (13). Но, как видно из контекста, здесь речь идёт не о собственности вообще, а о достающейся по завещанию или отца (patrimonium), или благочестивых христиан (точнее, христианок) (private successionis emolumenta). The acceptance by clergy of “bequeathed property” was indeed prohibited by one of the laws (20th - MPL t. XVI, p. 975, and. “f”) of Valentinian or, as St. father, recentibus legibus (13). St. Ambrose regrets the times of persecution, he himself would like to suffer and recommends that others also suffer if the opportunity for a glorious death presents itself (De off. m. II, 30, 153), although he advises those Christians who do not feel strong enough for it not to undertake the overwhelming task of martyrdom (De off. m.I, 36, 186. Cp. In Luc. IV, 41; In ps. 118, 9, 2; 14, 17; Origen taught that if Christ made an atoning sacrifice for people, then people, for their part, should make sacrifices. Origen lists such sacrifices first of all as martyrdom, then almsgiving, forgiveness of insults, etc. Comm. in Iob. t. I, 3; Exhort. ad martyrium 30, 50; In Levit. hom. II, 4, especially IV, 9. De excessu fr. I, 53; De officiis ministrorum Ii, 6, 27. However, cleanliness is not yet chastity itself. De viduis 13, 75. De excessu fr. I, 54. Si libido atque iracundia reliquorum vitiorum educatrices sunt, jure castitatem atque clemeniam dixtrim quasdam virtutum parents. Exhortatio virginitatis 4, 19. De virginibus I, 3, 11; 5, 20. De viduis 1, 1; cp. 11, 67 – 68; 14, 82. De viduis 4, 23. Regarding marriage, St. Ambrose not only does not condemn marriage, but even praises it (De virginibus I, 7, 34), however, he gives preference to virginity (Ibidem I, 6, 24; De viduis 12, 72) and precisely because marriage imposes shackles on a person (de viduis 11, 69; De virginitate 6, 33), a burden (De viduis 11, 69), while virginity is a complete sacrifice of body and soul offered to God (Exhortatio virginitatis 14, 94). In p.s. 118, 20, 13; cp. 12. De Cain et Abel I, 6, 31 – 32. Cp. De off. m. III, 1, 7: “A righteous man pays no attention to anything except what is eternal and what is honest.” Ibidem 30. Cp. I. B. Kellner, 160. Ep. 37, 22. In Christianity, not only husbands are free, but also wives and children (Ibidem 36). See what was said above about wisdom. Ep. 37, 18; In p.s. 36, 69. De officiis ministrorum III, 5, 31. In Luc. VIII, 57; Ep. 37, 19. In p.s. 118, 22, 4. Elsewhere St. Ambrose writes: “Joseph (Mary’s husband) was righteous and, as a righteous man, he could not allow anything contrary to the law” (In Luc. VI, 4). Freedom of St. Ambrose also calls freedom from the affairs of the world or this age. “Let the enemy not find his image in you, and let him not deprive you of the voice of freedom. The voice of freedom is when you can say: “The prince of this world will come and will find nothing in me.” (John 14; 39) (De off. m. I, 49, 246). Ep. 81, 10; 37, 23; In p.s. 118, 17, 20. In p.s. 118, 17, 20; Ep. 81, 10; De Iacob Ii, 3, 11 sqq. Cp. dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 185 flg. De iacob II, 3, 12; Ep. 37, 24. In p.s. 118, 8, 43; cp. De iacob I, 3, 11. De Abraham II, 10, 77; De officiis ministrorum III, 1, 7; I, 25, 118. De Abraham II, 7, 38. The doctrine of the wise mastering the whole world among the Stoics was associated with the doctrine of the sage as a citizen of the entire universe, as a cosmopolitan. And St. Ambrose writes: “For a wise man, wherever he goes, the fatherland is everywhere, and nowhere does he feel like a stranger, especially since the first man was an inhabitant of the whole world, a cosmopolitan, as the Greeks say; surrounded by virtues, exalted above all earthly animals, sea (inhabitants) and birds, he considered the whole world to be his property. Ep. 45, 16. De Jacob I, 8, 39; in Luc. X, 139. De cain et Abel I, 6, 23. De Jacob II, 6, 28; In p.s. 118, 4, 15; 5, 37; Ep. 37, 5. Ep. 63, 85; In p.s. 118, 14, 19: “We were created for slavery, redeemed for rest.” De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 45 – 46; cp. Ep. 37, 19; In p.s. 38, 11; De excessu fr. II, 101. De off. m. II, 5, 19; II, 1, 1; De Jacob I, 7, 29. Cp. above about speculative and theoretical virtues. De off. m. II, 2, 5; 26, 124; 27, 126. De Cain et Abel I, 6, 23; cp. Philo, De sacrif. I, 10, 43 – 44. Ep. 43, 11. Cp. Philo, De opif. m. 77. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 7, 19. In p.s. 118, 6, 8; De bono mortis 5, 20; De cain et Abel I, 2, 5. De Isaac 3, 8sq.; In p.s. 118, 17, 26; 19, 38 sq. De Isaac 3, 9; In p.s. 118, 4, 15. De officiis ministrorum II, 17, 92. In p.s. 21, 23;De trin. IV, 38. Cp. I. Tixeront, 284. Apologia David 6, 24; cp. 9, 49. However, good works justify only the person who has received the grace of baptism. In Luc. IV, 4; Ep. 41, 7. Apologia David 7, 36, 40: Ergo et remissionem meruit (David) iniquitatis et texit caritate atque operuit peccata sua et texit operibus bonis. Dr. Th. Förster tries to weaken the force of this statement by pointing out that we are talking about the Old Testament righteous man - David (S. 160, Anm. 136). De poenitentia II, 5, 35; Apologia 7, 40. De Tobia 24, 92; Ep. 19, 3, 2, 12. De Tobia 24, 92; De obitu Valentiniani 72. De obitu Valentiniani 72. In p.s. 43, 12; Ibidem: Nichil suis operbus deputabat (Jesus Nave), credens indigna esse opera hominum tanta gloriae remuneratione coelestis: quan Dominus ex sua magis misericordia, quam pro nostrum contemplatione fatorum statuit in se credentibus conferendam. 14: Ergo qui non in brachio suo, hoc est, in sua operatione praesumit. sed in Dei gratia; credens, quod non facta sua unumquemque justificam, sed fides prompta... Ex mandato ergo Dei salus homini non ex sua operatione confertur. Deus enim maluit ut salus homini fide potius, quam operibus quaereretur: ne quis gloriaretur in suis factis et peccatum incurreret. Qui autem gloriatur un Domino, fructum pietatis acquirit, et jactantiae crimen evadit. Exhortatio virginitatis 7, 43. De Cain et Abel I, 7, 25, 27. Cp. Philo, Qu. rer. div. her. 103: “Everything good you have, you have from God”; Wed 108; De ebrietate: “Without divine mercy it is neither possible to leave the corruptible nor to remain forever incorruptible.” De Cain et Abel II, 9, 28. Cp. Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Rom. III, 9. De obitu Theodosii 9; Contr Auxentium 24. De viduis 5, 30; cp. Ep. 78, 7; Cp. Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Rom. IV, 1. In p.s. 43, 14; 43, 1; De obitu Theodosii 9; Setmo contra Auxentium 24. De poenitentia I, 11, 48 – 50. St. Ambrose, even in his relatively later work, an interpretation of Psalm 119, writes that he who recognizes himself as righteous will not be pretentious if he, like the Prophet David and the Apostle Paul, asks for reward for his great labors (118, 3, 2 - 3; 20, 55). In p.s. 118, 16, 33; 20, 12, 14, 15; 15, 30; cp. 8, 52. Cp. De fuga saeculi 1, 1 – 2. In p.s. 118, 36, 15; De obitu Theodosii 23 – 24. In p.s. 118, 20, 42: “Which of us can remain without divine mercy?” Cp. 19, 33; In p.s. 43, 1. De interpellatione Iob et David IV (II), 5, 20. In p.s. 118, 16, 32 sq.; cp. De interp. Iob et David IV (II), 9, 34. In p.s. I, 26. Dr. I. Niederhuber incorrectly sees St. in this division. the father of the category of only sins of thought. “Three kinds of sins of thought,” he writes, distinguishes St. teacher (ps. 1, 1): transient sinful thoughts, remaining in thoughts (stare in cogitatione) and formal affirmation in such thoughts (perseverare in iis cogitationibus) (“Die Eschatologie”, 238). Cp. Orig., Select in ps. LVII, vers. 3: Atque peccati quidem principium est a corde, et finis in operationibus: in iis autem qui ad Deum convertuntur, pricipium ducitur a pravorum actuum abstinentia; Finis vero est puritas cordis. Select in ps. XX, v. 11; Comm. in Math. t. XI, 15; In cant. cant. IV, v. 15 (MPG t. XIII, p. 196 – 197); In Exod. hom. VI, 3. In p.s. 40, 7; 38, 13; 1, 52; De Nabuthae 10, 45. In p.s. 45, 13. Cp. Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome: “Interpretation of the Book of the Prophet Daniel” (Russian translation. Kazan, 1898, p. 23): “Whoever, being faithful, does not keep the commandments, is deprived of the Holy Spirit and, as expelled from the church, becomes earth and turns again to his old man.” Origen: “Sin separates us from God (In Genes. hom. XIII, 2), for whoever sins does not have God in his heart, sin reigns in him (Libel. de orat. 25). De Interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 8, 24 Cp. De Isaac 2, 3. Cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Lehre”, 65. In p.s. 36, 16; De Jacob II, 3, 12; In p.s. 35, 8; cp. In p.s. 45, 16 – 17; De Nabuthae, 28; De Tobia 20, 75. Ibidem. If a sinner loses the very name “man,” then it is clear that “he sins to himself (Ps. 35:2).” St. Ambrose especially admires this expression of Scripture, the like of which he does not find among the sages of the world (In ps. 35, 6). Ep. 31:2: “By our merits, the Word of God either lives in us (nobis) or dies, for if our deeds and aspirations are good, then the Word of God lives and acts in us; if our thoughts and deeds are dark, then the sun of righteousness sets for us” (Mal. 4:2). In p.s. 1, 58; De bono mortis 9, 41 – 42. De bono mortis 7, 52; cp. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 11 – 12. In p.s. 118, 5, 46: “There are those who are dead, although they live, and there are those who live, although they are already dead. Some go to hell alive, while others (on the contrary), although dead in body, are alive by their merits.” In p.s. 1:55: “There are those who go down alive to the grave and are numbered with the dead, whose throat is the grave; these are the ones who speak the words of death, and not the words of life.” De Nabuthae 12, 51; In p.s. 38, 30: “When we sin, we are given over to the enemy for reproach, so that he, as an enemy, will reprove and betray on the day of judgment.” De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 46. Ep. 70, 5; In p.s. 35, 6 – 8. De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 45 – 46. De poenitentia I, 15, 78; II, 9, 87; cp. In p.s. 118, 8, 26. De poenitentia I, 15, 78; II, 11, 104. De poenitentia I, 8, 36in utoque mysterium est. De poenitentia II, 10, 95; cp. Apologia David 4, 15; De obitu Theodosii 34. Origen distinguishes between mortal sins, which deprive a person of communion with the saints and lead a Christian to death, and lighter sins, through which the believer becomes unclean and is only condemned (In Ezech. hom. IX, 2; In Lev. hom. XII, 2 - 3; XIV, 3). As for mortal sins, they cannot be healed even by repentance (In Exsod. hom. X, 3; In Levit. hom. XI, 2; Libel. de orat. 28. Cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, 165 - 167). Ibidem. In addition, St. Ambrose distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary sins, and holds a person responsible not only for voluntary, but also for involuntary sins. (In ps. 118, 3, 17). In Luc. VII, 156; Apologia David 6, 24; 9, 49; In p.s. 43, 46; cp. Ep. 70, 23. De poenitentia II, 6, 40; In p.s. 118, 10, 47; 3, 10. De Helia 20, 75; In p.s. 118, 20, 29; In p.s. 37, 26. De poenitentia II, 4, 27; Ep. 67, 10. B Expos. evang. s. Lucan (X, 94) St. Ambrose, in contradiction with himself, does not allow, however, the possibility of forgiveness for Judas, as having sinned against the Holy Spirit. Due to the fact that Expos. evang. s. Lucan was written, in all likelihood, earlier than De poenitentia, but, on the other hand, it is difficult to admit that St. Father changed his view on the forgiveness of sins, set out in his great polemical treatise against the Novatian heresy; one might think that the opinion about the possibility of repentance for Judas was an expression of the later convictions of St. father regarding repentance. De poenitentia I, 11, 49. Cp. In p.s. 118, 8, 30; In p.s. 37, 1. De poenitentia II, 6, 40. In p.s. 118, 3, 10; 10, 47. De Cain et Abel II, 9, 27; cp. Ep. 70, 23. In p.s. 118, 10, 47; cp. In p.s. 38, 30; De paradiso 14, 71. In p.s. 118, 10, 41; cp. Orig., Sel. in p.s. CXVIII, v. 78; Pitra, “Analecta sacra,” III, 282. De poenitentia II, 8, 66; 6, 48; 7, 53. De Cain et Abel I, 1, 4. Cp. Philo, De sacrif. 3. In p.s. 35, 8; In p.s. 118, 4, 11: “Whoever accuses himself, even if he were a sinner, begins to be righteous, since he does not spare himself and confesses the justifications of God, from whom, he thinks, nothing can be hidden. Oh, if only Adam had wanted to accuse rather than hide himself.” Cp. In p.s. 118, 7, 21; 9, 5. In p.s. 37, 58 – 59: “Let us also believe (in the possibility of the resurrection), so that from our wounds we may acquire the medicine of salvation and future glory. Repentance must be brought in prayers and supplications, with tears and sorrow, so that we are worthy to see that glory of God.” De poenitentia II, 9, 81; I, 5, 22. Ep. 63, 16; Ep. 51, 11; In p.s. 31, 10: “If you have sinned after baptism, then shed the water of tears, not feigned, but real, from the depths cry out to the Lord your God, so that it may be said to you: a voice is heard in Rama”... In Luc. X, 90: “If you want to earn forgiveness, then wash away your guilt with tears, and at the same moment, at “at the same time Christ will look upon you.” Ep. 70, 23; De poenitentia II, 5, 35. Cp. Orig., In Levit. hom. II, 4. De poenitentia II, 9, 83; De Helia 20, 76. However, not all charity reduces sin, but only that which is based on faith. De poenitentia II, 9, 83. In p.s. 118, 20, 22. Dr. I. E. Niederhuber (one cannot say that not involuntarily) speaks of five properties of true repentance in St. Ambrose: inner sorrow of the soul and humility associated with the hope of forgiveness; the complete putting aside of hitherto committed sins; protection from new sins; willingness to be punished; urgent exaltation after every sin (“Die Theologie des hl. Ambrosius”, S. 40 – 41). De poenitentia II, 9, 80.Dr. R. Seeberg, 348 – 349. De poenitentia II, 9, 80. De poenitentia I, 15, 83. In Luc. X, 88 – 90: Bonae lacrimae, quae lavant culpam: denique quos Jesus respicit plorant; negavit primo Petrus et non flevit, quia non respexerat dominus...; respexit Jesus et ille amarissime flevit. De Spiritu Sancto III, 18, 137. De poenitentia II, 4, 24. De poenitentia II, 6, 44. De bono mortis 2, 5; cp. In p.s. 1, 26; De obiru Valentiniani 10; Ep. 71, 9. De poenitentia II, 10, 95. Cp. Dr. R. Seeberg, 347. De officiis ministrorum III, 2, 11: “Perfection can be of two kinds: one has all the fullness of duties, and the other only a part; one is here, and the other is there, one is in accordance with the powers of man, and the other is in accordance with the perfection of the future.” In p.s. 118, 3, 19: “So, here we live in the canopy and therefore in the canopy we keep the words of God. Let's take an example. Previously, people were under the shadow of the law and kept the Sabbath, which is the shadow of the future; Jews to this day, not knowing the true Sabbath, serve the image and the canopy. We, who live here according to the Gospel, follow the image of the words of God... Jesus also stretched out His hands to us to cover the whole world with a shadow. Are we not in the shadow when we are covered with the cover of the cross?.. So, just as He changed His image when He was born of the Virgin, so the words of the Lord seem to us transformed when read in the Gospel - after all, their image is seen in Scripture, as if through some kind of mirror, due to the fact that the truth cannot be comprehended here in its entirety. When the perfect comes, then the clear truth itself will sparkle, no longer involved in limitations (non jam per descensionem, non per speciem ut transfiguarati).” Ep. 34, 5, 11; In p.s. 37, 59. De obitu Valentiniani 65. De officiis ministrorum I, 48, 238: “So, we need to look for that in which there is perfection, in which there is truth. Here is a shadow, here is an image, and there is the truth. The shadow is in the law, the image is in the Gospel, and the truth is in heavenly... Here we walk in the image, in the image and see, where there is complete perfection, there face to face, because all perfection is possible only in truth. In p.s. 38, 18; De interpellatione Iob et David I, 7, 24. De bono mortis 12, 55; De excessu fr. II, 94; De obitu Theodosii 32, 39; De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31; De obitu Valentiniani 65. De obinu Theodosii 32, 52. De officiis ministrorum I, 48, 238. In p.s. 118, 3, 18; De excessu fr. II, 109. De bono mortis 3, 10; cp. Ibidem 11. De interpellatione Iob et David I, 9, 30. St. Ambrose does not deny rewards on earth, and not only spiritual, but also material. “As a reward for the struggle,” he says, “a person is given both terrarum fructus and coeli lumins (Ep. 43, 4), although in letter 29, 19, these blessings as a reward are apparently denied. Er. 29:11: “Surely, will the soul desire anything, since it has tasted the sweetness of the Word and seen His glory?” Ep. 29, 12; De bono mortis 8, 35. De officiis ministrorum I, 16, 59. De bono mortis 3, 8: “To you I will make a sacrifice of praise...” He did not say, “I will perform,” but “I will perform,” denoting that perfect sacrifice, when everyone, freed from the shackles of this body, will appear before the Lord and offer within himself a sacrifice of praise, for before death there can be no perfect praise, and no one in this life can be glorified with a certain praise, for what follows is unknown.” In p.s. 1, 16. In p.s. 1, 16. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in p.s. I, 3. Rus. translation, part I, 154: “Whoever is still alive cannot be called blessed due to the unknown end of life.” Cp. Philo, Quaest. in Genes. IV, 122, (3400: “A person can only be a participant in complete and complete joy when he becomes a being alien to mortality, when he enters the intelligible world.” De excessu fr. II, 122; cp. In Luc. V, 78. De poenitentia II, 6, 51; cp. In p.s. 61, 17; In Luc. V, 83; Ep. 35, 13; In p.s. 118, 15, 29. De officiis ministrorum I, 3, 11. Ep. 35, 13 (Spe enim salvi facti sumus – Rom. VIII, 24). In p.s. 36, 17; In Luc. IV, 37. Ep. 43, 4; 6: “The earth is the exercise, and the sky is the crown.” The comparison of a Christian with an athlete (De Helia 21, 79), with a wrestler (In ps. 36, 17) and a warrior (Exameron VI, 8, 50; In Luc. IV, 37) is the favorite image of the saint. Ambrose (as well as St. Basil the Great). This is what Clement of Alexandria and Origen already taught. In p.s. 38, 17. Consequently, only beyond the grave is that consummatio virutis, about which St. the father speaks in the interpretation of Ps. 118 (10, 15). De officiis ministrorum III, 2, 11; In p.s. 118, 3, 18; In p.s. 47, 12; cp. De obitu Thiodosii 37. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 3, 9. Cp. Basil. M., Morilia. regul. I, cap. I: “After leaving this life, there is no longer time for good deeds” (Russian translation, part 3, p. 295). Wed. In p.s. 118, 8, 20: “The shoes that Moses was ordered to take off from his feet are bodily life,” which is why God said to him: “No man will see My face and live” (Ex. 33:20). Wed. In p.s. 118, 3, 23: Denique in monte gravati erant (apostles) somno, sed excitati majestatis fulgore divinae oculos cordis sui aperuerunt. Et quia siti in corpore, plene videre non poterunt, obumbravit eos nubes (Math. XVII, 5), ne corporis oculos gloriae coelestis fulgor hebetaret. Ibidem 4, 2. De Iacob II, 1, 2 sq.; In p.s. 1, praef. 1; In p.s. 1, 13. Cp. Dr. T. E. Luthardt, I, S. 6. Cp. prof. A. A. Bronzov, p. 100 et seq., especially 112. Philo, Leg. alleg. III, 167. Cp. Dr. G. Capiraine, 58. De princ. III, 6, 1; Sel. in p.s. XLIX, v. 18; LXXXV, v. 2. Cp. Dr. G. Capitaine, 49 sq. De princ. I, 2, 3. cp. Russian translation by Prof. N. Petrova, p. 11, approx. 20 and page 15 approx. 30. De princ. II,11, 7. Rus. trans., p. 186. Comm. in ep. ad Rom. III, 1. Home in ps. XXXIII, 11. Rus. lane Part 1, page 252. Ep. 29 passim; De Isaac 8, 78, 79. De Isaac 7.61: omnium bonorum auctor est. Ep. 29 passim; De Isaac 7, 60; 8, 79; De bono mortis 12.55. De Isaac 8, 79; De bono moris 12, 55. Cp. Ep. 29, 3, 10; De Isaac 8, 78. De Jacob I, 7, 30; cp. De Isaac 7, 60; In p.s. 1, praef. 1. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 11, 28; cp. Ep. 76, 7. Ep. 66, 8: sanctis omnia Deus est; Ep. 4, 4. Cp. Niderhuber, “Die eschatologie”, 84. Cp. Ep. 35, 13, 5; In p.s. 37, 59. In p.s. 118, 19, 6; De bono mortis 11, 49. In p.s. 118, 18, 41; cp. In Luc. I, 27, 25; II, 94. In p.s. 118, 19, 5 sq.; De excessu fr. II, 109. De officiis ministrorum I, 16, 62. Ep. 35, 13. Cp. Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Rom. VII, 5 (MPG t. XIV, p. 1116 – 1117). Cp. Dr. W. Wilbrand, “Ambrosius”, 32. De Cain et Abel II, 2, 9; in libertatem supernae cognitionis, quae est vera et sola libertas. In p.s. 118, 5, 41; Ep. 34, 11; In p.s. 37, 59. In p.s. 38, 18; cp. De interpellatione Iob et David I, 7, 24; De bono mortis 12, 53. In p.s. 118, 12, 13; De bono mortis 12, 53. De excessu fr. II, 94; De Cain et Abel II, 9, 31; De bono mortis 12, 55; De obitu Theodosii 39; cp. 32. De obitu Theidosii 32, 52. De bono mortis 11, 49; Ep. 29, 2, 11; De Isaac 8, 79. In p.s. 118, 21, 10; Ep. 4, 5; cp. Apologia 7, 35. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 89. De officiis ministrorum II, 2, 5; cp. II, 5, 19. Ibidem II, 3, 9; cp. II, 2, 7. De officiis ministrorum II, 1, 1. In caelestibus requiescere, requies superna. Ep. 15, 1; De obitu Theodosii 30. However, sometimes St. Ambrose says that this peace - requies mortis, requies beata (In ps. 48, 24) - comes for the righteous after death and that sinners do not have this peace of death (De interpellatione Iob et David II (III), 5, 19). Elsewhere, St. the father writes that the soul, ascending to heaven, returns to its rest like a horse returning to its stall, and a ship returning to the harbor (De obitu Theodosii 30). Ibidem; cp. De bono mortis 2, 5: vita aeterna remissio peccatorum est. Ep. 76, 9. In the future blessed life there will be no more mistakes, no delusions, no passions of the flesh (De bono mortis 12, 55; cp. Ep. 16, 4); there will be no guilt (De obitu Theodosii 37), just as there will be no falls (De bono mortis 12, 55; De obitu Theodosii 30). Ibidem 53; In p.s. 39, 36. De obitu Theodosii 30; De bono mortis 12, 55. Ibidem 30; cp. De bono mortis 12, 55. In p.s. 118, 10, 35 sq.; De officiis ministrorum I, 9, 29; In Luc. X, 125. De fuga saeculi 8, 45. Cp. philo, De fuga et invent. 173 – 174. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 90. De bono mortis 11, 49 – 51. De excessu fr. II, 100; De bono mortis 11, 50; De obitu Theodosii 32; De obitu Valentiniani 65. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 86 flg. De obitu Valentiniani 65. If the entry of the righteous into communion with the saints is a source of joy for them, then the saints, in turn, rejoice that they can accept them into their midst. Ep. 15, 5, 8. Cp. De virginibus II, 2, 16. In p.s. 1, praef. 3; De excessu fr. II, 47; In p.s. 118, 4, 3. De Spiritu sancto II, 3, 27. De officiis ministrorum II, 1, 9. Ibidem; De Jacob II, 6, 23; De obitu Valentiniani 72. De officiis ministrorum II, 1, 3. De officiis ministrorum II, 5, 18. In p.s. 118, 14, 46; Ep. 43, 6. De officiis ministrorum II, 3, 9; De virginibus I, 11, 64; De paradiso 9, 44; In pa. 118, 21, 18; 14, 46; 3, 7; Ep. 15, 2. In p.s. 37, 59; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 11, 39; 15, 57. Future bliss can be called a reward only insofar as it serves as an incentive to a virtuous life. “Just as fighters are motivated to victory by reward, so our Lord Jesus, as incentives to people to virtue, offered the glory of the heavenly throne, the grace of constant rest and the bliss of eternal life.” In p.s., 1, 13; cp. Ibidem 1; In Luc. VII, 1. In p.s. 48, 26; De excessu fr. II, 48. Cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 30, 150. In p.s. 1, 45; cp. De interpellatione Io et David II (III), 4, 13. De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 14, 28. In Luc. V, 61: Denique siept entermenta virtutum ua etiam ingredienta sunt praemiorum…; cisi unum regnum diversa tamen inerita sunt in regno coelorum. Cp Ibidem IV, 37, prolog. 6; Ep. 42. De Abraham II, 11, (...); 4, 7. Cp. priest Gr. Malevansky, “The Dogmatic System of Origen” in “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy,” 1970, June, pp. 525 et seq. p. Niderhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 55 – 56. De interpellatione Iob et David I, 9, 29; In p.s. 118, 8, 18. In p.s. 38, 17; In p.s. 40, 26; In Luc. V, 61; De officiis ministrorum I, 48, 237. Cp. De bono mortis 11, 48. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 62. De interpellatione Iob et David II (III0, 5, 19. This was also the opinion of Origen. Wed. Niderhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, S. 64, Anm. 1 and 3. Cp. De fide IV, 1, 8; V, 12, 152; De excessu fr. II, 94; In Luc. VII, 5; In p.s. 118, 20, 44. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 74. De virginibus II, 2, 16 – 17; Ep. 15, 4 – 8; De obitu Valentiniani 72, 65; De obitu Theodosii 31, 40. Cp. Niderhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 40 – 41. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 42. Cp. Orig., “On the Beginnings” II, 10, 4; Select. in p.s. XCVI, v. 3; De orat., 29 (MPGt. XI, p. 541). In p.s. 36, 26; In p.s. 118, 3, 16. In p.s. 118, 20, 23 sq.; 3, 14 sq. In p.s. 36, 26; cp. In p.s. 118, 3, 17. In p.s. 118, 20, 15, 14; cp. Ep. 2, 16. Even the apostles must go through this fire. In p.s. 118, 20, 12. De Spiritu Sancto I, 14, 149 – 150. De Spiritu Sancto I, 14, 150; In Luc. VII, 132; II, 82; Exaneron IV, 3, 10. Cp. De Abraham II, 9, 66; In Luc. X, 33, 44; De excessu fr. II, 84; De viduis 3, 15; In p.s. 1, 51 – 56; De interpellatione Iob et David I, 5, 15. De poenitentia I, 17, 95. Cp. In Luc. VII, 96; In p.s. 36, 36; In p.s. 118, 5, 6. De excessu fr. II, 91; cp. Ep. 35, 10 sqq.; De interpellatione Iob et David I, 7, 25. De excessu fr. II, 53; cp. De interpellatione Iob et David I, 7, 25. In p.s. 118, 5, 44; In p.s. 1, 51. Ibidem; Exameron V, 23, 78. Cp. In p.s. 38, 26; In p.s. 43, 77; In p.s. 47, 17. In Luc. VII, 194; X, 168. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 194 – 195. Cp. De excessu fr. II, 52, 88. Wed. In p.s. 1, 56. Cp. Basil. M., Hom. in p.s. VII, 1 – 5. In p.s. 1, 54. Cp. In p.s. 118, 20, 22. De officiis ministrorum I, 48, 237. In p.s. 40, 7; cp. In p.s. 47, 15; De interpellatione Iob et David I, 8, 26: Erit enim in consummatione saeculi ira domini, recte ergo sanctus in indicium mavult resurgere quam in tempus divinae iracundiae, quae terribillis etiam innocentibus est. De fuga saeculi 7, 40, 41, 44; In p.s. 118, 7, 8. De paradiso 14, 71; De interpellatione Iob et David III (IV), 3, 9; In p.s. 118, 20, 22. In p.s. 36, 21; Apologia David 14, 68. In Luc. VII, 204; VI, 46. In p.s. 38, 38; Apologia David, 14, 68; cp. In Luc. VI, 46. Exameron IV, 1, 2; cp. De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 44. De excessu fr. II, 11; cp. In p.s. 37, 51. In p.s. 36, 16; 45, 16 – 17; De Tobia 20, 75; De nabuthae 6, 28. De fide II, 13, 119; De Nabuthae 6, 28. Lacus ignis arlentis. In p.s. 36, 26. In p.s. 118, 21, 13. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 104 – 105. De paradiso 14, 71; De interpellatione Iob et David II (IV), 3, 9; cp. 118, 20, 22. Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 107 – 108, Anm. 2: "This (In Luc. VII, 205) is the only place in the works of St. Ambrose that denies the material character of hellfire." In Luc. VII, 205. Cp. Orig., De princ. II, 10, 24; Contr. Ceis. I, 15. In p.s. 48, 26; De officiis ministrorum I, 12, 15. De interpellatione Iob et David II (III), 5, 19. In p.s. 118, 20, 58; cp. De bono mortis 10, 47. In p.s. 118, 8, 58; 3, 17; 10, 11; 21, 8; De fide II, 13, 119. Ibidem 21, 8; In p.s. 48, 16. In p.s. 38, 38; In p.s. 118; 5, 1. De paradiso 9, 15; In p.s. 40, 28. In p.s. I, 47 sqq; cp. Ibidem 58; De bono mortis 9, 41. Cp. MPL, t. XIV, 950 approx. "b". Cp. Niederhuber, “Die Eschatologie”, 249, Anm. 1. Orig., De princ. II, 10, 6; De orat. 29. Cp. priest Gr. Malevansky, “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy,” June, 541, 543 and 562. Cp. In p.s. 118, 22, 26; In p.s. 36, 26. Cp. G. Rauschen, “Grundriss der Patrologie”, S. 158.