VI. Письмо пятое: Уте́шитель

Do you remember, quiet one, our long walks in the forest - through the forest of dying August. The silver trunks of the birches stood like slender palm trees, and the golden-green tops, as if bleeding from blood, pressed against the crimson and purple aspens. And above the surface of the earth, like a green gas, a see-through hazel tree branched. Sacred solemnity wafted under the arches of this church. Do you remember, distant and ever-close Friend, our heartfelt conversations? The Holy Spirit and religious antinomies are what seemed to interest us most of all. And being in a reserved grove, we walked at sunset in the winter fields, reveled in the blazing west and rejoiced that the issue was being clarified, that we had separately come to the same thing. Then thoughts flowed in flaming streams like the firmament, and we caught the thought in mid-word. In inspired, cold and fiery delight, the roots of the hair moved, and goosebumps tickled the back. Do you remember, my unanimous brother, the reeds above the black pools? We stood silently by the steep shore and listened to the mysterious evening rustles. An unspeakably jubilant secret grew in our souls, but we remained silent about it, saying to each other in silence: then... Now it's winter. I study by the lamp, and the evening light in the window seems blue, majestic, like death. And I, as before death, again run through the whole past, again I am excited by out-of-peace joy. But I can’t collect anything - now that I’m alone. I am writing pitiful fragmentary thoughts to you. And yet I am writing, so many aspirations are connected with the question of the Holy Spirit that I will try to write at least something - as a keepsake for you. Let the pages of the letter be the dried flowers of that autumn. The knowledge of the Truth, that is, the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, is accomplished by the grace of the Holy Spirit. All ascetic life, that is, life in the Truth, is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is, as it were, the closest, the most sincere for the ascetic of the Truth. It is He, the “Spirit of Truth” (John 12:26), who testifies in his very soul about the Lord, that is, about consubstantiality; It is He who teaches “what should be said” to all those existing outside of Him, and therefore those who persecute the Lord, that is, the idea of ​​consubstantiality (Luke 12:11–12). But, nevertheless, the knowledge of the Spirit as the Comforter, the joy of the Comforter, gilds only the highest points of sorrow; So the roses of the day-weary sun smile on the snow-capped peaks of the Caucasus. Only at the end of the thorny path are pink clouds of purified creation and the snow-white shine of holy, transfigured flesh seen. Only at the end... So - in everyone’s personal life; and in the whole life of humanity. Until humanity stood firmly on the path of salvation, the Lord supported it. Then all sorrows were forgotten; but the sorrows were already in their infancy, being prepared. “Can the sons of the bridal chamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Matthew 9:15). True, even at the beginning of the feat, the Bride will greet you with a tender kiss. True, apostolic Christianity trembled with the fullness of joy. But this kiss, this joy is just a betrothal. It is given for a long journey, for many torments, not with dignity, but for cheerfulness. A wonderful moment flashed dazzlingly and... it was as if it was not there. The Lord separated from the earth and everything that He directly visibly overcame on it with His radiance. He is with us; but in a human, earthly way, He is not with us. It’s the same in personal life, at the beginning of the ascetic path, when undeservedly and unexpectedly great, unspeakable joy overshadows the soul. She, like the Most Pure Body and Honest Blood of Christ given for nourishment and strengthening, is “for the betrothal of the future Kingdom,” for the betrothal of the spirituality and enlightenment of the whole being. 155 So, I repeat, at the beginning of the journey. And this beginning is endlessly joyful; so inexplicably good then that, remembering the sweet farewell, even in the memory of a fleeting vision of itself, humanity finds the strength to overcome obstacles; With dreams of the delight of first love, the ascetic drives away from himself the black thoughts of everyday work and the boredom and melancholy of gray everyday life. But, in general, on average, in the ordinary, both the personal life of a Christian, outside of its highest ascents, and the everyday life of the Church - minus the chosen ones of Heaven - knows little, vaguely and dimly the Holy Spirit as a Person. And with this is connected the insufficient, not always constant knowledge of the heavenly nature of the Creation. It cannot be otherwise. The knowledge of the Holy Spirit would give complete spirituality, complete deification of all Creation, complete enlightenment. Then the story would end; then the fullness of the terms would be fulfilled; Then there would be no more Time in the whole world. I repeat, this is the completion, as the Mystical Eagle was worthy to see: “And the Angel, whom I saw standing on the sea and on the earth,” He narrates, “raised his hand to heaven and swore by Him who lives forever and ever. Who created the sky and everything that is in it, the earth and everything that is on it, the sea and everything that is in it, that time will no longer be - ὅτι χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται; but in those days when the seventh angel proclaims, when he blows the trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as He preached to His servants the prophets” (Rev. 10:5-7). This is what will happen on the brink of history when the Comforter is revealed. But as long as history continues, only moments and moments of illumination by the Spirit are possible; hitherto only certain people know the Comforter in separate moments and moments, and then they rise above time - into Eternity - “there is no time for them,” and history ends for them. The fullness of acquisition is inaccessible to believers as a whole, and is also inaccessible to an individual believer in the integrity of his life. Christ's victory over Death and Corruption has not yet been assimilated by the Creation, not completely assimilated; This means that there is no completeness of knowledge. Just as the holy incorruptible relics of ascetics are the guarantee of victory over Death, that is, the discovery of the Spirit in bodily nature, so holy spiritual insights are the guarantee of victory over reason, that is, the discovery of the Spirit in spiritual nature. But since there is no resurrection, there is also no complete rational enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. To claim that complete knowledge or complete cleansing of the flesh has been achieved is an impostor - the impostor of Simon the Magus, Manes, Montanus, the Khlysty and thousands of other similar false spirit-bearers who have lied and are lying against the Spirit. This is the perversion of all human nature, called “deception” or “charm.” 156 Yes, the Holy Spirit works in the Church. But knowing Him has always been either a guarantee or a reward - in special moments and in exceptional people; and it will be so until everything is “accomplished.” That is why, when reading church writing, one cannot help but pay attention to one phenomenon, which at first seems strange, but then, in the light of previous considerations, reveals its internal necessity. Namely: all the holy fathers and mystical philosophers talk about the importance of the idea of ​​​​the Spirit in the Christian worldview, but almost no one finds out anything clear and decisive. It is clearly visible that the holy fathers know something about themselves; but it is even clearer that this knowledge is so deeply hidden, so “unanswerable,” so ineffable, that they do not have the strength to put it into clear words. This mainly applies to dogmatists, because they need to speak definitely and to the point; It is they who turn out to be almost mute, or clearly confused. Recall, at least from the 2nd century, the “binary system” of Hermas and the Author of the 2nd pseudo-Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians: both here and there the Holy Spirit is directly mixed with the Church. 157 Or let us recall the system of Tertullian from the 3rd century, where the Spirit is so unclearly differentiated from the Word that it is almost indistinguishable from the Last and is often called instead of Him. 158 I was first particularly struck by this internal contradiction when reading Origen’s Elements, dating back to the years 228–229. Outlining Christian dogma, Origen expresses his firm belief that the idea of ​​the Holy Spirit is a deliberately Christian idea, so to speak, the shibboleth of Christianity. “All,” he says, 159 “in any way recognizing Providence, confess that there is an unborn God who created and arranged everything; they all recognize Him as the parent - parentem - of the universe. We are not the only ones who preach that He has a Son. Thus, although to the Greek and barbarian philosophers this doctrine seems rather surprising and incredible; but still some of them express an opinion about the Son when they confess that everything was created by the word or mind of God... As for the hypostasis (subsistentia, i.e. literal translation ὑπόστασίς) of the Holy Spirit, no one could even have any assumption regarding it, except for those who were familiar with the law and the prophets, or those who profess faith in Christ.” One can, however, doubt whether this is actually so. St. Justin the Philosopher, in his First Apology, 160 dating probably to the year 150 or even to 138-139, and written, therefore, 80 or 90 years before Origen's Elements, - Justin the Philosopher, - I say, - no less definitely attributes to Plato the knowledge of all three Hypostases. But, whether Origen’s conviction is essentially correct or not, it is highly characteristic of understanding the history of spiritual knowledge. In fact, one might think that having stated the above, Origen would deduce the idea of ​​the Holy Spirit, as he had previously done for the idea of ​​the Father and the Son. But “this task of giving a speculative justification for the fact of the existence of the Holy Spirit, of indicating the logical necessity of the Trinitarian existence of the Divine, was not fulfilled by Origen.” Such is the judgment of the most impartial historian and the most learned dogmatist. 161 However, Origen agrees in advance with this strict sentence. After all, what the judge demands from him, what the natural movement of thought demands from him, is “impossible,” according to Origen. 162 Yes, deduction is impossible. So be it; but isn’t it true: the impossibility of speculation is not yet an excuse for indecision and uncertainty even in the presentation of dogmatic material. And Origen, with the interrogative form of his presentation, sometimes simply avoids answering, and sometimes he clearly forgets about the idea of ​​the Holy Spirit. Forgetfulness, however, is easily explained! The Holy Spirit, in fact, - with a deep metaphysical analysis of Origen's system - is not needed in it for anything; this is, so to speak, a “false window” for the symmetry of the building, nothing more. “Origen the giant,” who walked cheerfully and firmly through the fields of dogmatics, who was not afraid to create his own concepts, sometimes striking with the boldness and swiftness of his takeoff, “this same Origen unexpectedly passes by what he himself called the most essential side of the Christian understanding of life and, having turned into something small, into a hunched and wrinkled dwarf, mumbles about the most essential vaguely and unintelligible. This transformation from the great into the pitiful is so amazing that it has long been striking to everyone, from Vasily V., in whose opinion “Origen is a man who had not entirely sound ideas about the Holy Spirit,” 163 to modern defenders of Origen, who are trying to justify it either by the primary interest of the time in clarifying ideas about the Son and the Father, or by reference to the understatement of conciliar definitions about the Holy Spirit, or by intention Origen to speak out on the incriminated issue in some other work. 164 But, whether this is so or not, there remains an undeniable immediate impression of some kind of internal inconsistency of ideas in the consciousness of Origen himself. And the same should be said about others, for they speak about the Holy Spirit, sometimes unclearly and fragmentarily, sometimes with restraint and caution. This lack of differentiation of ideas, arising from the uniqueness of mental encounters with the Holy Spirit, is also evident from the fact that in the works of church writing it is not uncommon, as already partly indicated above, to encounter a certain lack of differentiation between the ideas of the Holy Spirit and Sophia the Wisdom, - in part, both of them from the Logos - a phenomenon that is all the more striking since the ideas of the Father and the Son are developed with all sorts of subtlety and, one might say, minted enough. The general immediate impression inevitably remains when reading church writing the same as from a painting, part of which is finished, and part of which is only in vague outlines. Of course, you can cite all sorts of individual passages and excerpts from the patristic works. But one cannot but agree that in general the situation is exactly as I indicate here, and this general impression can easily be proven if we try to compare the doctrine of the Father and the Son with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 165 True, there are disputes regarding the Holy Spirit and different statements are made. But they are all formal and schematic in nature; they all differ from the corresponding statements about the Son and about the Father, just as the pencil outlines of a picture are different from a canvas filled with paints. While the hypostatic existence of the Father and the Son is perceived by every nerve of the spiritual organism; while heresy in relation to the Father and the Son is organically, directly, with all our guts unacceptable; while the nature of the Father and the Son is revealed in crystal-transparent and geometrically harmonious formulas that have a religious-axiomatic character, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is sometimes not noticed at all, or almost not at all, sometimes it is revealed in an inferential or roundabout way, like a rational theorem, according to the scheme: “Since such-and-such is said about the Son, then we are forced to say such-and-such about the Spirit.” The truth of the provisions about the Son is immediately obvious to a believer; the truth of these propositions about the Spirit is clarified in a roundabout way, established through the formal correctness of intermediate reasoning. The proofs and justifications of logology could and did turn out to be naive, insufficient, preliminary constructions, while the very building of dogmatics was based on the great word ὁμοούσιος, immediately true for consciousness, for life by faith in Christ Jesus, on which the building itself was supported and with which all the scaffolding was supported. The Consubstantial Word for spiritual people was given from the experience of life, and they recognized the Consubstantial Word and confessed it, despite weak argumentation and contrary to contrary evidence. Argumentation in the doctrine of the Word was nothing more than an appendage. But in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, argumentation was almost everything, and without it the dogma lost its persuasiveness. What the otherwise adamantine Origen says about the existence and origin of the Holy Spirit is an ad hoc invented teaching, a deliberate sophistication created in order not to clash with church tradition; in essence, it would have been much more natural and convenient for Origen, if it had been possible, to completely silence the Holy Spirit. The Spirit “comes” from the Father, for otherwise He would have to be born either from the Father - and then the Son would have a “brother” (this is exactly what the Doukhoborists objected to the Orthodox), - or from the Son, and then He would be a “grandson” of the Father (the consideration of Tertullian and others). And Origen thinks so vaguely about the Spirit that in the Commentary on John 166 he vacillates between the creation of the Spirit by the Father and the procession from the Father, speaking now one way or another. You will say: “Why did you like Origen so much?” – Firstly, because he is a major theologian and a strong, independent mind; secondly, because he had an immeasurable influence on all later theology. What has been said about Origen must, mutatis mutandis, be said about others. Athanasius of Alexandria himself, not only the “Great”, but also truly great, - in his three, i.e., in the first, second and fourth, Epistles to Serapion of Tmuite about the Holy Spirit, who gave “an exhaustive study about Him, which became a model for subsequent writers,” 167 - argues exclusively ad personas; he relies, precisely, mainly on the fact that those who recognize the creatureliness of the Spirit “divide and disintegrate the Trinity,” thereby endangering the very teaching about the Son, etc. So, Athanasius has to recognize the Holy Spirit as consubstantial, for otherwise he would have to reject everything that is said about the Son. But even Athanasius does not understand what the “ἐκπόρευσις, procession” of the Spirit is, in contrast to the “γέννησις, birth” of the Son. Of the three personal properties of the Divine hypostases, namely: ἀγεννησία, γέννησις and ἐκπόρευσις, the first two are spiritually quite understandable, while the last turns out to be only a sign of some kind of spiritual experience still to come. Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great also formally objected to the Doukhobors; 168 and they, despite their habit of mental soaring, could not overcome the question of the Holy Spirit. And among them the Spirit is considered with the Father and the Son, and not independently. St. Basil the Great, probably more than anyone else, contributed to the preparation of minds for the Second Ecumenical Council, that is, to the understanding of the dogma of the Holy Spirit. And, nevertheless, the difference in the notorious tolerance of St. Basil the Great in polemics with the Macedonians and in general on issues of pneumatology, in comparison with the fervor of the entire spiritual atmosphere when discussing issues of logology, is perhaps to a very strong extent due to the difference in inner conviction when taking one and the other position. 169 One cannot help but suspect that this is not only tolerance towards others, but also one’s own certain coldness towards the question, one’s own insufficiently acute penetration of it into the heart. And Basil the Great dealt with the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, looking at this question with peripheral vision, while the point of his clearest vision was directed at the consubstantiality of the Son. The willing and free confession and defense of the Son involved a seemingly involuntary and inevitable confession and defense of the Spirit. I repeat, this is not an accident of the history of theology, but an immutable sequence in the fulfillment of hours and deadlines, a necessary and indispensable revelation of the relatively dim revelation of the Spirit as a Hypostasis, a lack of life itself. Our statement is easy to prove. After all, where is the direct expression of spiritual experience? Where is spiritual experience least processed? - In prayers and chants, - in worship: worship is the most significant and essential function of the life of the church body. The evidence of worship is the most reliable evidence. But, the question arises, where should we first look for indications of what place the Holy Spirit occupied in the minds and hearts of the ancient members of the Church in comparison with other Hypostases? Well, of course, where the celebration itself was aimed at glorifying all three Hypostases. The divine service of Trinity Day, that is, a day deliberately dedicated to the Most Holy Trinity, should give us a decisive indication of how much the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was a property of living church experience, and not just a theorem of dogmatic theology. And this instruction is all the more precious for us because the main part in the “Sequence of the Penticostia”, 170 - I mean the three solemn prayers of kneeling - was most likely compiled precisely at the time or during the time of Basil the Great. What do we find here? – The first prayer of kneeling begins with the words: “Most pure, undefiled, without beginning, incomprehensible, invisible, unsearchable, unfailing, invincible, innumerable, gentle Lord: you alone have immortality, in the living unapproachable light, who created heaven and earth, and the sea, and everything created on them: first ask everyone, give petitions. We pray to You and ask You, Lord, Lover of Mankind, Father of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ...” - an obvious appeal to God the Father. The second prayer of kneeling is to the Son: “Lord Jesus Christ our God, your peace given by man and the gift of the Most Holy Spirit is still in life and is with us, forever granting as an inalienable inheritance to the faithful...” the priest begins to pray. Finally, the third prayer of kneeling, which in the sequence occupies the place exactly corresponding to the places of the first two prayers, i.e., the liturgical analogue of the first two prayers, opens with the address: “Ever-flowing, animal and enlightening Source, co-essential with the Father, creative Power, perfectly fulfilling the all-seeing vision for human salvation...” But to whom exactly is this prayer? What's next? – Based on the meaning of the celebration itself (- “Trinity Day!”), based on the liturgical position of this third prayer, and finally, based on the epithets of the Person to whom it is addressed, it is natural to expect a continuation: “To the Holy Soul”, or “Comforter”, or “King of Truth”, or some other name of the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity - it is so natural that, listening to this prayer, you involuntarily hear some of this and remain convinced that it is addressed to the Holy Spirit. But in reality, nothing happened. Here is the immediate continuation of the prayer we interrupted: “... Christ our God: the bonds of death that cannot be broken, and the rivets of hell broken, and trampled down many evil spirits: He brought unto Himself the blameless slaughter for us...” - etc. - all to the Lord Jesus Christ, and not at all to the Holy Spirit. The age of stereotypical, more or less widespread creeds, when the dogma of the Holy Spirit was enshrined in the word only in passing and only insofar as the economic activity of the Spirit was associated with that of the Father and the Son, was then replaced by a century of application to the Holy Spirit of the concepts found for the Son. But it is remarkable that the personal peculiarity of the Third Hypostasis still remained only formally designated by the word ἐκπόρευσις, “procession,” however, without specific content. And so it continued. The theological recipe to speak about the Spirit according to the model of what is said about the Word, i.e., in essence, to create a shadow outline of the Word, one way or another reigned in Orthodox circles, although at the same time in the deserts of Thebaid and Palestine, to individual saints - these pinnacle and almost super-human points of the Church - the Spirit revealed itself and through them, through their soul and through their body, revealed itself to those around them. And non-Orthodox circles fell into obvious false teaching when they tried to cognize the Comforter by force, to forcibly lock him, the Spirit of Freedom, into the cage of philosophical concepts. Instead of the Spirit, they grasped the charming, false-mystical experiences of the soul, immersed in the gloomy sub-foundation of the world and grasping at the dark forces as at angels of light. This once again proved that outside of feat and exercise, the Spirit was and is known only negatively. The mystics of later times, who were always keenly interested in pneumatology, were in no better position. Having distinguished the Hypostases of the Spirit and the Son in words, in most cases, they ended up identifying them in practice, because they attributed to the Holy Spirit everything that had already been said about the Son, and, in addition, confused the Spirit with Sophia. 171 What is the personal characteristic of the Holy Spirit? “They talked too much about this, but said too little.” Basil the Great 172 admits that “the image of the origin remains inexplicable,” and as a result does not make a single attempt to reveal it. It is noteworthy that the famous defender of Orthodoxy from Catholic encroachments - from attempts to rationalize dogma and forcibly explain, as a philosopheme, what is not subject to philosophy, Mark of Ephesus, on whose gravestone George Scholarius carved the epitaph: Εφεσίων πρόεδρος ἀστὴρ γῆς πάσης; πῦρ ἐμπιπρῶν τὰς ἀντιδόξους φατρίας καὶ φῶς ὁδηγοῦν εὐσεβεστέρας φρένας – i.e.: “Bishop of the Ephesians, the luminary of the whole region, the burning fire of heresy, the guiding light of the souls of the pious,” - this same Mark of Ephesus writes to “Orthodox Christians”: “We, together with Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, say that just as, - ὡς, - the Son is from the Father, so, - οὕτω, - the Holy Spirit is from the Father; They, the Greco-Latins, say with the Latins that the Son is directly, - ἀμέσως, - and the Holy Spirit indirectly, - ἐμμιέσως, - from the Father; we, with Damascus and with all the saints. fathers, we do not know the difference between birth and descent; - they distinguish with Thomas and the Latins two types of origins - mediocre and direct. 173 However, this evidence is not the only one; Many similar statements could be cited; I will point out at least St. Gregory of Nyssa, speaking of the “incomprehensibility of the procession of the Holy Spirit.” 174 Theosophical speculation either did not reach the end, or became confused in the difference between birth and procession, unless it resorted to the Catholic Filioque, that naive product of excessive piety and premature theology. Is it worth mentioning “names”? Let us leave them, let the inventors of various theories about the Holy Spirit sleep peacefully underground until the time when these questions are resolved by themselves without our efforts. It would be too naive to look for the reason for this two-thousand-year reticence in the insufficient insight of theologians. And is it a matter of discernment when it comes to faith? “Ex nihilo nihil” more than anything else refers to theology, an experimental science. 175 If now there is no complete perception of the Holy Spirit as a Hypostasis, if there are no personal pneumatophanies - except in exceptional cases among exceptional people - then it is impossible to develop formulas, because formulas grow on the soil of general, everyday church life - on the field of general, so to speak, constant phenomena, and not in application to individual, special points of spiritual life. Of course, in St. For the Church, everything is a miracle: the sacrament is a miracle, and the holy prayer service is a miracle, and every icon is a miracle, and every hymn is nothing less than a miracle. Yes, everything is a miracle in the Church, for everything in her life is grace-filled, and the grace of God is the only thing that is worthy of the name “miracle.” But all this is a constant miracle; There are also rarer trends in the Church, “miracles” in the more familiar sense of the word, and the rarer they are, the more difficult they are to express in words: it is impossible to create formulas for such miracles, for every formula is a formula of repetition. Apart from some individual moments when believers together - and this is the whole point - were in the Holy Spirit or began to be in Him, this indwelling did not become an ordinary stream of life. In the same communities or companies where the experience of the Spirit was declared the norm, Khlysty inevitably arose, meaning this name in the broad sense of any false spiritual enthusiasm and false mystical, spiritual (not spiritual) excitement of a group of caring people. Let us take a closer look at the patristic writings, especially the ascetic ones, where spiritual life is most vividly depicted. Then we will see a typical phenomenon: little is said about the Father, quite a lot about the Son of God, but most of all about the Holy Spirit. And, despite all this, one cannot escape the impression that the Holy Ascetics know the Son of God, as an independent Hypostasis, very clearly, and He is so close to their consciousness that He even somewhat obscures the Father; They also know about the Father, but about the Holy Spirit, as a Hypostasis, they know little, they hardly know. If the dogmatic fathers, by their indecisiveness or their silence, show inner uncertainty in the question of the Holy Spirit, their insufficient knowledge of Him as a Hypostasis, then the ascetic fathers, with their abundant words, reveal the same state of consciousness even more clearly. For them, practically, in everyday terms, the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ,” the “Spirit of God,” a certain sanctifying and purifying impersonal power of God. It is not for nothing that later, instead of the Holy Spirit, they imperceptibly and gradually began to talk about “grace,” i.e. about something completely impersonal. What is usually known is not the Holy Spirit, but His grace-filled energies, His powers, His actions and activities. “Spirit”, “spiritual”, “spiritual”, “spirituality”, etc., pepper the patristic works. But from these creations it is clear that these words “Spirit”, “spiritual”, etc., refer to the special states of the believer caused by God, but do not at all or almost not at all mean the personal, independent existence of the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity. Essentially speaking, the Holy Fathers speak a lot not about the Holy Spirit, but about the Holy Spirit, and it is difficult to draw a line and distinguish when they talk about the Spirit and when about the spirit. The general impression is that from the Spirit they have, through the medium of the Spirit, an imperceptible transition to the spirit. At best, there is inference from the spirit of God to the Spirit. True, our spirituality comes from the Spirit, just as our sonship to God comes from the Son, and our creative personality comes from the Father. But will it really occur to any of those reading the works of the holy fathers, at least within themselves, to doubt and wonder: is it about the Son, or about the son, that we are talking about in this or that place? About the Creator or about the creator? – Further, wanting to prove the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, the fathers pointed to the identity of the sin-cleansing activity of the Holy Spirit and the activity of the Son. 176 This means that even in the perception of the gracious actions of One and the other, there was no clear boundary for the holy fathers. Here Macarius the Great differs little from Isaac the Syrian, John Climacus - from Ephraim the Syrian. Of course, I am coarsening and simplifying the situation; Of course, I trace the outline, and not with a pencil, but with a paint brush; Of course, what is said here is not all. Undoubtedly, sometimes features of a different knowledge appear: personal perception of the Holy Spirit; but these features are preliminary, unspoken. However, it would be funny to see in this reticence a personal shortcoming of the saints, a consequence of their insufficient depth or purity. From the hazy abyss of centuries, from the fog of history, the holy fathers shine for us, like living, imperishable stars, like the God-seeing eyes of the church. But the time had not yet come, and even these bright eyes could not see the One by Whom all Creation would be joyful and comforted. The fullness of the time was not fulfilled then, just as it has not been fulfilled to this day. The saints languished and waited; This is how the Old Testament righteous waited for the knowledge of the Son of God. The whole life of pre-Christian antiquity - religion, science, art, society, even personal moods - all of it relied entirely on the revelation of the Father, on the experience of the Father, the Creator of all things, on a conscious or half-forgotten Testament with Him. The entire understanding of the world and life was the development of one category - the category of fatherhood, birth, parenthood - whatever you call it. 177 And it is just as impossible to reveal the obscure features of their knowledge as it is impossible to make an insufficiently exposed photographic plate appear; If in more recent times we would have kept it in the developer, then the entire image would have only been “veiled”, shrouded in grey, as if in a veil. Likewise, the thought that desires to receive the Spirit without holiness is “veiled.” This is what happens, by the way, with people of “new consciousness.” As the End of History approaches, new, hitherto almost unprecedented, pink rays of the coming Day of the Unfading appear on the domes of the Holy Church. Already Simeon the New Theologian speaks somehow differently, in some new tones, than the ancient ascetics. In our local Church these tones “play”, like the rising sun on the Feast of Feasts. 178 St. Seraphim of Sarov and the great Optina residents - elders Leo, Leonid and Macarius, especially Ambrose - gather into themselves, as into a fiery focus, the people's shrine. They are half-saints, no longer monks in the narrow sense of the word. Through them, as through long-distance glasses, the Coming One is visible. Their whole shade here is new, special, apocalyptic. Only the blind can fail to see this. It is frivolity or madness to go further not after them, but besides them, because this would mean arbitrarily striving to shorten the planned course of world history from time to time. This would mean rejecting the words of the Lord Jesus: “Who among you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to his stature” (Matthew 6:27 = Luke 12:25). But now pay attention: our entire understanding of life, our entire science - I’m not talking about theological science, but about science in general, about the scientific spirit - it is entirely built on the idea of ​​the Logos, on the idea of ​​God the Word - and not just science, but all life, the entire structure of our soul. We all think under the category of law, the measure of harmony. This idea of ​​logic, logic, 179 “verbalism,” often distorted almost beyond recognition, is the main nerve of everything living, everything authentic in our mental, moral and aesthetic life. The one, universal, all-encompassing universal “Law” of the World, the hypostatic Name of the Father, the Providence of God, without Whose will not a hair falls from the head, Who grows the lilies of the field and feeds the birds of the air, God, who exhausts Himself with the creation of the world and the economy - this is the religious premise of our science, and beyond it, beyond this premise, more or less abstractly formulated, there is no science. “Uniformity of the laws of nature” is a postulate, without which all science is empty sophistry; 180 but this postulate can be made a psychological reality only with faith in That Word, about which the Mystic Eagle in the first verses of his Easter Annunciation proclaims: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and the Word was God. This one was from time immemorial towards God; everything came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be; what happened, in Him there was life, and life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend Him” (John 1:1-5). 181 Here is “Fundamentals of Science”; 182 and if we reject them, then cruel retribution is inevitable: the fall of science, built on sands that shift and suck. The property of science is the world's regularity, harmony and harmony of the world, κόσμος of creatures. This law of the universe, this World number, this harmony of spheres, bestowed upon created being, is rooted entirely in God the Word, in the personal peculiarity of the Son and in the gifts inherent in him. But everything that is not based on this peculiarity, that is associated with the deliberate gifts of the Holy Spirit, is not subject to the knowledge of our science, the science of the solitary Logos. Inspiration, creativity, freedom, feat, beauty, the value of flesh, religion, and much more are only vaguely felt, occasionally described, established in their presence, but stand outside the methods and means of scientific research, because their main premise, of course, is the premise of coherence, the premise of continuity, gradualism. The idea of ​​regularity, in its existing form, is absolutely inapplicable to everything of that kind. Here there is discontinuity, and discontinuity goes beyond the boundaries of our science, does not fit with the basic ideas of the modern worldview and destroys it. Perhaps the latest research and trends 183 in the field of the idea of ​​discontinuity hint at precisely the same proximity of the End. The one-sided knowledge of the First Hypostasis created the religion and life of antiquity, its “substantial”, organic worldview, in which they think about the direct generation of a metaphysical cause of its phenomenal effect. The one-sided knowledge of the Second Hypostasis gave rise to religion and life of modern times, its “lawful”, logical worldview, meaning the ordering of phenomena by their ideal form. And, finally, the free striving for beauty, love for the Goal - these are deviations from science, typologically predicting an immortal and holy life, resurrected flesh. Holy fasts are the beginnings of enlightenment of the body; St. the relics we kiss are glimpses of the resurrection; St. sacraments are sources of deification. These are the pledges and betrothals of the future kingdom. But this kingdom comes, personally, and will come, socially, only when the Comforter is known and recognized as a Hypostasis, and with this knowledge the “Trinity Unity” is comprehended and comprehended, enlightening the soul: “By the Holy Spirit every soul is alive and exalted in purity,” illuminated by the Trinity Unity, The sacred, hoary mystery of ancient science; moral, important rigor - new; finally, a joyful, light inspiration for the coming, “gay science.” 184 My winged one! I jot down thoughts that I feel more than I can express. Like some kind of fabric, like some kind of body from the finest star rays is woven into the world’s foundations: something is waiting. There is something missing, something the soul is yearning for, wanting to be resolved and be with Christ. And something will happen: “It will not appear what will happen.” But the more acutely one feels what is being prepared, the closer and more intimate the connection with the Mother Church becomes, the easier and simpler it is for the sake of love for Her to endure the dirt that is thrown at Her. What will be will be in Her and through Her, not otherwise. With quiet joy I look forward to what will happen, and “Now you let me go” is sung all day long and rings in my humble heart. When the Great World Easter opens, then all human disputes will end. I don’t know whether this will happen soon, or whether I’ll have to wait for millions of years, but my heart is calm, because hope brings me close to it. The desire of people of the “new religious consciousness” 185 to, as it were, forcibly acquire the Holy Spirit, is highly alien to me. In an indispensable desire to destroy times and periods, they cease to see what is before their eyes, what is given to them and what they do not know and do not understand internally; chasing after everything, they are deprived of what is and more than which we are now unable to assimilate, because our heart is not yet pure, the heart of the creature is not pure, and unclean - it would burn from proximity to the Most Pure and Most Pure. Let, at least for a short time, calmness return to them, and then perhaps they, these people of false knowledge, will see that they have no real ground under their feet, that they speak empty words and then themselves begin to believe them. It seems to be happening like with Leo Tolstoy: he created the scheme himself -! - graceless, imaginary churchliness, then smashed it - which was given to him, of course, without difficulty - and, satisfied with the victory over the chimera generated by his thoroughly rationalistic, self-affirming mind, he left the fertile, albeit polluted, soil into the desert of “good” words, which he himself cannot cope with, and confuses others with them. After all, churchliness is so beautiful that those who are involved in it, even aesthetically, with immediate taste, cannot bear the unbearable smell of ideas like Tolstoy’s. To compose your own “fifth gospel”, 186 - is it even possible to deliberately come up with something more tasteless! And yet, both at the basis of Tolstoyism and at the basis of the “new consciousness” lies a true idea. Take, for example, the fact that the ancients prayed to the Father, and throughout our entire era they pray most importantly to the Son; But even if they pray to the Spirit, it is more by waiting for Him than by having face to face, more yearning for the Comforter than rejoicing in Him before the Father in the Son. I know that you can collect all kinds of excerpts against me, asserting the opposite; I can even bring them myself. But I'm talking about the typical, although almost unprovable. That’s why I’m writing “letters” to you instead of composing an “article,” which I’m afraid to say and prefer to ask. But the typical thing, what seems to me, is precisely this: expectation, hope, but only meek and peaceful. And in the Old Testament, undoubtedly, there are Word-and Spirit-phenomena, - logo-and pneumato-phania; and there, especially in the Pentateuch, one can find unclear indications of the Word and the Spirit. And yet they are so indistinct and so inconsistent with the general background of Scripture that only in the light of the Word made flesh can we seek their understanding; Only with the dogma of the Trinity in mind can we see with this “eye” the first glimpses of the future knowledge in the Old Testament. Try to convince a Chinese of the dogma of the Trinity on the basis of the Old Testament alone! I’m not even sure whether it is possible for him to find out when we are talking about the Hypostatic Word and Spirit and when we are talking about simply the activities of the Father. In any case, for any unprejudiced reader there is no doubt that the teaching about the Word and, even more so, about the Spirit in the Old Testament books appears with immeasurably less prominence than the teaching about God the Father. And this is understandable, since even the prophets did not have the fullness of concrete experiences of the Word and the Spirit. A new revelation, at best, was only hoped for. Look now at the New Testament. With what massiveness the doctrine of the Father and the Son stands before everyone here, and, comparatively, how little developed is the doctrine of the Spirit. The idea of ​​the Spirit sometimes almost dissolves in the idea of ​​spiritual gifts. The indwelling power and gifts of the Holy Spirit - isn’t it significant? - obscure the Spirit Himself as a Hypostasis. We are spirits, but only in the Spirit; however, this “but” is often forgotten. Meanwhile, can it really be said that the divine sonship of people in the Son of God can even be compared with the Son’s Own existence. While only madmen or those in spiritual delusion - whips of all kinds - can confuse “son” and “Son”, it is sometimes very easy to confuse “spirit” and “Spirit”; often the same passage is interpreted either as referring to the spirit or as referring to the Spirit. Of course, other passages in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul reveal in lightning illumination the Hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit before the consciousness. “All who are led by the Spirit of God,” testifies the Apostle of Languages, “are sons of God—and in that Spirit we cry: “Abba Father!” This very Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:14-17). And again: “And because you are sons, God sent his Spirit into your hearts, crying: “Abba Father!” (Gal.4:6) and: “The Spirit helps us in our weaknesses. We ourselves do not know what we should pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26-27). Undoubtedly, these “intercessions” of the Holy Spirit for us, these “unutterable groanings,” these comforting proclamations of Him, these “Abba Father!” were known to the Apostles, and were known to holy men and women. But it is equally certain that these insights, these moments and points of spiritual fullness, these lightnings of complete knowledge still remain something special, something accessible only to exceptional people in exceptional times - something like the messianic insights of the Old Testament. Just as before Christ there were Christ-bearers, so before the complete descent of the Spirit there are spirit-bearers. Those ancient righteous people “died in faith, not having received the promises, but only saw them from afar and rejoiced, and said to themselves that they were strangers and strangers on earth; for those who speak thus show that they are seeking the fatherland” (Heb. 11:13-14). Such were the ancient Christians before Christ. “By faith they conquered kingdoms, did righteousness, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were strengthened from weakness, were strong in war, drove out the armies of strangers; wives received their dead resurrected; others were tortured without accepting liberation in order to receive a better resurrection; others experienced insults and beatings, as well as chains and prison, were stoned, sawn apart, tortured, died by the sword, wandered in mantles and goatskins, suffering disadvantages, sorrows, and bitterness; those whom the whole world was not worthy of wandered through deserts and mountains, through caves and gorges of the earth. And all these, which testified to faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that without us they would be made perfect” (Heb. 11:33-40). The knowledge of Christ trembled before them; they almost touched Christ. They trusted their salvation in their hope (cf. Rom. 8:24a). But times and seasons had to be fulfilled before hope was realized and the invisible became visible. They knew how to wait and endure: “Hope, when it is already visible in front of it what one expects, is not hope, for if someone already sees something, how can he expect it? But when we wait for what we do not see, then we wait with patience” (Rom. 8:24b). They, great and holy, did not see Christ, so that “not without us they would achieve perfection”; but they almost knew Him - at special times and with the purest minds. The thrill of Eternal Life trembles on their faces at such times: it is the Spirit-Dove that has caught the heart with a snow-white wing. Just as the perception of God the Word before the forefathers and prophets, so the knowledge of the Holy Spirit trembles before the saints of our time - almost touches them. But even here the fullness of times must be accomplished; and here the highest points of humanity must wait, so that “not without us they can achieve perfection.” Their hearts are cleansed, their church is swept and tidied up to receive the Comforter. But ours are full of filth. And so the upper ones wait for the lower ones, the sighted ones for the blind, the saints for the sinners, the living for the dead, the spiritual for the carnal, people who anticipate and even anticipate people who are inert and lagging behind. Only at certain moments does the curtain of the future open before them. “So that they would not achieve perfection without us”... This explains why the teachings about the Holy Spirit that appeared in the history of the Church, despite their depth, somehow did not find a response and remained lonely. And, at the same time, those aspects of Christian life that primarily relate to the Holy Spirit, namely, Christian freedom, filial status, creativity and spirituality, were replaced or distorted as soon as certain heretics wanted to prematurely and arbitrarily bring them to life. In fact, the people of the “new religious consciousness”, starting from the 1st century and up to the 20th century inclusive, always gave themselves away, because the rose bushes they planted always brought thorns and thistles; The “new” consciousness always turned out to be not higher-church, as it pretended to be, but anti-church and anti-Christ, that is, church-fighting, anti-Christ. He who has the Spirit as much as the saints had it, clearly sees the folly of claiming more. But, with complete lack of spirituality, it was too easy for people at all times to fall into charming self-delusion and replace spirituality with their subjective human, spiritual creativity, and then with demonic obsession. Frenzy and enthusiasm, dreamy profitability and gloomy exaltation were taken for joy in the Holy Spirit; and, at the same time, sin, left to itself, took possession of “freedom.” The search for “two infinities” began, and after the search - a plunge into “both abysses”: - into the upper abyss of Gnostic theory and into the lower abyss of Khlystov practice; This was what was passed off as the fullness of a grace-filled life. I repeat, parallel to the entire church history runs the thread of this pseudo-religious consciousness, which has always posed as “new.” 187 An impartial review shows that humanity, in general, as a whole, has no solid ground either for speculation about the Spirit or for statements about a new consciousness. But if it had existed, that is, if there had been a real experience of life with the Holy Spirit, how could what is happening now happen in creation?.. And in the depths of the Church consciousness the aspirations of the Comforter did not cease. But, besides church exotericism, there is a kind of church esotericism - there are aspirations that should not be spoken about too directly. This is something that others do not understand and do not feel, because they are not in the Church, because they do not understand the spirit of churchliness. They expose the unseen, for they are shameless. An unbroken chain of heretical shameless “new consciousness” stretches along the entire church history; it is this that reveals the hidden artery of the Church. But even within the Church there were attempts to speak out about the Holy Spirit. Here is what I find most instructive: St. Gregory the Theologian in his “Dogmatic Poems” speaks of the gradual revelation of the Trinitarian Deity and sees in this the guarantee of new revelations. “Whoever wants to find the Divinity of the heavenly Spirit on the pages of the inspired law will see many frequent and converging paths, if only he wishes to see, if he has attracted the pure Spirit to any extent with his heart, and his mind is sharply visual. And if anyone demands the open words of the all-loving Divinity, then let him know that his demand is unreasonable. For until the Divinity of Christ was revealed to the majority of mortals, it was not appropriate to place an incredible burden on hearts that were extremely weak. The most perfect word is not for beginners. Who would show the full brilliance of fire to still weak eyes, or saturate them with exorbitant light? It is better to gradually accustom them to bright shine, so as not to damage the very sources of sweet light. So the word, having revealed the entire Divinity of the King-Father, began to illuminate with light the great glory of Christ, which is revealed to the few rational people, and then, having more clearly revealed the Divinity of the Son, the Divinity of the luminous Spirit shone for us. And for those it shed a little light, but provided most of it to us, to whom the Spirit was then abundantly and in tongues of fire, showing clear signs of His Divinity when the Savior ascended from the earth.” 188 – The same idea is expressed even more strongly in “Homily 31 (5th theology), on the Holy Spirit”: “During the centuries there were two famous Transformations, - μεταθέσεις, - of human life, called two Testaments and, according to the well-known saying of Scripture, Shakes of the earth, - στισμοιῆς (Hag.2:7), One led from idols to the Law, and the other from the Law to the Gospel. I also preach the good news about the third Shock - the transition from here to there, unshakable and unshakable. But the same thing happened to both Testaments. What exactly? “They were not introduced suddenly, not at the first start. For what? “We needed to know that we were not being forced, but persuaded.” For what is not arbitrary is also fragile, just as a stream or a plant is held for a short time by force. Voluntary is both stronger and more reliable. And the first is the business of the one who uses violence, and the last is actually ours. The first is characteristic of violent power, and the latter is characteristic of God's justice. Therefore, God has determined that we should not do good to those who do not want, but to do good to those who want.” This explains St. Gregory the Theologian's sedateness in the abolition of idols, sacrifices and circumcision. “To this,” continues the holy father, “I want to liken Theology, only in the opposite respect. For there transformation was achieved through cancellations, and here perfection - through additions. But the fact is that the Old Testament clearly preached the Father, and not with such clarity the Son; The New One revealed the Son and gave instructions about the Divinity of the Spirit; Now the Spirit abides with us, giving us the clearest knowledge of Him. It was not safe to clearly preach the Son before the Divinity of the Father was confessed, and before the Son was recognized, I will put it somewhat boldly, to burden us with preaching about the Holy Spirit and expose us to the danger of losing our last strength, as happens to people who are burdened with food taken in excess, or who still have weak eyesight and direct their eyes to the sunlight. It was necessary that the Trinity light illuminated those who were being enlightened with gradual additions, - as David says, “ascents” (Ps. 12:6), income from glory to glory and prosperity. For this reason, I think, the Spirit gradually descends on the Disciples, commensurate with the strength of those who receive it, at the beginning of the Gospel, after suffering, after ascension, it sometimes accomplishes powers through them (Matthew 18:1), sometimes it is given to them through a breath (John 20:22), sometimes it appears in tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). Yes, and Jesus proclaims Him gradually, as you yourself will see if you read carefully. “I will ask,” he says, “the Father, and he will send you another Comforter” (John 14:16), so that he will not be considered an adversary to God, and speaking from some other authority. Then, although he uses the word “send,” he adds: “In my name” (John 14:29), and, leaving the word “I pray,” he retains the word “send.” Then he says, “I will send” (John 14:26), showing his own dignity. Then he said: “He will come” (John 16:13), showing the power of the Spirit. You see the insights gradually shining upon us, and that order of Theology - φωτιμσμοὺς κατὰ μέρος ἡμῖν ἐλλάμποντας, καὶ τάξιν θεολογίας, - which it is better for us to observe, not suddenly expressing everything and not completely hiding everything; for the former is careless, and the latter is ungodly; and with some you can defeat strangers, and with others you can alienate your own. I will add to what has been said something that, although it may have already occurred to others, I still consider it to be the fruit of my own mind. The Savior, even after He preached much to the disciples, had something else that, as He himself said, the disciples (perhaps for the reasons I stated above) could not then “wear” (John 16:13), and which therefore He Himself hid from them. And the Savior also said that we will be taught everything by the descending Spirit (John 16:13). This is where I include the very Divinity of the Spirit, clearly revealed later, when this knowledge had already become timely and suitable, after the glorification of the Savior, after they began to accept the miracle with unbelief.” 189 St. Gregory the Theologian affirms the gradualness of the historical manifestation of the Spirit; but it is necessary to think about another side - the discontinuity of His trans-historical revelation, just as the Kingdom of God has both a gradually historical and a discontinuous eschatological phenomenon, 190 irreducible to each other. Otherwise, it is not clear how exactly the final state, the enlightenment of the creature, the eruption of death, in a word, “the age to come,” differs from the preliminary and expectant state, from “this age,” in which death still reigns. Thus, the ideas of the Kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit have a formal similarity. But it is not only formal. The teaching about the Holy Spirit as the Kingdom of the Father, according to the general idea, is undoubtedly rooted in the Gospel, and in the apostle. Paul also receives verbal justification. “The kingdom of God,” he writes to the Romans, “is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ - “in -” or “about the Holy Spirit,” that is, in the righteousness, peace and joy produced by the Holy Spirit. The subjective state of righteousness, peace and joy produced by the Holy Spirit is the very Kingdom of God that is “within” us (Luke 17:21), a barely noticeable mustard seed of faith sown in the soul. But sprouting and appearing above my field, and only mine, above the area of ​​subjectivity, the sprout of the grain of faith becomes objective, cosmic, universal. Divine services and sacraments are the manifestations of the Kingdom of God in church life; miracles and insights reveal the same Kingdom in the personal lives of saints. And we all daily call on the Fullness of the accomplishments of this Kingdom - the Holy Spirit. After all, according to the instructions of St. Gregory of Nyssa, 191 The Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:10 and Luke 11:12 had an important discrepancy, which does not exist in the modern text, namely it was read like this: “Our Father, - Thy kingdom come - ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου” (Matthew 6:10 and modern Luke 11:2), and so: “Our Father, may Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us - καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς" (ancient Luke 11:2). From the demolition of these versions of the same place, Gregory of Nyssa deduces the equivalence of the sayings “Holy Spirit” and “Kingdom of God,” i.e., that “The Holy Spirit is the Kingdom - Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον βασιλεια ἐστίν.” And then, based on this last conclusion, St. Gregory develops a remarkable doctrine of the Spirit as “the Kingdom of the Father and the Anointing of the Son.” 192 The kingdom exists with a king. The Father is the King, and, therefore, the royal majesty of the Father Himself rests in the Holy Spirit. And one more thing: from eternity the Son, begotten by the Father and consubstantial with Him, from eternity receives in the Holy Spirit the royal glory that belongs to the Father. The Spirit crowns the Son with glory. This is the anointing activity of the Spirit, and if He is the Kingdom in relation to the Father, then in relation to the Son it is Anointing; Chrisma. Gregory of Nyssa once again verifies this conclusion by analyzing the famous messianic psalm: “O God, your God has anointed you with the Oil of Joy more than your fellows” (Ps. 11:8 = Heb. 4:9). The Anointing One is the Father, the Anointed One is the Son, the Anointing or Oil of Joy is the Holy Spirit. 193 Oil has always been a symbol of joy, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, Paraclete, Maker of Joy. He is the True Oil, the Oil par excellence, the Oil that softens the pain of a wounded, tormented and broken heart. Therefore, the very name “Christ” [Χριστός = מְשִׁיהַ Meshiá, Messiah = Anointed One] contains an indication of the trinity of Hypostases in the Divinity. “The confession of this name,” says Gregory, “contains the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because in this name each of the Persons in whom we believe is expressed accordingly.” 194 “In him we recognize Him who Anointed, and Him Who is Anointed, and Him through Whom He is Anointed.” 195 – The anointing relationship of the Spirit to the Son is indicated even more clearly in the speech of the apostle. Peter to Cornelius: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with Power” (Acts 10:38). 196 By virtue of this anointing, He is Christ and King from all eternity, “endowed from all eternity with the royal glory of the Spirit, which is His anointing.” 197 Thus, if earlier the relationship of the Hypostases was determined through love, through giving of oneself, through the internally Divine self-exhaustion of the Hypostases, through eternal humility and kenosis, now, on the contrary, it is defined as eternal restoration and affirmation by each other, as glorification and royalty. “Eternally glorious is the Father, who existed before the ages, and the glory of the Father is the eternal Son [the Father, giving himself to the Son, finds his glory in Him], and likewise the glory of the Son is the Spirit of Christ.” 198 The first moment of intra-Divine life, discussed earlier, consisted in the mutual transfer of tragic, sacrificial love, in mutual self-emptying, impoverishment and humiliation of the Hypostases; The second moment being considered now is, as it were, a reverse flow, something almost incomprehensible to us, who have not acquired the Spirit and know intimately only the Sacrificial God. For the creation, restoration and glory have not yet begun, the revelation of which it awaits, groaning and tormenting (see Rom. 8:19–23). In the supertemporal order of the Trinity life, this moment of reciprocal love is eternal, love triumphant, glorifying the Lover and restoring Him - this transfer of glory from Hypostasis to Hypostasis. “The Son is glorified by the Spirit, the Father is glorified by the Son; on the contrary, the Son receives glory from the Father, and the Only Begotten becomes the glory of the Spirit, because in what is the Father glorified, if not by the true glory of the Only Begotten, and in what is the Son glorified, if not by the greatness of the Spirit.” 199 Thus, the Holy Spirit is Χρίσμα βασιλείας - Anointing of the Kingdom, Ἀξίωμα βασιλείας - Royal Sanctity. But these names are applied to Him for His intra-Trinity activity; He is not a sign of Divine existence, not a dignity or attribute of the Divine, but a living, essential and personal kingdom - βασιλεία δὲ ζῶσα καὶ οὐσιώδης καὶ ἐνυπόστατος Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον”, 200 is also a Person who has His unconditional activity - as the Third Person of the Holy Trinity - to be the Kingdom of the Father and the Anointing of the Son. A similar doctrine about the anointing activity of the Spirit was developed by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. 201 But, without stopping at Saint Irenaeus, I will move on to St. Maximus the Confessor. Here's how he thinks: According to St. Maximus the Confessor, 202, the first words of the prayer “Our Father” “contain an indication of the Father, the Name of the Father and the Kingdom of the Father, so that from the very beginning (of the prayer) we learn to honor the Trinity, call on Her and worship Her. For the Name of God the Father, which exists essentially and hypostatically, is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. And the Kingdom of God the Father, which abides essentially and hypostatically, is the Holy Spirit. For what Matthew calls here the Kingdom, the other evangelist calls the Spirit, saying: “Let Your Holy Spirit come and cleanse us.” For the Father has this Name, not as a newly acquired one, and we understand the Kingdom not as a dignity contemplated in Him. Because He did not begin to be - He does not begin to be both Father and King. But, always existing, He is always both Father and King, having no beginning at all either for His being, or for being Father or King. If He is always Existing and is always both Father and King, then it means that both the Son and the Holy Spirit always coexist with the Father essentially in hypostasis; They exist from Him and in Him naturally, above reason and word; but not after Him They began to exist, not according to the law of causality, not later. For the correlation of the Persons of the Divine has the power of joint existence and does not allow us to think that Some of those in the indicated correlation were after the Others.” This is what Saint Maximus the Confessor teaches. Around the Holy Spirit all the perplexities, difficulties and torments of our life are concentrated; and in His Revelation are all hopes. Let us pray together for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, let us conjure Him together with the mysterious invocation of Simeon the New Theologian: 203 “Come true light. Come, eternal life. Come, hidden secret. Come, nameless treasure. Come, unspeakable thing. Come, face fleeing from human comprehension. Come unceasing cheerfulness. Come, true hope for all those who are being saved. Come, resurrection of the dead. Come, mighty one: you always do, transform and change everything with just one wave. Come, completely invisible, inviolable, intangible. Come, you who always remain motionless, although you move around every hour and come to us, who lie in the underworld, although you yourself live above all the heavens. Come, the most desirable and most frequently encountered name; but to say about you what you are, or to know who you are and what kind, we are resolutely refused. Come, eternal joy. Come, unfading wreath. Come, great God and our Lord, scarlet. Come, a belt as transparent as crystal and colored with precious stones. Come, unapproachable refuge. Come, royal scarlet and sacred majesty’s right hand. Come: my pitiful soul has needed and needs you. Come, lonely one, to the lonely one; because I'm lonely, as you can see. Come: you have separated me and made me alone on earth. Come, you have become my need, and you have made me need you - you, to whom no one has access. Come, my breath and my life. Come, consolation to my despised soul. Come, joy and glory; and my unceasing joy. I give thanks to you, because here, in the midst of confusion, change, circulation, you became one spirit with me and, although you are God above all, yet you became all in all to me. Drinking inexplicable! You cannot be taken away in any way, and you constantly flow into the mouth of my soul, and flow abundantly in the source of my heart. Shining clothes that burn demons! Purification sacrifice! you wash me with constant and holy tears, abundantly flowing from your presence among those to whom you come. I give thanks to you, because during the day without evening you have become for me the sun on this side of the sunset: you have nowhere to hide yourself, and you fill the universes with your glory. You have never hidden yourself from anyone, but we always hide ourselves from you, until we want to come to you. After all, where would you hide yourself when there is no place of rest for you anywhere? Or why would you hide yourself - you, who despise no one of all, fear no one? Now create a tabernacle in me, meek Lord, and dwell in me, and until my death do not tear yourself away, do not separate from me, your servant, so that at my death, and after my death, I may be in you and reign with you, God over all who reign. Stay, Lord, and do not leave me alone, so that when my enemies come, who are constantly looking to devour my soul, they will find you abiding in me, and they will completely, completely run away and not gain the upper hand over me, because they will notice you, the strongest of all, settled inside, in the dwelling of my humiliated soul. Truly, how you remembered me, Lord, when I was in the world, and how, without my knowledge, you yourself chose me, and removed me from the world, and placed me in the face of your glory: so now, too, protect me through your presence in me, completely established, always motionless, so that every day I, a mortal, contemplating you, may live, so that, possessing you, I, a beggar, will always be rich. So I will be more powerful than any kings: and eating and drinking you, and hourly dressing in you, I will enjoy indescribable blissful joy. Since you are every good thing and every adornment and every delight, and to you is due glory, the holy and consubstantial Trinity, which is glorified in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and is known, and honored, and revered by the whole assembly of the faithful, now and always and throughout the infinity of centuries. Amen". Quocumque ferar. Directly from everywhere. “For the betrothal of the future life and the kingdom - εἰς ἀρραβῶνα τῆς μελλούσης ζωῆς καὶ βασιλείας” (St. John of Damascus. Prayer for Holy Communion, 5th, and in Greek Συνεκδημος – 6th). “Prelest is a passionate or partial deviation of the soul towards lies on the basis of pride” (Archimandrite, later Bishop, Ignatius Brianchaninov. On the Jesus Prayer - Works of Bishop Ignatius, St. Petersburg, 1865, T. I, p. 130). – In his works, this Saint repeatedly gives an image and analysis of a wonderful state. See especially T. I, “On the Jesus Prayer.” – See pages 334–335. There is no such footnote in the original. Tertullian, - Against Praxeus, 26. - Migne, - Patrol. ser. lat., T. 2. – Here is a quote as an example: “Hic Spiritus Dei eri. Sermo. Sicut enim Johanno dicente (Joh. 114): Sermo caro factus estt spiritum quoque intelligimus in mentione sermonis ... nam spiritus substantia est sermonis et sermo operatio spiritus,” etc. Tertullian teaches that the Holy Spirit becomes an independent Hypostasis, separate from the Word, only from the moment of Pentecost (De orat. 25) and, in contrast to the Divinity of Christ His Humanity, His flesh, calls the Divinity the Spirit, who worked miracles, while the flesh suffered hunger, thirst and suffering (De Carne Christi). Origen, On the Beginnings. I, 3, 1 (Migne, – Patrolog. ser. gr., T. 11, coll. 145–147). St. Justin the Philosopher, - I Apology, 60 - Migne. Patrol. ser. gr., – T. 6, col. 418–420. – Justin refers to the pseudo-Platonovsky letter 2, also cited by Clement of Alexandria in Stromata, V, Porphyry in Cyril of Alexandria in the 1st book against Julian, Origen in the 6th book. against Celsus, Eusebius in the 2nd book. Gospel Preparations, etc. Proclus, in the 2nd book, 11th chapter of his Platonic Theology, reads this place in the same way as Justin the Philosopher. Vasily [Vas.] Bolotov, – Origen’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 364. – Or, again: In Origen’s system, “the philosophical meaning of His [Spirit] in the Trinity was not clarified, and perhaps it could not be clarified until the relationship between the Persons of the Divine was tried to be understood not under the form of the personal life of the spirit, the process of self-consciousness, but from the point of view of the relationship between the essence and its definitions. Thus, the real mediation between God and the world in Origen is presented only in the Son” (V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 2., St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 340). Origen, – On the Beginnings, I, 3 § 1. – Migne, – Patr. ser. gr., T. 11, col. 145–147). “Ὠριγένην … ἄνδρα οὐδὲ πάνυ τι ὑγιεῖς περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰς ὑπολήψεις ἐν πᾶσιν ἔχοντα..." (St. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit, 29 73. - Migne, - Patrol. ser. gr., T. 32, col. 204 B). M. J. Denis, – De la philosophie d’Origène. Paris, 1884, pp. 117 et suiv. – V. [V.] Bolotov, – Origen’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 365, words. 374. – For more on Origen’s dogmatic system, see: F. Böhringer, – Die Griechischen Väter… I Hälfte. Klemens und Origenes. Zürich, 1869. – L’abbé Freppel, – Origène. Paris, 1863. – F. Prat (s. j.). Origène le théologien et l’exégète. 2nd ed., Paris, 1907 (from the series: La pensée crétienne. Textes et Etudes). – “Origenes” und “Origenismus” (“Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste herausgegeben von Ersch und Gruber, 1834, III, 5, SS. 251–262). – Aug. Zöllig , – Die Inspirationslehre des Origenes. Line Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte. Freiburg im Br., 1902 (Strassburger theologische Studien. Bd. V, Hft. 1). – “Origen” (Article in the “Philosophical Lexicon” by S. S. [Gogotsky], T. 3, pp. 623–628). – Vl. S. Solovyov, – Origen (“Encyclical Dictionary” of Brockhaus and Efron, T. 22, pp. 141–145 = Iv. V. Popov, – Lecture notes on patrolology, 1907–8, pp. 122–139. – id., 1911–12, Moscow, pp. 125–182. – A. A. Spassky, – History of dogmatic movements in the era of the ecumenical councils. Sergiev Posad, 1906, T. I, pp. 85–127. – F. Eleonsky, – Origen’s teaching on the Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit and their relationship to God the Father. Malevansky, “The dogmatic system of Origen” Kyiv, 1870. We inevitably formulate the general impression indicated in the text of the underdevelopment of the teaching about the Holy Spirit, and, moreover, in the most impartial way, if we look at least briefly at the theological literature. about the Holy Spirit - Here are some of the works related to this: Archimandrite [after. Bishop] Sylvester, – Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology. – N. Bogorodsky, – The teaching of John of Damascus on the procession of the Holy Spirit, presented in connection with the theses of the Bonn Conference of 1875. St. Petersburg, 1873. - S. V. Kokhomsky, - The teaching of the ancient Church about the origin. Holy Spirit, St. Petersburg, 1875. - H. M. Bogorodsky, - Holy Spirit. Historical and dogmatic essay, Grodno, 1904. - Serg. Astashkov, – Origin. The Holy Spirit and the universal high priesthood, Freiburg in Brisgawa, 1886. - Adam Zernikov, - Orthodox theological studies about the origin. The Holy Spirit is from the Father alone. Per. from lat. B. Davidovich. T. 1; holy father certificate, Pochaev, 1902 [major ancient research]. - A. A. Nekrasov, - The Teachings of John Dame. about the personal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son of God (Right. Sob., 1883, No. 4). – K. F. Nösgen. Das Wesen und Wirken des Heiligen Geistes, Berlin, 1907. Origen, Commentary on John, 5–8 (Mi gr., T. 11). Nesmelov, pp. 266–295. – Like many others, Grig. Nis. also refers to the fact that we “are not taught by Holy Scripture to call the Holy Spirit the brother of the Son” (Grig. Nis. Against Eunomius II. - Mi gr., T. 45, col. 559 D) and then proves that procession is not the same as birth, but of course does not show what this difference is. He, who taught more than others about the Holy Spirit, cannot express the personal characteristics of this Hypostasis to such an extent that even Her name is deprived of the character of Hypostasis property usually recognized for him. “I found out,” he says, “that the same name is inspired by God. The Scriptures have in common the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Son equally calls himself and the Holy Spirit the Comforter. The Father, by the very fact that he produces consolation, undoubtedly appropriates to himself the name of the Comforter: for, while performing the works of the Comforter, he does not reject the name that belongs to the work” (id., II 14, – id., col. 552 A). What is striking is the fact that even when polemicizing with Eunomius and pointing out the most characteristic feature of Christianity, that is, the belief in consubstantial beings. You. V. forgets (!) to name the Holy Spirit among the Hypostases: “Although much separates Christianity from pagan error and Jewish ignorance, yet in the gospel of our salvation there is no dogma more important than faith in the Father and the Son” (Vas. V., - Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius, II - Mi gr., T. 29, col. 620 B, C). Great Trebnik Additional, ch. ѻ҃и [78]: Consequence of Saint Penticostia. Ed. Kiev-Pech. Laurels, 1875, ch. 215, No. 218, 219. – Prof. drew my attention to this asymmetry of the service. Iv. V. Popov. “The image of the origin remains inexplicable - τοῦ δὲ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀῤῥήτου φυλασσομένου” (Vas. V., – About the Holy Spirit, 1846. – Mi gr., T. 32, col. 152 B). However, some hint about the actual “deduction” of the origin was already made by Afan. V., more definitely repeats it from St. You. V. next words: “Why is the Holy Spirit not the Son of the Son? - Not because He is from God not through the Son; but so that the Trinity is not considered an infinite multitude, stopping at the idea that She has sons from sons, as happens with people... To say about a son from the Son would mean that people who heard about this would be led to think about the multitude in the Trinity of the Divinity. For it would be easy to conclude that just as from the Son another was born, and from another another, and so on, until many [i.e. that is, to an indefinite number]..." (Vas. V., - Refutation of the defensive speech of the wicked. Eunomius, V. - Mi gr., T. 29, col. 732 B, 734 B). Unpublished writings of Mark of Ephesus. Translated from the manuscript by Paris. Imp. Bible Abraham Norov. St. Petersburg, 1860, p. 27. (= “Christian Reader,” 1861). Grieg. Nis. , – Catechetical word, 3. – Mi gr., T. 45, col. 171. – Wed. at Grig. God., to the question: “What is procession?” a decisive statement: “We cannot see what is under our feet, not only go into the depths and judge the unspeakable and inexplicable nature” (Grig. Bog., Theological Word, 5. – Mi gr., T. 36, col. 141). Corderius, publisher of Dion's works. Areop., calls mysticism “Sapientia experimentalis - experimental wisdom.” For example: Grig. Nis. , – Ave. Evn. II, col. 559. – His, – On the Lord’s Prayer, III. – Mi gr., T. 44, col. 1157–1160. This idea about the permeation of the ancient world- and life-understanding by the category of parenthood was especially vividly and persistently developed in many books by V. V. Rozanov. A hint of popular belief. I use “logism” as a derivative of Λόγος in the footsteps of Ern. The mentioned author, along with some. thoughts of Vl. S. Solovyova, book. S. H. Trubetskoy and N. A. Berdyaev, clarifies the positive side of logistics. On the contrary, V.V. Rozanov’s books attack with all their might the negative Manichaean-monastic movements parasitic on logicism, and expose the abstractness, lifelessness and emptiness of literature, which has replaced communication with the Word in many minds and hearts. Although V.V. himself does not want to distinguish abusus from usus, but having made this distinction, the reader can learn a lot of useful things from V.V.’s criticism. J. St. Mill, The Syllogist's System of Logic. and induct., trans. edited by V. N. Ivanovsky, M., 1900. – [D. C] Mill (and Taine), - Guidance as a method of studying nature, trans. N. Khmeleva, St. Petersburg, 1866. - D. S. Mill - “by nature a sophist, entangling the reader and himself with a brilliant mixture of facts, quotes and witty turns of phrase” (V. Ya. Tsinger, - Exact Sciences and Positivism. "University. Report", M., 1874, p. 65). – On Mill’s fundamental sophistry, see: T. F. – Brentano, – Ancient and modern sophists. From fr. lane J. Novitsky, St. Petersburg, 1886, book. 2nd, pp. 124–187. – For a subtle analysis of Mill’s sophisms, see: L. [M.] Lopatin, – Pozhit, tasks of philosophy, M., T. 1, 1886, T. 2, 1891 (there is a 2nd ed.). - His, - Philos. character.. For an ideological and historical deepening of the idea of ​​Logos, see: M. [D.] Muretov, - Philosophy of Philo Alex. in rel. to the teaching of John the Theologian about the Logos, M., 1885. - His same, - The teaching about the Logos by Philo Al. and John God. in connection with the previous historical development of the idea of ​​Logos in Greek. Philosopher and Jude. Theosophy. (“Pub. Works of St. oo.”, 1881, book 2 and separate articles). – His, – God the Word and the Resurrection of Christ (John 1:1–12), M., 1903. – Vl. Solovyov, - Spiritual foundations of life, Part 2 (“Collected works,” T. 3, p. 319 seq.). - About the same thing in many ways. other op. - Book S. N. Trubetskoy, – Main. idealism. In defense id. and others (“Collected works”, T. 2). – His, – The Doctrine of the Logos (id., Vol. 4). – M. Heinze, – Die Lehre vom Logos in griechischer Philosophie, 1872. – A. Aall, – Gesch. d. Logosidee d. grich. Philosophie, 1896. - A. Harnack. An allusion to the famous book by the inventor of the “logical machine” Art. Jevons. These works are the most advanced in the field of formalism. research of the idea of ​​discontinuity, - in mathematics. and in logistics. Their number is so great that it is necessary to cite lit. there is no possibility, especially since this lit. in meaning to the extent listed in special. my work “The Idea of ​​Discontinuity as an Element of Worldview” (still in manuscript). - From op. public access character Let us note the works of the “Moscow school” of mathematicians or one way or another adjacent to it: N.V. Bugaev, - Vved. in number theory (reprinted in the “Mathematics. Collection published by Moscow. Math. O-vom”, T. 25, issue 2, pp. 334–348). – His, – Mathematics and scientific-philosophical. worldview (id., pp. 349–369 = “Bop. f. and ps.”, 1898, book 45). - Him, - Note. regarding the article by L. M. Lopatin. “Oh the basement.” ac. consciousness." (“Bop. f. and ps.”, book 40). – V. A. Alekseev. – Die Mathematik als Grundl. d. Kritik Wissensch.–philos. Weltansch. (“Uch. Zap. Yuryev. Un.”, 1903). – His same, – Ueb. die Entwickel. d. Begriffes d. höheren arithmologischen Gesetzmässigkeit in Naturund Geistewissenschaften (“Vierteljahrschrift f. wissensch. Philosophie u. Sociologie”, Lpz., 1904. Hft. 1. – Summary in “Uch. Zap. Jur. Un.” 1904). – His, – Mathematics as the basis for criticism of scientific and philosophical philosophy. worldviews (“Collected Scientific-Lit. Institutes at the Im. Legal Un.,” T. 7, 1904). – P. A. Nekrasov, – Moscow Philosophy. math. school and its founders (“Mat. Sat., ed. Moscow. Mat. O-m”, T. 25, Issue. 1, M., 1904, and dept. ed.). – L. M. Lopatin, – Philos. worldview N. V. Bugaeva (id., T. 25, Issue 2). – P. Florensky, – About one prerequisite for a worldview (“Scales”, 1904, No. 9). – V. Ern, – The idea of ​​catastrophic progress (“Fighter for Logism,” pp. 234–261). – See also. – The idea of ​​continuity makes rapid gains in the field of concrete sciences. This includes Tamann's work on thermodynamics, leading to the construction of discontinuous thermodynamics. surfaces, Jibbs phase theory; ideas of Teichmüller, Korzhinsky's theory of heterogenesis, experiments of Hugo de Vries, works of modern neo-Lamarckists, neo-vitalists, etc. in the field of biology, opening wide horizons of discontinuous evolution of organisms, their discontinuous adaptation, etc.; psychological studies of the subconscious and superconscious. mental life, revealing discontinuous changes in consciousness, discontinuity of creativity, inspiration, etc. Hint of production Fr. Nietzsche. The main representatives of the “new religious consciousness” are D. S. Merezhkovsky, Z. N. Gippius and D. Filosofov. In various meanings and in different ways. degrees Andrei Bely [B. N. Bugaev], N. A. Berdyaev and others. L.N. Tolstoy did not hesitate to say, “My gospel,” even in Optina Pustyn. A colorful story of this kind about his meeting with K.N. Leontyev is depicted in the book: E.[rast] V.[ytorpsky], - Historical. description of the Kozelskaya Optina Hermitage, newly compiled. Tr.-Serg. Lavra, 1902, p. 128. Simon Magus, Nicolaitans, Gnostics of all kinds, Montanists, Templars, Spiritualists, etc., etc. Grieg. God. , – Word 3, about the Holy Spirit, verse. 10–31. – Mi gr., T. 37, coll. 409–410. His, - Word 31st (theology 5th), ch. 15–17. – Mi gr., T. 36 coll. 159–164. Grieg. Nis. , – Oh they say. Mr. 3, col. 1158 C. Grieg's teaching. Nis. I present about the Kingdom of the Father and the Anointing of the Son according to Nesmelov, pp. 279–283. Gregory Nys., – Against Apollinaris, 52. – Mi gr., T. 45, coll. 1249D-1251A. Wed: “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him” (Ps. 11:2); “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me” (Ps. 62:1 = Luke 4:18). Grieg. Nyssa, - Prot. Apollin., 53. – Mi gr. T. 45, col. 1252C. Him, - Prot. Evn., I. – Mi gr., T. 45, coll. 369D-372A. His, - Against the Macedonians, 22. - Mi gr. T. 45, col. 1329B Irenaeus Lyon. , – Five Books Against Heresies, III 117. Maxim Isp. , – Interpretation on the pier. Our Father. – S. Maximi Confessoris Operum T. I, Parisiis, 1675. pp. 350 590. - There is Slavic. trans., ed. Optin. pust., M., 1853. - A similar, although not identical, recess is found in A. S. Khomyakov, namely in his letter to Yu. F. Samarin dated August 6th. 1852 “You in the world of theologians,” he writes in a postscript, “tell them my guess, partly similar, partly dissimilar from St. Maxim Isp. I have always assumed a special meaning in the first part of the “Our Father,” and here, it seems to me, is some explanation of it. Paul says that the Spirit calls God Father (Abba-father); Irenaeus says: The Spirit puts a crown on the deity, calling the Father father and the Son son. In the Symbol, as elsewhere, the kingdom is ascribed to the Son. And so “hallowed be Thy name, let Thy kingdom come,” etc. means: “may you be glorified as the beginning of the Namer of the Spirit, may you be glorified as the Father of the Reigning Son, and may you be glorified as the Self-Existing and Self-Original Person, the source of everything.” How do you think? It seems to me that this is the case” (A. S. Khomyakov. Complete collected works, T. 8, M., 1904, p. 271, letter 13 to Yu. F. Samarin). Simeon N.B., - Divine love - Divinorum Amorum, 1. - Migne. T. 120, coll. 507–510.