Второй отдел. Греческая церковная литература IV века. Общая характеристика развития богословской литературы на греческом Востоке в IV веке

At the beginning of the 4th century. There was a radical change in the external position of Christianity in the Greco-Roman Empire, which had the most favorable consequences for the internal life of the Church, giving its members full opportunity to concentrate all the strength of their spirit on resolving internal church problems. Undistracted by the external struggle for its very existence, the Church began to live a full life. But this apparent calm flow of church life was not accompanied by the inner peace of the Church: a period of great dogmatic disputes began. They were a natural continuation of the previous work of theological thought, and their broad and even acute development was an internal necessity, when the significant and formal differences that had gradually developed in the previous period in various areas of the Christian world freely emerged, opened up and collided with each other. The struggle gave rise to an intense, extremely impetuous, lively and powerful movement of theological life, which revealed a diverse creative activity, outstanding in its productivity and originality. Christian genius manifested itself with extraordinary power in various branches of theological knowledge, focusing primarily on what constitutes the very essence of Christianity. Thus, the time has come for the heyday of ancient church theology: the strength of the external position of the Church gave it the opportunity for free and comprehensive development, and the fight against heresies provided abundant material for its work. New generations of church teachers appeared, enriched by the experience of the scientific activities of their predecessors. The theological works of this time remain a guide for all generations of Orthodox Christianity. Their great creators, who truly nourish the believers with their teaching, received the predominant title of “fathers of the Church.” The theological thought of the next period was based on the results of their theological work: it lives on them to this day, as if based on the conviction that then all the essential questions that humanity can present to Christianity were posed and resolved. The powerful spirit of Origen continued to exert a strong influence on the course of theological thought: it can be said that almost all theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries. worked more or less with the spiritual heritage of Origen, partly directly adjacent to him, partly becoming in opposition to his system and the direction of theological science he created, but at the same time inspired by his scientific ideals. Therefore, even the various theological trends of the 4th and 5th centuries. are usually determined by this or that relationship to Origen. But already in the circle of Origen’s closest students and followers it is impossible to talk about the integral influence of his system - all the less possible now in view of the nature of the struggle that ensued. Guiding importance in dogmatic movements until the half of the 5th century. belonged to Alexandrian theology. But in this school there was no strict unity in direction; in it it is necessary to note several trends, or at least shades, observed even in Alexandria itself; they are determined by the individual characteristics of theological figures and the nature of their life relationships. Here, in the homeland and main place of development of Origen's speculation and exegesis, already at the end of the previous period there was a turn towards biblical realism and church Tradition. The “righteous” church Christians of the time of Dionysius the Great and Bishop Peter of Alexandria show traces of the gradual strengthening of that direction, which was called New Alexandrian. The exponent of this trend by the time of the Council of Nicaea is the Alexandrian Bishop Alexander, the first energetic denouncer of the Arian error, who immediately correctly and clearly defined its essence and the consequences arising from it: he is an undoubted right-wing Origenist, who combined the best aspects of the sublime philosophical system of the Alexandrian theologian with church-traditional teaching. St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria 1069 Information about the life of St. Alexandra The personality of the Alexandrian Bishop Alexander is important in the history of church theological thought, on the one hand, because he is the first fighter against the Arian heresy, which so greatly worried the Church during most of the 4th century, and one of the prominent figures at the First Ecumenical Council, and, on the other hand, because under his influence, his famous successor in the Alexandrian see grew up and developed, a tireless champion of Orthodoxy against Arianism - St. Athanasius the Great. In turn, St. Alexander was the favorite disciple of St. Peter of Alexandria and the heir to those theological traditions in Alexandria of which the latter was a representative. St. Peter suffered in November 311, and the Alexandrian Church was widowed for a year. His successor Achilles was bishop for only five months, and after his death Alexander was elected to the see of Alexandria (in 313). No news has been preserved about his life until this time. Historians characterize him as a man adorned with virtues to an exceptional degree, wise, filled with the Holy Spirit, and a courageous defender of the apostolic dogmas. Actually, we know nothing about Alexander’s episcopal activities before the emergence of the Arian movement. The latter forced Alexander to leave the close circle of diocesan activities and take part in general church life. The reason for this was the speech of the prominent Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who, according to some information, was one of the candidates for bishop, an educated, skillful dialectician, in scientific and theological terms, a student and follower of the famous Antiochian presbyter Lucian. Information began to reach the ears of Bishop Alexander that Presbyter Arius, whom he himself treated with respect and trust, was developing heretical views in front of his listeners; Thus, explaining the well-known passage from the book of Proverbs (8:22): “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways,” he expressed the doctrine of the created nature of the Son of God, which constitutes the main position of the Arian doctrine. The disputes that began began to worry not only members of the Alexandrian clergy, but also the people. Arius was not slow to express his teaching in the presence of Bishop Alexander himself. At one of the clergy meetings, Alexander, “discussing philosophically” about the Holy Trinity, used the expression: “St. The Trinity is the Unity in the Trinity” [(Socrat., Hist. eccl. I, 5)]. Arius, who was present, began to accuse his bishop of Sabellianism and openly expressed his doctrine of the creatureliness of the Son of God. In the dispute that arose, Alexander took the side of Arius’s opponents and forbade the latter to disseminate his views. Arius did not obey and attracted a significant part of the clergy to his side. At the same time, he turned for support to the “Solukianist” bishops, whose sympathy for his views he had no doubt, and he also submitted a written statement of faith. Among these bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Athanasius of Anazarus and George of Laodicea, who consoled Arius and denounced Alexander for his incorrect understanding of church teaching, took to heart the cause of Arius the most. When the definite position taken by Arius and his supporters was finally clear to Alexander, he convened a council in Alexandria of the Egyptian bishops under his control (in 320 or 321), at which he condemned the teachings of Arius, excommunicated himself and his supporters from the Church, after which they had to leave Alexandria. Countering Arius's desire to present the matter in his own light, Alexander sent out a district message, which briefly outlined and refuted the teachings of Arius, and announced his condemnation. Thus, the cause of Arius was given church-wide significance, and unrest began to cover an ever-increasing circle of eastern dioceses: the majority took the side of Alexander, but many bishops of high education and prominent position found themselves on the side of Arius. In contrast to the Council of Alexandria, a council of like-minded people of Arius was formed in the Bithynia region, which decided to accept Arius and his followers into communion. The Council, in turn, sent messages to the bishops, in which he outlined the teachings of Arius, demanded that the Arians be accepted into communion and petitioned Alexander for the same. The court connections of Eusebius of Nicomedia created strong support for Arius. Unrest broke out in Alexandria itself. The Arianites established separate churches and gathered there to spread their teachings. Alexander's position became unbearable: indignation was raised against him; he was insulted. A council of Palestinian bishops, headed by Eusebius of Caesarea, recognized presbyteral and deaconal rights for all followers of Arius excommunicated and expelled from Alexandria and allowed the condemned to return to Alexandria and form liturgical meetings on the same basis, so that they would submit to Alexander and not resist having peace and communion with him. Arius and the presbyters and deacons condemned with him composed a respectful letter to Alexander, in which they set out their teachings, without deviating from the condemned provisions, but only softening and explaining their previous harsh expressions. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea began to make every effort to force Alexander to fulfill the decrees of the Palestine Council. Peacock of Tire composed a theoretical justification for Arianism and sent it to Alexander. Unrest due to the Arian teachings attracted the attention of Emperor Constantine, who had recently arrived in the East. But he apparently received information about this movement from circles that presented the whole matter as not having serious significance. Konstantin looked at the disputes as an empty verbal debate on an unimportant subject, devoid of vital significance. But since these verbal disputes caused unrest in Egypt, which served as the granary of the capital, the emperor considered it necessary to take measures to calm them down. He sent an extensive letter to Alexander and Arius, in which he expressed equal displeasure to both as the culprits of discord in the Church and disruption of peace in the empire. In addition, a special commissioner from the Emperor Hosius, the Bishop of Cordoba, was sent to Alexandria. The latter, on the basis of impartial research, came to the conclusion that the Arian movement threatened to shake the foundations of the Christian faith. He also convinced the emperor of this; He probably also suggested the idea of ​​convening an Ecumenical Council. Alexander continued the fight against Arianism in Nicaea, where he was one of the prominent defenders of Orthodoxy. He witnessed the victory of Orthodoxy over Arianism at the Ecumenical Council and died before the new explosion of the heretical movement on April 17, 328. The burden of the new struggle was borne by his disciple and successor Athanasius. Literary activity of St. Alexandra The struggle with Arius and his like-minded people forced Alexander to inform the bishops of the then Church as widely as possible about the actual state of affairs in Alexandria and reveal the essence of the heretic’s teaching, as well as his own views on the issues raised. For this purpose, he wrote a number of messages. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Haer. LXEX, 4) mentions 70 district letters (έπιστολαί έγκύκλιοι) sent by Alexander to the bishops of Palestine, Phenicia and Coelesyria; but many of these epistles could be copies of the same epistle, with the signatures and opinions of the bishops who received these epistles appended to it. In view of this, it is not possible to determine the exact number of messages written by Alexander. The following have survived to this day: 1) Blzh. Theodoret in his “Ecclesiastical History” (I, 3 [3]) reports the text of Alexander’s letter to Alexander, Bishop of Byzantium (more correctly, to Thessalonica) 1070; This epistle is probably a list of Alexander's district epistle to the bishops of Churches outside Egypt. In the message, Alexander reports that Arius and Achilles were excommunicated from church communion for their godless teaching, which stands in irreconcilable contradiction with the apostolic dogmas of the Church, expounds and refutes this teaching, depicts the riots caused by Arius and his followers in Alexandria; informs that the heretics turned to the protection of other bishops and found it with some, while others - numerous bishops, some even distant, but especially from the provinces of Asia Minor, notified him in writing of their full agreement with him. Copies of the messages of such bishops are attached to the district message, and the bishop to whom the latter is sent is invited, in turn, to a similar expression of consent. This message is extremely important for the initial history of Arianism and for characterizing the theological views of the Orthodox side of the Alexandrian Church. 2) Extracts preserved only in Syriac “from the district scroll”, which Archbishop Alexander wrote “about the right faith to the God-loving bishops existing in the universe” 1071. This list of the “district scroll” has reached us, which was sent to Melitius, Bishop of Sevastopol (in Pontus) and “other bishops of the Catholic Church.” The passage contains, in addition to the title, only the beginning of the statement of faith and ends with an indication that the scroll had already received signatures of consent, located by province. Both in the texts of the Holy Scriptures and in essential thoughts, this message coincides with the message to Alexander of Byzantium. But from this, of course, one cannot draw an indisputable conclusion that it is identical with the latter. Alexander, undoubtedly, wrote many messages concerning the same issue and therefore similar in content; in addition, in this initial stage of the struggle against Arianism, when the heresy had not yet been revealed in detail, its presentation and refutation by the already elderly Bishop Alexander could take a rather monotonous form. 3) Socrates in his “Ecclesiastical History” (1.6) preserved another district letter of Alexander 1072, in which he reports that Eusebius of Nicomedia took over the leadership of the Arian movement, that a council of almost a hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops was held in Alexandria, which condemned Arius with six other presbyters, six deacons and two bishops. Alexander asks not to accept excommunicated people into church communion and not to listen to Eusebius of Nicomedia. The chronological sequence of these messages of St. Alexandra cannot be precisely identified. Some 1073 believe that the third letter is the oldest document related to the Arian movement: in it Alexander briefly sets out the teachings of Arius and just as briefly refutes it; he writes in full confidence in the correctness of his cause and, announcing the condemnation of Arius and his supporters, has no doubt at all that the decision of the Council of Alexandria will be accepted by the entire Church. Meanwhile, in his letter to Alexander of Byzantium, he already complains about the sad state of affairs, sets out in detail the teaching of Arius not only in the Trinitarian, but also in the Christological part, and refutes it in even more detail and consistently. He acts here not as an accuser, as can be seen in his first message, but as an accused, carefully trying to remove all possible criticism from himself. But, with all his confidence in the rightness of his cause, he does not expect anything good for himself in the future. “This is how we teach, this is how we preach,” he ends his message, “these are the apostolic dogmas [of the Church] 1074, for which we are ready to die, not paying any attention to those who force us to renounce them, even if the coercion is accompanied by torture” [(Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I, 3/4)]. On the other hand, 1075, they find that the progress in the situation so irrefutably declares itself that the second district message must be designated as the latest, and the first as the earlier. The question presents significant difficulties for its resolution; but we must agree that the advantage of persuasiveness is on the side of the first opinion. 4) The so-called “Deposition of Arius and those with him” 1076. In its main part, this work gives a second circular message. At the beginning is Alexander’s appeal to the assembled clergy of Alexandria and Mareota, in which he says that just as they had previously signed his exhortation to Arius and his associates, so now they are invited with their signature to approve his district letter to the bishops of the Churches outside Egypt and agree to the excommunication of six more clergy. Further, the text of the second district message is followed by the signatures of the Alexandrian and Mareotian clergy. 5) In addition, St. Maximus the Confessor cites 1077 two short passages from Alexander's letter to Eglon of Cynopolis (in Middle Egypt) against the Arians 1078; Alexander's epistles to Philogonius, Bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, Bishop of Veria, Emperor Constantine, Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, and Arius are known by their titles. Finally, Alexander, following the example of other Alexandrian bishops, wrote Easter Epistles to the Churches of Egypt; but nothing has survived from them. 6) In addition to the messages, Syriac and Coptic sources contain data about the sermons of St. Alexandra. The conversation of St. has been preserved in Syriac. Alexandra “On the soul and body, and on the suffering of the Lord” 1079. The first part of the sermon contains, as an introduction, a discussion about the relationship between soul and body, and the second explains the necessity of the Lord's suffering and the consequences of His death for humanity. Fragments of the text of this sermon, with some modifications, are known under the name of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, as well as other writers. It is considered probable that St. In this sermon, Alexander used Meliton’s work under the same title. In addition, this entire conversation has been preserved in a more extensive form in the Coptic language under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Affiliation of the conversation with St. Alexandru is considered probable. There are several more known passages (several lines) inscribed with the name of St. Alexander and taken from his various sermons. These passages show that there was a whole collection of sermons by St. Alexandra. 7) Finally, in the Coptic language there is still preserved a panegyric to Bishop Peter of Alexandria 1080, who died a martyr, which, as the inscription says, was pronounced on the day of remembrance of the saint in the church in Alexandria dedicated to his name. Indeed, regarding St. Alexander is attested that he established the feast day of St. Martyr Peter in Alexandria (Rufin., Hist. eccl. I, 14). Attribution of the panegyric to St. Alexandru is not indisputable due to the presence of a legendary element in it. Characteristics of the theological views of St. Alexandra Epistles written by St. Alexander regarding the heresy of Arius, they find in him a theologian in whom loyalty to purely church teaching was combined with deep philosophical penetration into Trinitarian dogma on the basis of assimilation of the best aspects of Origen’s sublime philosophical system - the right order of his ideas. St. Alexander not only accurately determined at the very first time the essence of the Arian teaching, but also correctly indicated its source in the system of Paul of Samosata and Lucian of Antioch. Misconception Aria St. Alexander contrasts the “apostolic dogmas of the Church” and in his letter to Alexander formulates his confession this way. Father is always Father. But He is the Father from eternity only because the Son exists, for whose sake He is called Father. Due to the fact that the Son always exists for Him, He Himself is always the Father in the full sense of the word, and His perfection has no lack, because He did not produce His only begotten Son in time or at a certain period and not out of nothing. Whoever says that the radiance of glory does not exist denies the original light from which the radiance comes; and if there was not always an image of God, then, obviously, the prototype does not always exist; even if the imprint of God’s being does not exist, then the very being that is imprinted in it in the most perfect way is destroyed. The Father is always perfect and possesses all the highest properties without deficiency, since the Son is always co-essential with Him. Not in time, not after a certain period of thought, and not from non-existent things, He begot the only begotten Son. After this, is it really not iniquity to assert that there once was no Wisdom, Who Herself says: “I was glad in Him” (Proverbs 8:30), there was once no His Power, there was a lack of His Word and everything else from which the Son is known and the Father is characterized, i.e., from which the dogmatic concept of the Son is composed and by which the essence of the Father is determined as an essence. But to say that there was no radiance of glory means to deny at the same time the existence of the original light to which this radiance belongs. Hence St. Alexander expresses the essence of his confession in the following words: “We believe in the [one] 1081 unbegotten Father, who in no one else has the author of His Being, who is imperishable and unchangeable and always equal to Himself in all respects, incapable of either improving or decreasing... And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born not from what is not, but from what is - Father, not in a bodily way - through secretion, division or outflow, as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but inexpressibly and incomprehensibly... The image of His being 1082 for all created things is unsearchable, just as the Father Himself is unsearchable... (Further,) we are taught that this Son is imperishable and unchangeable, like the Father, self-sufficient and perfect, that He is equal to the Father and only in relation to ungeneracy is inferior to the Father, because He is the most accurate, in no way different image of the Father, reflecting everything through which the greatest Prototype represents" [(apud Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I, 3/4)]. His birth, which St. Alexander calls creation without beginning, completely different from the creation, and the sonship of this Son by nature (φύσα) has nothing in common with the sonship of man by adoption (θέσα). This Son is the real Word and Wisdom of God, and if He had not always been with God, then God would once have been άλογος and ασοφος. Thus, one must attribute to the Father only His inherent dignity, recognizing that He has no author of His existence in anyone, but must give due honor to the Son, attributing to Him a beginningless birth from the Father - not denying His divinity, but recognizing in Him an exact correspondence to the Image of the Father in everything; and the sign of unbornness is appropriated only to the Father, which is why the Savior Himself says: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). From this it is clear that, firstly, St. Alexander, in his presentation of Orthodox teaching against Arius’s distortion of it, uses the terminology of the Origen school, and, secondly, that even in polemics with the enemy for the closest unity of the Father and the Son, he speaks in the sense of subordinationism, however, in its purest expression - hypostatic 1083: The Father has an advantage over the Son in ungeneracy. The relationship between the Father and the Son of St. Alexander presents it this way: “When the Lord says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), He does not call Himself the Father and does not declare two hypostatic natures to be one; He says this only in the sense that He has an exact resemblance to the Father, and by nature represents His likeness in everything, as the immutable image of the Father” [(apud Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I, 3/4)]. In general, the main feature of the Trinitarian teaching of St. Alexander is the concept of the closest numerical unity of the Divine essence, according to which the Son is not only neither qualitatively nor quantitatively different from the Father, but also constitutes a necessary moment of His essence. The conversation “On the soul and the flesh, and on the suffering of the Lord” 1084 testifies that on the theological views of St. Alexander was strongly influenced by the theology of Asia Minor, or, more correctly, by that traditional church teaching, which in the second half of the 3rd century. protested against the enthusiasm for Origen's speculations. In this conversation the doctrine of leadership is presented in the same form as it is given by St. Irenea. It is also reflected in the name of the Virgin Mary Θεοτόκος, and in the view of the suffering and death of the historical Christ. If St. Alexander used the work of Melito of Sardis for this conversation, then this decisively establishes the connection between St. Alexandra with the Asia Minor theological school. Analysis of the theological views of St. Alexandra is important for understanding the terminology of the Nicene Symbol, which was compiled not without his participation, and for determining the influences under which the theological views of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. St. Athanasius of Alexandria 1085 The final imprint on the New Alexandrian direction was left by St. Athanasius, the great father of the Church, tireless defender of the Orthodox confession of faith, recognized as the “Father of Orthodoxy.” From the time of his clear appearance in the historical field until his death, he gave his life to the fight against Arianism, in which he acted as an insightful, unyielding, inspired leader of the Orthodox. He was one of those strong natures who do not seek a fight, but never shy away from it. He clearly penetrated into the tendencies of his opponents and understood why he suffered, and thereby won. Explain in detail the life of St. Athanasius means to set out the history of the struggle between Orthodoxy and Arianism for the whole 50 years of the 4th century. Therefore, we are forced to limit ourselves to indicating only its main facts, in order to thus establish the framework of his literary activity. Essay on the life of St. Athanasius of Alexandria The main source of information about the life of St. Athanasius is mainly served by his own works, and primarily by those in which he himself publicly gives an account of his activities, namely: “Apology against the Arians”, “Apology to Constantius”, “Apology about his own flight” and “History of the Arians to the monks”. Eulogies from St. Athanasius Gregory the Theologian (Orat. XXI) is a panegyric with almost no biographical content. "Lives" of St. Athanasius, which preceded the Benedictine edition of his works, are all of relatively late origin and do not have the value of primary sources. On the contrary, two chronological documents are very important: the chronicle of the Easter Epistles of St. Athanasius and the so-called Historia acephala. The collection of Easter messages has come to us in incomplete form in one Syriac manuscript. The title of each message contains precise notes, except for the Easter date and other chronological indications; all these chronological prefaces are reproduced in another edition and combined into a whole preface to the entire collection of messages; in this other edition, which has come down to us in full, for each of the 45 years of the bishopric of St. Athanasius indicates the time of Easter celebration and records all the important events of his life. The Historia Athanasii, preserved in Latin, usually called Historia acephala because it lacks a beginning, is a monument whose purpose seems to be an apology for St. Afanasia; he is distinguished by his great care in chronological calculations, with precise dating by consulates and years of service of prefects, and by his precise instructions about the fate of St. Afanasia. It is therefore clear that from the time the Easter Epistles with their preface and the chronological instructions of the latter became known, in connection with the dates of the Historia acephala, were applied to church historical science, the previous chronology of the life of St. Athanasius and the Arian disputes, based on Socrates (and Sozomen), was supplanted, especially since the dates obtained from the preface and Historia acephala were in excellent agreement with the chronological indications obtained from other reliable sources (the time of the exiles of St. Athanasius, the Roman Council of 341, the Council of Serdica in 343, and not in 347, etc.). Also an ancient monument is a Coptic eulogy to Athanasius, belonging to a contemporary of Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412), but it contains very little biographical material. St. Athanasius was born in Egypt, most likely in Alexandria. The date of his birth can now be determined with greater accuracy than before, thanks to an ancient Coptic word. According to this document, Athanasius was 33 years old at the time of his election to the bishopric. Now the question is when he took the episcopal see. In this regard, the opinions of researchers fluctuate between 326 and 328. If we accept the first date, then St. Athanasius was born in 293; with the second date he was born in 295 - the latter date is usually recognized. Sources do not provide information about the parents of St. Athanasius - it is not even known whether they were Christians; They are also very stingy in their reports about the childhood of the future teacher of the Church. The later glory of St. Athanasia cast her rays on the early years of his life; hence the famous legend that St. Athanasius, while still a boy, performed the correct baptism over some of his comrades during games; that Bishop Alexander, observing this from afar, called him to himself and declared baptism valid, and advised his relatives to prepare the boy for church service (Rufin., Hist. eccl. I, 14). Of course, this narrative can hardly be seriously discussed, since, in addition to the surprising decision of the bishop, it encounters a chronological difficulty: Bishop Alexander took the Alexandrian see after Achilles, in 313, when Athanasius, even if the date of his birth was assumed later, could no longer indulge in children's games. St. Athanasius in his childhood and early youth was under the impression of the last great, general persecution to which Christianity was subjected - the so-called Diocletian persecution; its waves reached the native country and city of St. Athanasia: ep. Peter, among others, fell victim to the tormentors. The setting of St.'s youth Athanasia contributed greatly to his development into a very knowledgeable fighter for Orthodoxy. He was born and raised in a city which, as a focal point, par excellence reflected the intellectual, moral and political life of the Greco-Roman world. In Alexandria, paganism, despite the approaching fall, had not yet completed its role and appeared before him embodied in the majestic temple of Serapis; here, year after year, Osiris was mourned, Isis, Apis and Nile were worshiped. Alexandria was the spiritual center of culture, science and learning. It was a remarkable place of trade and featured a vibrant industry. From St. Gregory the Theologian must recognize as natural and self-evident that St. Athanasius received a good modern education, although not as broad and deep as the great Cappadocian fathers later possessed (cf. Gregor. Nazianz., Orat. XXI [, 6]). His creations, especially the early ones, provide undoubted evidence of the kind of education that was given for the most part to children and young men of the best classes. But St. Afanasy was one of those rare personalities who receive incomparably more from their own natural talents than from the accidents of origin or situation. At the same time, there is no doubt that even in his early youth he was instructed in the truths of the Orthodox faith according to the traditions of the Alexandrian school and studied the Holy Scriptures: in the words of Gregory the Theologian, he knew all his books as another does not know even one of them [(ibidem)]; By tirelessly reading the works of the fathers and teachers of the Church of the previous time, he developed in himself a subtle and correct understanding of the deepest truths of Christianity. Early St. Athanasius entered into a close personal relationship with St. Anthony and other ascetics of Egypt and Libya, which is confirmed by the initial words of the biography of St. Antonia. When St. Afanasy became a young man, the state of affairs in the world empire quickly changed. From the political unrest that followed the removal of Diocletian from the affairs of government, the autocratic rule of Constantine the Great arose, and Christianity, from being persecuted and suppressed, first became a recognized religion, along with paganism, so that by the end of the life of St. Athanasius to become the state religion. But the Church had to enter into a struggle of a different kind, which excited the minds and divided for a long time not only theologians, and which forced the emperors to constantly devote their attention to it; it was a struggle not about theological subtleties, but about the vital interests of Christian humanity: the question was about what place in the economy of faith should be given to Christ. According to the state of theological and philosophical views, as they developed by the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 19th century, this question fell into several particular ones, from which, over time, new questions grew: if the Word of God, the Logos, really exists, then in what relation does He stand to God? to one God? is He an integral part of the Divine essence? or is He only a creation similar to people - true, infinitely higher, but nevertheless a creation created by the free will of God? If He is of exactly the same essence as God, then is there any room for difference and is not the dignity of God and the Almighty violated if such a being stands next to Him? and further, if the Word is a creation and He, however, must be worshiped, then wouldn’t this be the deification of the creature? Isn’t the old pagan polytheism, which was so feared, penetrating into the Church at the same time? These questions troubled many hearts and were on the lips of many. But they received an acute presentation precisely in Alexandria, in the Arian heresy that arose here. As a result of this, St. Athanasius was brought face to face with Arianism from the very beginning and remained the leader of the fighters against it until the end of his days. He immediately came out with a very definite view of the essence of heresy and the content of the truths of the church faith opposite to it. In his first works he expressed the main thoughts of his entire life, for which he fought and to which he achieved victory. Very early St. Athanasius entered the clergy of the Alexandrian Church: according to the testimony of the Coptic word of praise, he held the rank of reader for six years. By the beginning of the Arian disputes, between 318–320, St. Athanasius was already a deacon; his name is among those deacons who signed the district letter of bishop. Alexandra. He was close to the elderly bishop. Alexander: “Athanasius visited Bishop Alexander very often and was respected by him” (Apol. contra Arianos 6.2), perhaps as his personal secretary and adviser; This relationship was the reason why Athanasius was taken by Bishop Alexander to the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. But they also created irreconcilable enemies for him even before the council, and especially when “they saw the experience of his pious faith in Christ at the council that met in Nicaea, where he boldly rebelled against the wickedness of the Arians” (ibidem). St. Alexander died shortly after the Council of Nicaea: according to some, on April 17, 328 (the date is usually accepted and based on the Syriac preface to the Easter Epistles), according to others, on April 17, 326. St. Alexander died as his successor. Afanasy. How his election came about is difficult to imagine clearly due to the discrepancies in the reports of ancient authors. Opponents of St. Athanasius claimed that he was elected by a minority: as if after the death of Bishop Alexander only a few, and then a few, recalled Athanasius and he was ordained by six or seven bishops secretly, in a secret place. But according to the testimony of 339 Egyptian bishops 1086 who gathered at the council, expressed by them in a district message (cited in the “Apology against the Arians”), during the election of St. Athanasius was shown complete unanimity of both the bishops and the entire church province: “Nothing was said against Athanasius... they said everything wonderful about him, calling him zealous, reverent, a Christian, one of the ascetics and truly a bishop” (cap. 6.5). Obviously, an indication of the incorrectness in the election of St. Athanasius was one of the methods used by his opponents, the Arians, to fight him. His election was done correctly. But it goes without saying that Athanasius did not receive the votes of supporters of the Arians, Melitians and other schismatics. From that time on, the fate of Orthodoxy was almost identified with the fate of St. Athanasius, who became an indestructible stronghold of Orthodoxy during the most critical period of the Arian unrest for him, when Arianism threatened to suppress Orthodoxy by force and presented itself as a representative of the entire East. The first years of management of St. Athanasius was busy with ordinary things: cathedrals, pastoral epistles, preaching, annual visits to churches in the district, daily church duties absorbed his time. But from the very first steps of the ministry of St. Athanasius at the See of Alexandria, he had to face opponents who played a sad role in his subsequent fate. The Egyptian Church was torn apart by the Melitian schism, and although the Council of Nicea eased the path to ending the schism, there were still reasons for numerous disputes about the competence of the Melitian clergy. Hardly only St. Athanasius became a bishop when the Melitian unrest began, which was not slow to be combined with hostile actions against him, caused by his decisive anti-Arian mood. Soon after the council, Arianism intensified. By hypocritical repentance of their errors and ambiguous statements of their teachings, the leaders of Arianism convinced Emperor Constantine of their agreement with the teachings of the universal Church and were returned from exile, and Eusebius of Nicomedia demanded from St. Athanasius's acceptance of Arius into church communion. Athanasius refused, and the Eusebians directed all their forces to eliminate the hated enemy. The prelude to the struggle was attacks on the correctness of his election, and after Arius and his supporters refused to accept him into church communion, the struggle itself began. The Melitians, together with Eusebius of Nicomedia, moved against St. Afanasy has a whole series of accusations. Since it was dangerous to accuse on the basis of theological differences, so as not to come into conflict with the symbol approved at the Council of Nicea, which had official meaning under Constantine the Great, it was necessary to focus on attacks against the personality of the new Alexandrian saint. They said that Athanasius: a) burdened the Egyptians with a special linen tax in favor of the Alexandrian Church, b) delivered gold to the rebel Philomenes, c) during a visit to Mareotas, he sent his presbyter Macarius to the presbyter Ischira, once dedicated by Kolluf, and he, with the knowledge of Athanasius, attacked Ischira, committed a riot, broke the cup, overturned the throne and burned the books; in addition, they represented St. Athanasius is immoral in private life and a violator of the general church peace. St. Athanasius went to Nicomedia at the end of 330 and so completely justified himself before the emperor that the latter provided him with a letter in which he called him a man of God (Apol. contra Arianos 61–62). But the Melitians did not calm down: they again raised the case of Ischira and brought up another, more serious accusation: that Athanasius killed the Bishop of Ipsel Arsenius; his severed hand, which they showed everywhere, was the main evidence. The emperor instructed the censor Dalmatius, his relative, to conduct an investigation. It did not give what the enemies of St. wanted. Athanasius results, since the supposedly dead Arseny, hidden by accusers in a remote monastery, was found alive in Tyre and exposed by the Tyrian bishop. The emperor wrote a favorable letter to Athanasius, and this triumph forced the head of the Melitians, John Arkhaf, as well as Arsenius himself, to temporarily and outwardly humble himself (Apol. contra Arianos 65–70). After a fruitless attempt to force St. Athanasius appeared at the council in Caesarea in 334. The Eusebians managed to get the emperor to convene a new council in Tire. The bishop of Alexandria received a formal order to appear there and left Alexandria on July 335. Fifty bishops subordinate to Athanasius went with him to defend his good name. At the council, the Eusebians took the position of judges, the Melitians - accusers. The whole situation of the council indicated in advance that the accused could not expect justice and impartiality. Against St. Afanasy was charged with all the old charges, in particular the murder of Arseny, the refutation of which brought him a new triumph. The cry of the congregation about the deposition of St. Afanasy interrupted with a calm question: “Do any of you know Arseny?” After an affirmative answer, he brought a man whom everyone recognized as Arseny. St. Athanasius raised both his hands high, one after the other, and said ironically: “I think, however, no one among you holds the view that God gave man more than two hands” [(Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I, 29/30; cf. Socrat., Hist. eccl. I, 29)]. But even before deciding his case at the Council of St. Athanasius left for Constantinople with some trusted friends to appeal to the emperor’s own sense of justice. The council condemned Athanasius, deposed him from the pulpit and forbade his stay in Egypt, after which the members of the council went to Jerusalem for the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was performed with great solemnity. At first, Athanasius was successful at court, but the heads of the Eusebians who arrived in Constantinople took advantage of the fact that the powerful position of the Alexandrian bishop gave sufficient reason for suspicion on the part of the emperor: as if he threatened the capital with famine by stopping the supply of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. The emperor did not heed the excuses of the accused and expelled St. Athanasius to Gaul, to Trier. This was at the end of 335. It is difficult to understand Constantine’s behavior in this matter: on the one hand, he condemns St. Athanasius to exile, as if trusting the political accusations against him, but, on the other hand, he did not allow the appointment of a successor to St. Athanasius to the Alexandrian see, which could not have happened if he had taken seriously the condemnation of him by the Eusebians in Tire. There was unrest in Alexandria. The people did not stop demanding the bishop back and even organized demonstrations in churches. The famous hermit Anthony wrote to the emperor several times, but it was all in vain. In Trier (Trevs), where St. Athanasius arrived on November 6, 336, and was greeted with great favor by the emperor's eldest son Constantine and Bishop Maximin. Despite the enormous distance, St. Athanasius, through correspondence, was in constant communication with his friends and believers of Alexandria; his tenth Easter Epistle, written in 337, before returning to Alexandria, shows with what sense of faith, tenderness and Christian heroism the exiled shepherd supported his flock. And the flock remained faithful to their rightful shepherd: all the efforts of the Eusebians to introduce Arius into church communion in Alexandria were defeated by the threatening hostility of the Orthodox in Alexandria. Arius died in Constantinople under extremely dramatic circumstances in 336. The death of the emperor himself followed on May 22, 337. Soon St. Athanasius was returned from exile by Constantine the Younger. He left Trier with a letter from Constantine the Younger, who sympathized with him, to the Alexandrians, dated June 17, 337. He made his journey through Pannonia, had an audience with Emperor Constantius in Mysia, passed through Syria and returned to Alexandria, in the presence of popular cliques, on November 23, 337. His absence lasted 2 years and 4 months. The ruler of the eastern half of Constantius, from the very beginning of his reign, fell under the influence of representatives of the hostile St. Athanasius of theological direction; in addition, such a person as Athanasius, in such a high position as the episcopal see in Alexandria, was a speck in his eye. This is what the enemies of St. asserted themselves on. Athanasius in his further plans against him. The Melitians and Arians, excited by the energetic behavior of St. Athanasius and encouraged by the elevation of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the episcopal see of Constantinople, again began hostile actions against St. Afanasia. Not content with the old accusations, they brought up new ones: Athanasius, with his return to Alexandria, caused unrest and shedding of blood; he ascended to the throne only by order of the emperor, without a resolution of the council. The Arians even consecrated a new bishop in Alexandria, the Arian Pistus, then they sent an embassy to the Roman Bishop Julius to present him with their accusations against Athanasius and ask for official recognition of their candidate. But Julius entered into communication with the accused. St. Athanasius convened a council in Alexandria, which consisted of almost a hundred bishops and wrote a district letter, which revealed the complete groundlessness of the accusations and the innocence of St. Athanasius (Apol. contra Arianos 3–19). Meanwhile, the Eusebians, at a council in Antioch, at the end of January or beginning of February 340, installed Gregory the Cappadocian as bishop of Alexandria. On March 23 he entered Alexandria under cover of civil and military force; his accession to the department was accompanied by incredible cruelty and violence. St. Athanasius left Alexandria on March 19, four days before Gregory arrived there, and hid for some time in the outskirts of Alexandria. Then, after Easter (April 15), he went to Rome by sea. In front of the Roman Cathedral, which was in the fall of 341, St. Athanasius presented and defended his case and was consoled by the declaration of his innocence after a careful and thorough investigation. For their part, the Eusebians, meeting in Antioch in the summer of the following year, at a council in encaeniis 1087 confirmed the deposition of Athanasius. The expelled man spent three years in Rome, where he enjoyed general sympathy and, in particular, the favor of the aunt of the Eastern Emperor Eutropia. His stay in Rome was also beneficial in the sense that Western Christians became more and more drawn into the great cause, which they saw in some way personified in St. Afanasia. In addition, the Western clergy through St. Athanasius and those accompanying him were introduced to the idea of ​​eremitic life, as it was realized in the Egyptian desert. In Rome, St. Athanasius received letters from Alexandria, which saddened and delighted him - saddened by the message of new persecution [from the side] of the Arians and consoled by the loyalty and devotion of the Orthodox. In April or May 342, Athanasius was summoned to Milan by Emperor Constans; here he learned of the Western emperor’s project to get Constantius to convene a great council of bishops from the two halves of the Christian world. Now the time of extraordinary activity of the saint began. At the beginning of 343 St. Athanasius first visited Gaul to consult with Hosius, and from there he went together to the council in Serdica. There, after reviewing everything that was said for and against St. Athanasius, he was declared innocent by the majority of Orthodox bishops. To publish this decision, two letters were composed - one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya. For their part, the Eusebians, having retired to Philippopolis, proclaimed anathema against Athanasius and the bishops supporting him. The Eusebians obtained from Emperor Constantius extremely strict measures against St. Athanasius and the presbyters most devoted to him. An order was given that if Athanasius tried to come to Alexandria, he would be seized and put to death. Under such circumstances, the exiled bishop could not think of entering into communion with his flock. From Serdica he went to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated Easter in 344, then to Aquileia, following the friendly invitation of Constant. The fathers of the Council of Serdica sent two legates to Constantius with instructions to ask him for permission for Athanasius to return to his district. The threatening letter from Constantius that they carried with them, and the difficulties on the Persian border, forced Constantius to show great restraint. Meanwhile, an unexpected event occurred that made the return of Athanasius to the Alexandrian see less difficult than it seemed several months ago: on July 26, 345, Gregory the Cappadocian died, probably a violent death. Constantius gave in and began to persistently call Athanasius to Alexandria, calling him a man known to everyone for his righteousness and honesty. But only after the third letter of St. Athanasius overcame his natural hesitation, left Aquileia, first went to Trier to visit his patron Constant, then went to Rome, where Bishop Julius, rejoicing at his restoration and wanting to express his high respect, presented him with a congratulatory message from the Alexandrian Church. St. Athanasius took the northern route in midsummer 346. passed through Adrianople and reached Antioch, where he met with Constantius. The audience was gracious. Constantius promised to no longer listen to the accusations of his enemies and handed over to St. Athanasius epistle for the Egyptian bishops and the Alexandrian Church, for the prefect Nestorius and other officials, which destroyed the previous orders on measures against Athanasius. During his stay in Antioch, St. Athanasius did not want to enter into communication with the local Arian bishop Leontius; he took part in the liturgical meetings of the Eustathians. The emperor asked to cede one church in Alexandria to the Arians. Athanasius had enough tact not to offend the emperor and circumvent his request, making the condition of its fulfillment the provision of one church in Antioch to the Eustathians; The Arians did not accept this condition. Maximus of Jerusalem presided over a council of sixteen bishops when St. Athanasius crossed through this city; he received him with honor and gave a letter of greeting to the Alexandrians. Finally, on October 21, 346 after an absence of more than seven years, Athanasius entered Alexandria. The people and civil authorities came out far to meet him and turned the entire further path of the beloved “pope” into a triumphal procession. Return of St. Athanasius's visit to Alexandria was accompanied not only by the joy of the population, but also by a remarkable upsurge in religious and moral life (Historia Arianorum 25). St. himself Athanasius expressed his feeling of gratitude to God in his Easter Epistle of 347, which begins with the exclamation: “Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” After the expulsions and persecutions, a relatively calm period began, which lasted ten years and during which St. Athanasius knew how to use it for the good of the Church. He first of all convened a council, at which the resolutions of the Council of Serdica were approved, then he decisively pursued a policy of firm prudence and prudent leniency, which had a disastrous effect on the Arian party. Two or three years later he was already in communion with more than four hundred bishops; even his excellent opponents, like Ursacius and Valens, wanted to gain favor with him. The death of Emperor Constans in January 350 by assassins sent by Magnentius deprived the Alexandrian bishop of a powerful patron and revived the aspirations of the Eusebians. Energetic measures against the Arians and Melitians, some dedications made by St. Athanasius in his diocese, easily served as a pretext for new accusations. But the plans of Constantius, who was afraid of the usurper Magnentius, did not yet include raising the case of Athanasius again; he even wrote St. A reassuring message to Athanasius, in which he wrote: “We wish, according to our will, to be your bishop in your place at all times.” In the same message, in another hand, it was written: “May the Divine protect you for many years, beloved father” (Apol. ad Constantium imperatorem 23). Meanwhile, it turned out that all the measures of Constantius, through the colorless formulas of the confession of faith, to bring the disputing parties to unity failed. Constantius turned to violence and expelled the most stubborn opponents of his plans. The defeat of Magnentius finally freed his hands. Then a new coalition was formed against the one who, almost alone in the East, boldly held the banner of the Nicene confession: the main leaders were Leontius of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea, Ursacius and Valens. St. Athanasius tried in vain to prevent trouble by sending Serapion of Tmuya to the court, accompanied by Egyptian bishops and presbyters. Constantius was strongly prejudiced against the accused, and the death of Magnentius in August 353 gave him the opportunity to gratify his irritation. Again, various accusations were brought forward, mostly with political overtones. They remembered that St. Athanasius was on friendly terms with Emperor Constantius, and it was announced that he was inciting him against Constantius. The messenger came from Magnentius, who wanted to involve the great bishop in his cause - and the latter was declared an accomplice of the usurper, despite his loyal behavior in this matter. Later, in 354, for the sake of great need, Athanasius allowed worship to be held in a church built on imperial land, but not yet consecrated - this was interpreted as a new seizure and profanation. They even went further than accusations: they tried to set a treacherous trap for him when they sent the emperor a forged letter in which the Alexandrian bishop asked permission to appear at court. Permission was given immediately, and Athanasius's refusal to make the journey, which he did not want and in which he saw the insidious plan of his enemies, caused new resentment. In Rome, on April 12, 352, Bishop Julius, the faithful defender and friend of St., died. Afanasia; On May 22, Liberius ascended the department. The latter’s letter, in which he invited Athanasius to come to him and threatened to break with him due to Athanasius’ refusal, is considered fictitious; but there is no doubt that the Eusebians sent to Liberius a statement of their accusations against Athanasius. Further events in which Constantius took part, showing violent actions, were related, in fact, to the Western bishops at the council in Arelate, at the end of 353, and at the council in Milan, in the spring of 355, then to Hosius of Cordova and Bishop Liberius, in order to encourage them to condemn Athanasius and enter into communion with the Arian bishops of the East. Meanwhile, decisive actions were being prepared against Athanasius himself. Little by little, restrictive measures were taken against him personally or against his friends and flock. In the summer of 355, the imperial notary Diogenes arrived in Alexandria, and on January 5 of the following year another notary, Hilary, accompanied by the regional governor Sirian, arrived in order to force the bishop to leave; but St. Athanasius, relying on the word of Constantius, given after the death of Constantius, demanded a written order from the emperor. The denouement was carried out by Sirian on the night of February 8-9 with an attack on the church of St. Theons, where St. Athanasius performed divine services in front of a large gathering of believers. By some miracle St. Athanasius, who remained at his post, was saved by a handful of priests and monks from five thousand soldiers who burst into the church and surrounded it. In vain did the Orthodox of Alexandria protest against the violence that accompanied or followed this attack. Constantius issued an edict to find St. Athanasius, and forced all the bishops to break off communication with him. The episcopal see in Alexandria was given to the Arian George the Cappadocian, who arrived in Alexandria on February 24, 357. St. Athanasius hid for several days in Alexandria or in the surrounding area, and then went into the desert. Here he wrote "Apology to Emperor Constantine." He could not believe that the emperor had any real participation in everything that happened; At first he cherished the idea of ​​​​appearing at court and even set out on the road, but, having learned the true mood and bloody intentions of Constantius, he returned to the desert. Pursued by imperial detectives, he was exposed to great danger and had to frequently change his place of refuge. Monks and hermits of Upper Egypt, all devoted to the one whom St. Pachomius glorified so many times and to whom St. Anthony, dying, sent his tunic, were the main instrument of Providence in saving the great exile: most of them were rather ready to undergo torture than to betray him. This period in life was the most painful for St. Athanasius - Arianism was visible everywhere and completely triumphed: the majority of bishops, both individually and at councils, submitted to the pressure of the combined force of secular power and heresy, condemned Athanasius and signed Arian and semi-Arian symbols. The scattered defenders of the Nicene teaching were deprived of the opportunity to act, and some of them did not withstand the painful exile to the end and with their fall embarrassed the conscience of the rest of the faithful. All the main sees were occupied by proteges of the Arians, and in Alexandria the faithful Christians were persecuted by the new bishop, an Arian. But always persecuted and always fleeing, the great champion of the Nicene faith never ceased to be the soul of the movement against the triumphant heresy. It is enough to glance at the list of works and their dates to see how much of them were written during a forced stay in the desert. He refuted the teachings of the Arians, revealed the illegality of their actions, encouraged the Orthodox and affirmed in them the true understanding of the faith. To encourage his flock, he even personally appeared several times in Alexandria, experiencing all the inconveniences of a secret stay in it and endangering his life. Meanwhile, the external victory of Arianism opened up the possibility of revealing its internal weaknesses. Having eliminated St. Athanasius, the strict Arians began to express their teaching more openly, and then it was discovered that the eastern bishops were under the leadership of their Aryan enemies only through a misunderstanding. The majority of eastern bishops, with Basil of Ancyra at their head, rebelled against Arianism in defense of the doctrine of the true deity of the Son of God, arguing that He is “in everything” and “essentially” like the Father (δμοιος κατά πάντα, κατ' ούσίαν, όμοιούσιος). Among Arianism itself there was a division into moderates - the Omians, who enjoyed influence at court, and strict - the Anomies. An attempt at a general agreement on the basis of Homianism at the councils of Arimin and Seleucia (359) ended in failure: in the West there was clearly a mood in favor of the Nicene symbol, and in the East - in favor of Homiusianism, and the forced signature of the Ohmic formula at both councils and the subsequent deposition of the main Homiusians and Anomians did not stop the discord. St. Athanasius correctly assessed the real significance of these disagreements and in his essay “On the Councils that took place in Ariminum Italica and Seleucia Isauria” he definitely stated that the Omiusians defend the Nicene Confession itself, do not agree with it only in the term ομοούσιος, but are not far from accepting the latter. This point of view turned out to be extremely important in the fight against Arianism, as the near future showed. Emperor Constantius died on November 3, 361, Julian issued an edict by which the bishops of the “Galileans,” who had been expelled during the previous reign, were allowed to return to their cities and provinces, in the hope that discord among Christians would increase from personal meetings of opponents. The see of Alexandria was vacant, since George the Cappadocian was captured by the people and then barbarously killed on December 24, 361. St. Athanasius returned to Alexandria on February 21 of the following year. Wasting no time, he set about establishing order in his Church, restoring general church affairs disrupted by the Arian policies of Constantius, and purifying the theological atmosphere. A few months later he convened the famous Council of Alexandria, which is of extreme importance in its dogmatic importance and its historical influence on the final results of the Arian disputes. The only condition for church communion with the Orthodox was the recognition of the Nicene Symbol and the condemnation of the teaching that St. The spirit is one of the creatures; although the old defenders of the Nicene Confession identified ούσία and ύπόστασις, the council recognized the correctness of the terminology μία ούσία, τρΐς ύποστάσις [one essence, three hypostases] used by Meletius Antioch; against the emerging Apollinarianism, it was proclaimed that the Son of God took in the incarnation not only a body, but also a rational soul. Julian could not bear for long the enormous significance that Athanasius, “the enemy of the gods,” had, and on October 24, 362, Athanasius left Alexandria for the fourth time, consoling his friends that this fleeting cloud would soon pass. St. Athanasius sailed along the Nile and, having eluded the detectives sent after him, returned for some time to the environs of Alexandria, then retired to Memphis, and from there to Thebaid, where he was very solemnly met and cordially received by the hermits. He visited the island of Tavenna, studied the rules of monastic life, being interested in its smallest details. He retained the best memories of this visit, and when Abba Theodore, who had met him, died in 368, he sent Abba Orsisius and the monks a letter of consolation and approval. Julian died on June 26, 363 and took with him to the grave everything that he had undertaken and planned. With the accession of Jovian to the throne, the exile of St. Afanasia. He was officially restored to his rights to the see of Alexandria. In Antioch, he saw the new emperor and, at his request, wrote a statement of faith (“Epistle to Emperor Jovian”). Complaints against him addressed to the emperor by the Alexandrian Arians and their leader Lucius were ignored. But Jovian died unexpectedly on the night of February 16-17, 364. Emperor Valens, who had adopted Arian policies, issued an edict on May 5, 365, expelling all the bishops deposed by Constantius and returned by Julian. At this news, the people of Alexandria became agitated and demanded that the governor of the province leave the bishop. He promised to write to Valens, and the movement calmed down. But Athanasius, probably warned of what was secretly being planned, quietly left the city on October 5, and the next night the prefect and the military commander burst into the church of St. Dionysius, where the bishop usually performed divine services, and searched it carefully. St. Athanasius hid in the village “by the new river”, in the tomb of his father. But the regrets and cries of the people threatened with indignation, which is why Valens yielded to the Alexandrians and gave orders not to bother Athanasius anymore. He returned to Alexandria on February 1, 366. Now began the last brief period of comparative peace, which ended his life, full of tireless struggle, anxiety and suffering. The great Alexandrian teacher remained until the end of his life the defender of the Nicene Confession and the revered leader of the Orthodox of the East. He rebelled against the attempt to replace the Nicene Creed with a confession drawn up at Rimini [(Arimina)], convened a council in 368 or 369, and wrote the Epistle to the African Bishops. At his insistence, the Roman bishop Damasus, after the presentation of Valens and Ursacius, opposed the Mediolan bishop Auxentius. St. addressed him with trust and respect. Basil the Great, when he decided to enter into communication with the West in order to establish Orthodoxy in the East. Athanasius, for his part, treated St. Vasily with respect and love and wrote a message in his defense to the monks, who were tempted by his prudent caution. St. Athanasius, against whom so many forces rose up, who spent so many years in exile, often in the midst of the greatest dangers, died calmly in Alexandria on May 2, perhaps on the night of the 2nd to the 3rd, 373. He ruled the Alexandrian Church for [about] 46 years. Literary works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria St. Athanasius of Alexandria performed great service for the benefit of the Church not only through his tireless struggle for the truth of Orthodoxy throughout his long episcopate, which brought him the veneration and reverent amazement of both his contemporaries and subsequent generations of the entire Christian world, but also with his numerous literary works. It goes without saying that such a turbulent life, with its constant anxieties, machinations of enemies, persecution, repeated flight, exile to distant countries, was not conducive to systematic and concentrated theological and literary activity; it forced him to live by the practical ecclesiastical interests of the time and to use the scientific theological and philosophical element only to the extent that it was useful for his immediate tasks. Therefore, almost all significant works of St. Athanasius stand in connection with the circumstances of the modern life of the Church and the personal fate of the saint. Creations of St. Athanasius experienced the common fate of literary monuments of antiquity. Neither St. Athanasius did not leave a list of his works, and none of the subsequent historians set out to list all the works of the great father of the Church. Therefore, at present we are unable to say exactly how many works and which ones were written by St. Afanasy. The main source of information about the works of St. Athanasius serves as inscriptions in their handwritten collections; but, on the one hand, not everything written by St. Athanasius, could end up in collections or retain the name of its author, and on the other hand, which in this case seems to have a primary meaning, the name of St. Athanasius, out of ignorance, and sometimes even intentionally (Apollinarians), could have inscribed works that did not belong to him. Finally, the purity and fidelity of the tradition of the text suffered greatly: the Luciferians 1088 and the Nestorians distorted the text of the original works of St. Afanasia. Therefore, when printed editions of the works of St. Athanasius, then at the same time the need for a critical study of them immediately became clear, and above all in relation to the question of authenticity, which continues to this day, but even now cannot yet be considered complete. The best Greek edition of the works of St. Athanasius belongs to the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Mavra (Maurinians): it may be called an outstanding monument to the publishing and scientific merits of the Benedictine Order. It was prepared by Maran, the publisher of the works of St. Basil the Great, but executed and completed by Montfaucon (1655–1741) 1089, one of the most remarkable representatives of the Maurinian congregation. Montfaucon made every effort to give the text of the works of St. Athanasius is exemplary: he used all the previous editions, studied all the manuscripts containing the works of St. Athanasius, which the book depositories of Europe could supply him with. The collection of works of St. published under his leadership. Athanasius contains everything that has been preserved with the name of this father in Greek and Latin: Omnia opera, quae extant vel quae ejus nomine circumferuntur, therefore, all the works that exist or are in circulation under his name are not only genuine, but also forged. All works that have come down under the name of St. Athanasius, are given in a carefully processed and strictly ordered form; they are divided into three groups - genuine (genuina), dubious (dubia) and spurious (spuria), and historical, philological and paleographic data are given to justify this division. Creations recognized as authentic are arranged, as far as possible, in chronological order; the text is critical based on a comparison of manuscripts, and the most important discrepancies are indicated. In addition to a detailed biography of St. Afanasy, the publication is equipped with a number of indexes and many historical and critical notes. Montfaucon continued his work on the study of the works of St. Afanasy and upon the publication of this publication. He discovered several more fragments from the lost works of St. Athanasius, which he published in his publications Collectio nova Patrum and Bibliotheca Coisliniana. These newly discovered works are included in the second edition of the works of St. Athanasius in 1777 in Padua (3 volumes in 4 books). The latest edition, called Editio Veneta, with some additions and in partly changed order, is reprinted in Migne's Patrology (Migne. Patrologiae cursus completus), where it occupies volumes 25–28 of the Greek series (issued in 1857). Everything under the name of St. Athanasius was published after this 1090, - or it was known before this and was missed by Min 1091, or it does not matter 1092. But works of a literary critical nature, continuing to the present day, complement and correct the works and conclusions of the Benedictines 1093. Into Russian the collected works of St. Athanasius translated by the Moscow Theological Academy (first edition in 1851–1854 and second edition with additions in 1902–1903). The translation is based on the text of the Montfaucon edition with later additions to it. Only those works whose authenticity can be verified more or less reliably 1094 are translated. The initial translation was produced under the editorship of Professor [Prot.] P. S. Delitsyn, known for his experience in translations. The Russian translation is distinguished by accuracy and clarity, for which purity of language and fluency of speech were sometimes sacrificed. 1) Between the works of St. Athanasius, according to the usual opinion, wrote apologetic treatises earlier than others: “The Word against the Gentiles [(or: against the Hellenes)]” 1095 and “The Word on the Incarnation of God the Word” 1096. Both works represent, in fact, two parts of one apology for Christianity. This is directly indicated by the beginning of the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word”: “In the previous word, taking a little from much, but in sufficient measure, we discussed the delusion of the pagans regarding idols, their superstition,” etc. d. (cap. 1.1); here the author repeatedly refers to the “Word against the Hellenes” as standing with the second “Word” in an inextricable connection: “as it was said about this in the first word” (cap. 4.4), “what was said before” (cap. I.5). “The Word Against the Hellenes” begins with the promise of offering a little about the faith of Christ; but this is discussed only in the “Tale of the Incarnation”, therefore, according to the original plan, both works in their content should have represented something unified. In the first work, the author sets himself the task, first of all, to expose the ignorance of unbelievers, showing them that the faith of Christ the Savior does not deserve contempt at all and cannot be considered devoid of a reasonable basis, so that, after exposing the lie, the truth will shine by itself and so that for the addressee, whom he calls “the most blessed,” it is certain that he believed in the truth and, having come to know Christ, did not fall into deception (cap. 1). In the first part (cap. 2–29), the author refutes idolatry, the source of which he sees in the sin of man, which turned him away from the true God to the sensory world, and in detail and comprehensively proves the contradiction of idolatry to sound reason. The second part (cap. 30–47) makes it clear that there is only one God, Whom the Christian religion worships. The truth of His existence is led, first of all, by the study of the human soul, which is the image of God, endowed with reason and immortal (cap. 30–34), as well as observation of the visible world, contemplation of the amazing order and harmony in the universe (cap. 35–39). Further, having established that there must be one One by whom the world was created, preserved and governed, he proves that this Creator and Governor of the universe is the Divine Logos Himself, and depicts the nature of the Logos, His activity in preserving and governing the world, omnipotence, goodness and wisdom, adding that he who knows the Divine Logos also knows God the Father (cap. 40-45); all this is confirmed by evidence from the Holy Scriptures (cap. 45-47). In conclusion, the author says that faith in the Divine Logos and piety will have the fruit of immortality and the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who follow the opposite path will be rewarded with great shame and irresistible danger on the day of judgment. In the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word,” the author shows in the incarnation the correction and restoration of the original work destroyed by sin; In order to return to man the principle of life and the knowledge of the one God, the Word became incarnate, died and was resurrected. He argues that the incarnation was necessary, possible, and worthy of God. The first part (cap. 1–32) explains the reason why He, who by His nature is incorporeal and is the Divine Word, by the mercy and goodness of the Father, for the sake of our salvation, appeared in human flesh. In the second part (cap. 33–57), the author proceeds to refuting the objections of Jews and pagans. He denounces the unbelief of the Jews with Old Testament prophecies, especially carefully explaining Daniel’s prophecy about the seventy weeks (cap. 33–40). Against the pagans, he proves that their various objections, in which they ridicule the mystery of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, are unfounded, and he explains that it is neither impossible nor unreasonable that the Word of God appeared in human flesh (cap. 41-45). Then, on the basis of the miraculous spread and action of Christianity, in which not human, but truly Divine power is revealed, he proves the Divine dignity of the Savior and the Divine origin of the Christian religion (cap. 46–55). In conclusion, he exhorts the reader to read the Scriptures for himself in order to learn the fuller and clearer details of what the author says, but warns that for a correct understanding of them it is necessary to lead a life similar to the lives of those who wrote the sacred books, and the inspired teachers who read the Scriptures and became witnesses of the deity of Christ. All known manuscripts of St. Athanasius and, following them, all their editions without any hesitation adopt the “Tale against the Hellenes” and the “Tale of the Incarnation of God the Word” by St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria. Then their belonging to St. Athanasius is attested by a number of church writers from the 4th to the 9th centuries: Jerome, Theodoret, Leontius, Hadrian, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Patriarch Photius. Positive additions to the historical evidence are provided by those features of the works that give them a local Egyptian flavor. The author of the works constantly points first of all to Egyptian relations. For example, we can point to Contra gentes 23, where, to prove that not only every country, but also every city, every village has its own gods, he points to Egypt: “There is no need to talk about the vile Egyptian customs, they are before everyone’s eyes.” He reveals an amazing familiarity with an area that at that time was considered unknown - with Egyptian religion and mythology (cf. Contra gentes 9; 22; 24; 25; De incarnatione Verbi 45; 47; 51). Therefore, we can say that both works were written in Egypt and primarily for the Egyptians. The dating of both works is usually based on the observation that they do not contain any traces of the Arian struggle and the Nicene creed. As for the first observation, it is not recognized by everyone as correct: they find in these works a slight polemic against Arianism. But the second observation can be considered fair and forces us to believe that their origin was earlier than 325. It is impossible to attribute the writing of these works to a time after 330, because their author often with visible pride contrasts the many pagan cults with the unanimity with which Christians everywhere serve the One and the same Lord (De incarnatione Verbi 46; 49). Such an instruction was unthinkable in those days when a fierce struggle broke out between the Orthodox and Arians and each party taught about a different Christ. This began in 330. On the other hand, the fresh memories permeating both works of examples of Christian martyrdom and the Christian joy with which the ascetics met death indicate their proximity in time to the persecution of Diocletian and his successors (see. especially De incarnatione Verbi 28). These considerations lead to the conclusion that the “Tale against the Hellenes” and the “Sermon on the Incarnation of God the Word” were written around 320, perhaps shortly before the Council of Nicaea. If we accept that St. Athanasius was born in 295, then at the time of writing these works he was about 25 years old 1097. The origin of both works at this time, that is, when St. Athanasius was still relatively young, was not yet a bishop of the Alexandrian Church and was not involved in the struggle for the purity and integrity of the Orthodox teaching, to which he later devoted all his strength and time, which explains their features in comparison with other works of the same author of a later date, which are pointed out as arguments against their belonging to St. Afanasy. Having recently completed his education, St. Athanasius naturally, in his first works, intended for pagans, abundantly applies his knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, as well as other philosophical systems, in observations of the laws of nature, in the works of Homer, and puts his thoughts into a school-rhetorical form, which is not observed in his later works. Later, he devoted himself entirely to practical activities and no longer had time for studying nature and for the rhetorical construction of his works, for scientific studies of Homer, Plato and Heraclitus. In addition, the struggle with Arius and the Arians was not conducted on philosophical grounds at all. In view of these considerations, the authenticity of both works must be considered completely unshakable. 1931 “On the words “all things were handed over to Me by My Father...” (Matthew I: 27)” 1098 - represents a small treatise, perhaps unfinished, or a fragment of a large work, in which the false interpretations that the Arians gave to these words of the Lord are disputed, basing on them their teaching that the Son of God is not eternal and possesses Divine power and other Divine properties not by His very nature, but only by the will of the Father. The author understands them in relation to the Son of man, His work and glorification. He proves the unity of the Father and the Son essentially with the text from the Gospel of John 16:15: "All that the Father has is Mine." As far as is known, there is no other evidence that this work belongs to St. Athanasius, except for the evidence of manuscripts. But in its content and form it bears all the signs of origin from St. Afanasia. The beginning of the treatise, with its indication of those who adhere to the Aryan heresy, Eusebius and his accomplices, suggests its origin during the life of Eusebius of Nicomedia, i.e. before 342. 1932 “District Epistle” 1099 – in this work St. Athanasius talks about the violence carried out during the installation of the Arian bishop Gregory the Cappadocian to the Alexandrian see, and describes the indignation caused by this. St. Athanasius compiled it before his departure to Rome at a time when he was still hiding in the outskirts of Alexandria, therefore, a little after Easter 340 (Gregory entered the city on March 23 of this year). Its authenticity is recognized as indisputable. 1933 "Apology (Protection) against the Arians" 1100 is a work of important historical significance. It contains an account of the history of the discussion of the case of St. by various councils. Athanasius and the story of the relationship of St. father to the Melitians, Arseny and others. In confirmation of St. Athanasius cites a lot of documentary data - messages from councils, bishops, the emperor: in the first part (cap. 3-58) - from the forties of the 4th century, in the second (cap. 59-88) - from the previous time. St. Athanasius disputes and proves the complete inconsistency of all the accusations brought by the Arians personally against him in Tire and Philippopolis. The apology was written around 350 after the return from the second exile (cap. 40; 41) and after the repentance of Ursacius and Valens (cap. 88), but before their second appearance in 351. The last two chapters (89; 90), about the fall of Liberius and Hosius, were added later - hence the debate about their origin from St. Afanasia. And the entire work does not raise doubts about its authenticity. 1934 “Epistle on the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea” 1101. The detailed title defines the subject of the message as follows: “The message is that the Council of Nicaea, having seen the treachery of Eusebius’ adherents, set out [its] definition against the Arian heresy in a decent and pious manner.” The Epistle contains a justification and at the same time a history of the terms έκ της ούσ ίας and όμοουσ ιος, adopted by the Nicene fathers into a symbol, explaining the meaning of the definition and the way in which the fathers were led to the choice of especially the last famous term. The letter is important to the history of the Council of Nicaea. The authenticity of this work is indisputable, and only its dating causes controversy. It obviously assumes the death of Eusebius of Caesarea (cap. 3) and Eusebius of Nicomedia (cap. 9). In general, researchers are inclined to believe that it was written after the return from the second exile and during a period of relative calm; but St. Afanasy foresees the imminent possibility of violent actions on the part of enemies (cap. 2). Based on this, it can be written between 346–355, more precisely around 350 or 351. 1935 “About Dionysius[, bishop] 1102 of Alexandria, namely, that he, like the Council of Nicaea, thinks contrary to the Arian heresy, and in vain the Arians slander him, as if he were of the same mind with them” 1103. There is no reason to assume that the work was caused by the fact that the Arians objected to the statement of St. Athanasius, who counted Dionysius in his work “On the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea” as a witness in favor of ομοούσιος [(De decretis 25.3–5)]; there is no indication of this in the content of the work. It is more natural to assume that the reason for its composition was the abuse on the part of the Arians of the letter addressed to St. Dionysius to the Bishops of Alexandria Euphranor and Ammonius. St. Athanasius asserts that his famous predecessor, using expressions cited by the Arians, speaks not of the Word, but of Christ, considered in His human nature. Since St. Dionysius wrote in defense of himself precisely against this understanding of his words by some Christians, which was adopted by the Arians, then St. Athanasius in his letter provides significant extracts from these works, refuting the references of the Arians and showing that Dionysius thought about the Son of God in a completely Orthodox way and was completely alien to Arian opinions. Since St. Athanasius had at hand all the works of St. Dionysius, now mostly lost, knew the real meaning of his words and expressions at that time and set forth the view of St. that had been adopted by the Alexandrian Church. Dionysius, then this message is important for a correct assessment of the theological views of St. Dionysius. This treatise was compiled at the same time as the previous one, in some ways a little earlier, in others later. 1936 "Epistle to Dracontius" 1104. Dracontius, the abbot of the monastery, was elected bishop of Hermopolis, but ran away and hid; St. Athanasius wrote him a letter, with which he warns against some who think to see in episcopacy the cause of sin or imagine that they will not find a subject for Christian renunciation outside of monastic life. Thus encouraged, the elected bishop accepted the burden of government and soon had the opportunity to become a confessor of the faith. The epistle was written before Easter 354 or 355. 1937 “Message to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya” 1105 written by St. Athanasius after he escaped the hands of the ruler of Syrian on the night of February 8-9, 356, in order to warn the bishops of Egypt and Libya against the plans of the Arians and, in particular, against any symbols that they intended to put into circulation and impose under threats of expulsion, explaining that in the newly compiled symbols of faith, under a plausible appearance, often under passages cited from the Holy Scriptures, is hidden Arian impiety; he points out their instability, special tricks in compiling and introducing them, sets out and refutes the actual teaching of Arius and points to his death as a manifestation of the Divine judgment over the heretic. In conclusion, St. Athanasius calls on pastors to courageously endure all kinds of violence, to be ready to endure everything rather than abandon the Nicene Symbol and the defense of the truth. This message was composed after February 9, 356. and until February 24, 356, when George the Cappadocian entered Alexandria, but when they were already talking about the intention to send him to Egypt (cap. 7). 1938 “Apology to Emperor Constantius” (“Defensive speech before King Constantius”) 1106 was probably written in the summer of 357, when George the Cappadocian was in Alexandria, and aims to refute the accusations that were made by the enemies of St. Athanasius before the Emperor Constantius, when after the death of the usurper Magnentius he became autocratic, and which led to the third exile of St. Athanasius, namely, that he: a) during frequent visits and conversations with Constantius, incited him against Constantius and tried to sow enmity between the brothers, b) sent letters to the usurper Magnentius in order to gain his favor, c) in the great Alexandrian church, built at the expense of Constantius, when the building was not yet completed and had not been consecrated, he allowed a solemn ceremony to take place divine services and d) having received an order from Constantius to go to Italy, where he himself intended to arrive, he did not obey. With this part of the apology of St. Athanasius went to Constantius to personally defend his cause - he was not convinced that the emperor was so devoted to Arianism, and thought that the Arians allowed themselves to do a lot without his knowledge. But on the way he received such bad information about the intentions and deeds of Emperor Constantius that he was fully convinced of the unthinkability of personal defense of his cause. He again took refuge in the desert and supplemented his apology with a statement of facts that initially seemed incredible to him (the exile of Liberius, Hosius, Paulinus of Trier, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercella, Lucifer of Calaris and others for their refusal to sign the condemnation of Athanasius and the violent measures of Constantius, by which the rest of the Western bishops were forced to sign). The apology is distinguished by a calm tone, full of dignity, and strength of argument. In style, this is one of the best works of St. Afanasia. At the end of the apology to Constantius, Athanasius defends himself regarding the emperor’s mocking expression (cap. 30) that he fled from Alexandria out of cowardice. Soon he devoted an entire essay to this issue: 10) “Apology for his flight” (“A defensive word in which St. Athanasius justifies his flight during the persecution carried out by the Duke Sirian”) 1107. Athanasius fled before the mercenaries; his enemies did not fail to take advantage of the opportunity to disgrace him, proving that out of cowardice he abandoned his flock when they were subjected to special disasters. The answer to these accusations was an apology, which was highly respected by ancient writers and in language and style was almost inferior to its predecessor. St. Athanasius with dignity exposes the true feelings of his accusers, proves that in certain circumstances it is not only permissible for a person, but directly and necessarily to ensure his life and safety by flight, and contrasts them with the teachings of Christ, His example and the examples of the prophets and apostles; then, going on the offensive, he forcefully depicts the wild rage of his pursuers and their sad exploits, and describes the circumstances of his escape, accomplished with the help of God. This apology was composed before the death of Leontius of Antioch, at least until the time when the news of this death reached St. Athanasius (cap. 1), probably at the end of 357. 11) “Epistle to Serapion” 1108 (about the death of Arius). Serapion, Bishop of Tmuy and friend of St. Athanasius, asked to report on the saint’s own trials[, on the Arian heresy] 1109 and on the death of Arius. On the first two points of St. Athanasius wrote to Serapion his work, compiled for the monks: “From this,” says St. Athanasius, “you can find out what concerns me and the heresy” (1.2). This work can only be “The History of the Arians to the Monks.” Did St. Athanasius, in order to refute Arianism, another work of a more dogmatic nature and whether it is located between his works that have come down to us - these questions cannot be explained satisfactorily. In the message of St. Athanasius answers Serapion's third request; he tells about the death of Arius what he learned from the presbyter Macarius, who was in Constantinople during this event, and concludes that in the unfortunate fate of Arius there is no doubt that God’s judgment over heretical teachings was manifested, which should encourage the Arians to return to the true Church. 12) “Epistle [to the monks]” 1110 and “History of the Arians to the monks” 1111. Two works, internally related to each other as a book and a preface or accompanying message. In well-known ancient catalogues, they are usually designated simply as “Epistle to Monks or Hermits.” The title "History of the Arians" is not original; it well denotes the subject of the book, compiled to satisfy the desires of the monks of Thebaid and not intended, according to its author, for publication. It is a concise description of the Arians' persecution of the Orthodox from 335 to 357. In it, the author often expresses the feeling of indignation caused by the untruths of the Arians, which he witnessed, and the difficult state of church affairs, upset by heresy. The circumstances in which St. Athanasius, and the polemical goal that he pursued in composing this work, sufficiently explain why the calm and cold tone of a historian is not found in him. “The History of the Arians” begins ex abrupto: “They, for the purpose of building all this, in a short time brought it to fruition,” and then it talks about the Council of Jerusalem in 335. One might think that the scribes omitted the information that was already in the “Apology against the Arians,” as well as the beginning or the first part of the work, because it repeated the second part of the apology. When St. Athanasius wrote this work, Leontius of Antioch was still alive and George the Cappadocian ruled the [Alexandrian] 1112 Church; thus, it must be dated to the end of 357 or the beginning of 358. The message about the fall of the Roman bishop Liberius (cap. 41) is considered a later insertion and raises the question of its authenticity, as well as the last chapters of the Apology against the Arians. 13) “Four words against the Arians” 1113. These four speeches or books (λόγοι) “Against the Arians” are the main dogmatic work of St. Athanasius, representing a complete and comprehensive refutation of Arianism and a presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the deity of the Word and the Holy Trinity. Athanasius’s goal was “to reveal the folds in the chest of the vile heresy and show the stench of its recklessness, so that those who are still far from it would flee it, and those deceived by it would repent and with open eyes of the heart would understand that just as darkness is not light, and lies are not truth, so the Arian heresy is not good” (I, 1). To this end, in the first book he expounds the teaching of Arius on the basis of the Thalins and, first of all, emphasizes its novelty, contrasting the true and catholic teaching handed down by the fathers (cap. 1-9), and then proves by explaining the passages of Holy Scripture falsely interpreted by the Arians, and with the help of rational arguments, that the Son of God did not come from nothing and was not created from anything, but is eternal, begotten from the essence of the Father; at the same time, the nature of this birth and its difference from human birth is explained, and various intricacies of heretics are resolved (cap. 10–39). In the rest of the part, as well as in the second and third word, he analyzes and explains the passages of Holy Scripture that were perverted by the Arians, and establishes their true meaning, and almost the entire second word is occupied with defining the true meaning of the saying: “The Lord created Me...” (Proverbs 8:22). In the fourth word, the author carefully defines the mutual relationship of the Father and the Son, proving especially that the Word is not a simple quality of the Father, not another principle existing in itself, but the own birth of the Father’s nature, different from him, but not separate, and refutes Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, although there is also talk about Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Recently, the question has been sharply raised regarding the fourth word: they deny not only its connection with the first three, but also its affiliation with St. Afanasy. To prove that the so-called IV word was not originally connected with the rest, they point out first of all that the IV word in some manuscripts containing the first three is completely absent, and in some other works are adjacent to the III word. In addition, in terms of its content, the fourth word is not required by the first three, but rather is excluded by them: in it the author gives a justification of Orthodox Christology, touching, on the one hand, the relationship of the Logos to God, on the other hand, His incarnation, and partly sets out what was discussed in the first words; but the main objection is not directed against the Arians - only chapters 1-8 are directed against them - but against other enemies of Orthodox teaching: chapters 8-29 against Marcellus of Ancyra, and from the 30th to the end [the author] refutes the false teaching of Paul of Samosata and his adherents. Why does the very title “Against the Arians” not correspond to the content of word IV. But word IV not only does not stand in connection with words I–III “Against the Arians,” but, they say, does not belong to St. Afanasy. The assumption of J. Dräseke, identifying it with the “Book of Faith against the Arians,” which (according to Jerome, De vir. Sh. 127) Maximus, a contender for the see of Constantinople, presented in 381 to the Emperor Gratian, is recognized as having no significance at all, but the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe inauthenticity of the IV word is vigorously supported. The basis for this is a style that is said to be of a completely different character: St. Afanasy writes at length, and in disputes with opponents loves to refute their objections with great thoroughness; Meanwhile, in the author of the fourth word, one thought is crowded by another, so the presentation is concise, the sentences are mostly short. With great dialectical skill, which St. does not achieve. Afanasy, the author knows how to make his opponents ad absurdum. However, this difference in style is explained by the fact that the IV word is only an outline or a collection of materials and fragments for refuting the Eusebians and Marcellians; this is partly responsible for the amazing conciseness - some passages give the impression as if the author only wanted to outline the train of thought of the argument (cap. 3: “the same should be said about the Force”; cf. cap. 15 sq.); This explains the fragmentary beginning of chapters 1, 5, 9 and 31. Although we must agree that all the features of style cannot be explained in this way. On the other hand, the origin of the word is from St. Athanasius is supported not only by many parallels in thoughts between words III and IV, but even more so by the fact that the simultaneous polemic against the Eusebians and against Marcellus was not as clear among any of the eastern opponents of the Eusebians as among St. Afanasia. Under such conditions, one cannot categorically affirm or deny the authenticity of the IV word - it must be attributed to dubia 1114. The origin of the Words Against the Arians is usually believed to be between 356 and 361. - on the third exile of St. Afanasia; but recently, some researchers, based on the text of the words and historical hints in them, have argued in favor of an earlier dating, namely in 338, 339 or 347–350. Words of St. Athanasius “Against the Arians” constitutes the first attempt at a detailed and complete analysis of the foundations on which the Arian teaching was based. The desire and need to reveal as much as possible all types of Arianism and not leave even minor objections to Orthodox teaching without refutation led to repeated repetitions that violate the harmony of the plan and the systematic presentation. The clear awareness of the danger of the situation and the fiery jealousy of the author sometimes gave his polemics a harsh tone. The first experience turned out to be extremely successful. He is distinguished by: deep penetration into dogmatic truths with an unswervingly true, strictly ecclesiastical understanding of them, firmness and determination of inner conviction, awareness of the importance of the teaching being revealed, abundance, subtlety and clarity of thoughts, accuracy of expressions, extensive knowledge and deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures, the power of dialectics, simplicity of depiction. These merits of the “Words against the Arians” were also recognized by the contemporaries of St. Athanasius - they were guided in their works by Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. They are called a classic presentation of the doctrine of the second Person of the Holy Trinity and a source of theology. 14) “Epistle to Serapion” 1115. St. Athanasius wrote four epistles addressed to Serapion, Bishop of Tmuya, during the third exile of the saint, between 356 and 361, perhaps in 359, after the message about the death of Arius. The reason for them was a letter from Serapion, in which he informed St. Athanasius that “some, although they retreated from the Arians for their blasphemy against the Son of God, nevertheless think incorrectly about the Holy Spirit and claim that the Holy Spirit is not only a creature, but even one of the ministering spirits, and differs only in degree from the angels” (I, 1). St. Athanasius calls these heretics τροπικοί because they sought to find metaphors and images (τρόποι), and not direct speech in all those places of Holy Scripture with which the Orthodox proved the deity of the Holy Spirit, explaining them τροπικώς. The first letter sets out in detail the doctrine of the deity of St. Spirit, revealing the teaching about Him from the Holy Scriptures and Church Tradition and proving the connection of the new error with Arianism. At Serapion’s request to more briefly outline the teaching about the Holy Spirit, so that it would be more convenient to give advice to those asking about faith and reject errors, St. Athanasius responded with two more epistles, and prefaced the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (in the second epistle) with a brief summary of the doctrine of the divinity of the Word on the basis that, having knowledge of the Son, one can acquire good knowledge of the Spirit: “For what property we have learned in the Son with the Father, the same property we find the Spirit has with the Son” 1116 (III, 1). The third message briefly outlines the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Due to the fact that the second and third messages are so closely related in content, they are considered to be one message, which was subsequently separated by mistake. In their content, these two letters represent an extract from other works of St. Afanasia. The fourth letter provides an answer to the new objections of the heretics regarding the Holy Spirit, who ironically said: “If the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then shouldn’t it... that He is the Son, and that there are two brothers - the Word and the Spirit? or: “If the Spirit receives from the Son and is given by the Son... then doesn’t it follow that the Father is the grandfather, and the Spirit is His grandson?” (IV, 1). St. Athanasius expresses the desire that in the teaching about the mystery of the Holy Trinity, incomprehensible to the human mind, what is taught by the Holy Scriptures and the faith devoted to the Church will be preserved unshakably, without the admixture of human guesses and conclusions. Then he dwells in detail on the doctrine of sin against the Holy Spirit, in response to Serapion’s question about the meaning of the text, that sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the future. Pointing out the difficulty of interpreting it, he explains it as directed against those persons who would dare to attribute to the devil and demons the manifestation of Divine power in the incarnate God the Word. Regarding Epistle IV, the question is raised whether it originally covered all 23 chapters, as is now the case in printed editions. The fact is that in the manuscripts only chapters 1–7 are placed as IV letters, the rest (8–23), representing an explanation of Matt. 12:32, for the most part are placed separately, and thus the manuscript tradition does not speak in favor of both parts belonging to one work. In addition, in terms of its content, the second part does not seem to be connected with the first, so it is considered as an excerpt from another message, perhaps also sent to Serapion, 1117. The authenticity of all messages is not disputed. 15) “Message about the councils that took place in Ariminum Italia and Seleucia Isauria” 1118. St. Athanasius first tells about what happened at these councils and about the machinations of the Arians, as a result of which Constantius forced the Orthodox bishops to sign the Arian symbol, and then, regarding the symbols developed at them, he establishes a striking contrast between the firmness of the Orthodox faith, defined in Nicaea, and the instability of all Arian confessions of faith from the beginning of the heresy to the various Seleucan formulas; for proof, eleven confessions of faith are given, compiled by the Arians at different times. This doctrinal anarchy can only be healed by a sincere acceptance of the Nicene Confession and its ομοούσιος. St. Athanasius justifies this term, but at the same time reveals a conciliatory attitude towards the Omiusians, who, like Basil of Ancyra, “accept everything else that is written in Nicaea, but doubt only the saying: “consubstantiality””; with them “we reason as brothers with brothers who have the same thought with us and only doubt about the naming” (cap. 41). The work was written at the end of 359, when the council in Arimin had not yet ended (cap. 55). Chapters 30–31, containing the decisions of the councils of Nika and Constantinople, are inserted subsequently. 16) “Scroll to the Antiochians” 1119 is a conciliar letter to the Antiochian Church, sent by St. Athanasius, on behalf of the bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt and Libya, who gathered in Alexandria in 362, reports on the decision made at the council regarding the conditions for the admission of Arians to the Church. A necessary condition for acceptance into the Church was recognized as the confession of the Nicene faith, the condemnation of Arianism, the doctrine of the creation of the Holy Spirit, as well as all other heresies (Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, the Manichaeans, Euzoius and Eudoxius); At the same time, the decrees of the Council of Nicaea were confirmed, the confession of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son was expressed, and the perception by the Son of God in the incarnation of a perfect man, consisting not only of a body, but also of a rational soul. In view of the fact that the Orthodox in Antioch argued among themselves regarding the use of the terms ούσία and ύπόστασις, with the followers of Meletius talking about one ούσία and three hypostases, and the supporters of Paulinus recognized it as necessary to preserve consubstantiality to confess only one hypostasis, the council, considering both of them to think correctly and who disagreed only about words, suggested to them the safest way - to use the expressions of the Nicene symbol. 17) “Epistle to Emperor Jovian on Faith” 1120. In it St. Athanasius convinces Jovian to adhere to the rules of Orthodoxy - the Nicene symbol, confirmed by all local Churches, sets out the symbol itself, ending with the confession of the deity of the Holy Spirit and the consubstantial Trinity. The letter was written on behalf of the Council of Alexandria in 363 in response to the request of the new emperor Jovian. 18) “The Life of St. Anthony” 1121, described by St. Athanasius in a letter to monks staying in foreign countries, probably to the Western monks of Italy and Gaul, in response to their expressed desire to know how Blessed Anthony began his ascetic deeds, who he used to be, how he ended his life and whether the widespread legends about him are true. Athanasius personally knew St. from a young age. Anthony and stood close to him, so he could write based on his own memories. However, he does not give a biography in the proper sense, but shows in the patriarch of the hermits an example of Christian perfection, briefly outlines his ascetic teaching and narrates his struggle with demons. St. Gregory the Theologian says that St. Athanasius, describing the acts of the divine Anthony, promulgated in the form of history the rule of religious life (Orat. XXI, 5). This work was a great success and spread the ideas of Egyptian monasticism in the East and West. It is not without reason that the year 357, the third exile, is considered to be the time of its composition; some, however, date it back to 365. Even during the life of St. Athanasius, probably between 365 and 370, the life was translated (in fact, revised) by the presbyter Evagrius, who was later Bishop of Antioch, into Latin, and by an unknown person into Syriac. Both in the East and in the West, the work had a strong influence on Christian ascetic life, causing real enthusiasm for it. About the ownership of this work by St. Athanasius is told by St. Gregory the Theologian, Ephraim the Syrian, blessed. Jerome and other church writers. But despite the numerous evidence of tradition, the authenticity and even reliability of the content of the “Life” was subjected to strong attacks, and its historical character was completely rejected: it was seen as a tendentious work of already established monasticism. However, other researchers, both Catholic and Protestant, defended the authenticity of the Life no less vigorously. The content and method of presentation speak for Athanasius. The doctrine of faith and its actions, about demons, about methods of fighting the Arians, formulas for quoting biblical books, etc. reveal a close relationship with the works of St. Afanasia. And it is now argued (Schwartz) that only biased criticism can doubt the authenticity of the Life of St. Anthony. 19) “Message to the African Bishops” 1122 is a conciliar letter written on behalf of 90 bishops of Egypt and Libya with the aim of warning the bishops of West Africa against the intrigues of the Omians, who, on the basis of the Nicene formula, did not want to know anything about ούσια and ίπτόστασις and sought to replace the Nicene Confession with the Ariminian. Contrary to this, St. Athanasius emphasizes the complete sufficiency of the Nicene symbol and exhorts to firmly adhere to it, and provides information about the Council of Nicaea and Arimin. Since the letter mentions the Roman Council, which was chaired by Damasus, at which Ursacius and Valens were condemned (cap. 10), as well as other councils, its composition is attributed to 369 or 370. 20) “Epistle to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth” 1123. Bishop Epictetus of Corinth addressed St. Athanasius for advice regarding the Christological disputes that had arisen in his Church. Some argued that the Word was transformed into flesh and changed in His own nature; “The Godhead, coessential with the Father, was circumcised and from being perfect became imperfect.” They assimilated to Him a body, which He did not receive from the Virgin Mary, but from His own essence formed for Himself a convenient [(παθητόν)] body; they concluded that the body is consubstantial with the deity of the Word, that the body is not later than the deity of the Word, but has always been, coeternal with Him, and that this body suffered. The opposite party taught that the Word descended on a holy man as on one of the prophets, and did not Himself become a man, having received a body from Mary, and another is Christ, and another is God’s Word, before Mary and before the ages the Son of the Father (cap. 2). It is difficult to say where the source of these false teachings was. As for the second party, one can see in it an expression of Antiochian tendencies. But regarding the first, there is significant disagreement among researchers: apparently, Epictetus was dealing with positions that partly came from the school of Apollinaris, partly were derived under Apollinarian influence from Orthodox and Arian teaching; but it is even impossible to say with certainty whether these provisions are dependent on Apollinaris, since there are no signs of the Apollinarian doctrine of σώμα άνόητον [a body without a mind]. St. Athanasius with equal energy rejects both understandings as contrary to the Catholic faith. Refuting the first, he asserts with the greatest clarity that the true Word was made man and the body of the Lord was human by nature, borrowed from Mary and true; the body in which the Word was [is not consubstantial with the Divinity, but truly begotten of Mary; and the Word itself] 1124 was not changed into flesh and bones, but appeared in the flesh (cap. 7-8). Against the teaching of the second party of St. Athanasius affirms the personal identity of the Word and Christ (cap. 10–12). As can be seen from the beginning of the epistle, it was written after the Roman Council (369–370), which anathematized Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius and Valens, therefore, in 370 or 371. The Epistle enjoyed great authority in ancient times. Apollinaris agreed with him. Epiphanius accepted it in his refutation of Apollinarianism. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon recognized in it an expression of their own conviction. In the fight against Nestorianism, it was subject to distortion, and Cyril of Alexandria defended its original text on the basis of “ancient copies.” 21) “Message to Bishop Adelphius” 1125. Bishop and confessor Adelphius told St. Athanasius that some of the heretics reproach the Orthodox that, while worshiping Christ, Whom, however, they recognize as a true and perfect man, they worship the creature, and they themselves rejected the worship of the body of the Savior. St. Athanasius condemns these heretics and proves that we must worship Christ - God and man, and this does not mean worshiping a creature, but the Word made man. Due to the union of the Divine and human natures into a single hypostasis of God, the Word should not separate human nature from the Word in order to worship the Word alone, but God’s reverence should be given to the Word and in the form of a servant, taken by Him for our salvation. Whoever dishonors the church dishonors the Lord in the church, and whoever separates the Word from the body will take away [(άθίτίΐ)] the grace given in him. There is no data in itself to determine the time of origin of the message, but in terms of its content it is close to the previous message, and therefore it is usually dated to approximately 371. 22) “Epistle to Maxim the Philosopher” 1126. Maximus the Philosopher - probably the one who later sought the episcopal see in Constantinople - wrote St. Athanasius regarding various heretics: some denied that Christ is God, others said that the Word descended on man, but did not become man, and still others, finally, saw in Christ a man born naturally. St. Athanasius refutes these misconceptions; he proves that the crucified Christ is the Lord of glory Himself, that all should worship Him as the true God, and that in the actions of Christ Divine glory and power are revealed at the same time as human weakness. The message in its content has much in common with previous messages and refers to the same time. 23) “Easter” or “Festive messages” 1127. These are pastoral letters to the Churches and monasteries of the Patriarch of Alexandria, written shortly after the feast of the Epiphany. There has long been a custom, again confirmed by the Council of Nicea, by virtue of which the Alexandrian bishops wrote Easter messages announcing the time of fasting and Easter with appropriate exhortations. Athanasius, even when he was in exile, tried, as far as possible, to be faithful to this custom. Soon after his death, persons close to the Alexandrian saint united them into a congregation. From the Greek text of the epistles of St. Athanasius and the Coptic translation of them, only isolated fragments have survived. But in 1842 and 1847 In the Nitrian Monastery of Our Lady, a Syriac translation of 13 Easter messages for the years from 329 to 348 was found in an 8th century manuscript. This Syriac translation is preceded by a preface or index, covering the entire period of the bishopric of St. Afanasia; it indicates for each year the time of celebration of Easter, the consuls, the prefect of Egypt and the main events relating to the life of the saint. This Syrian chronicle, together with another chronicle published in 1738 and usually designated Historia acephala, as well as the Easter Epistles, constitute documents of the first order for the history of St. Athanasius, especially with regard to chronology. Of greatest interest is the 39th message (367) on the canon of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 1128; in it the 27 books of the current New Testament are firmly established for the first time as the only canonical ones. The appendix contains books of the second order, intended for edification - the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, as well as the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” and “The Shepherd”. The Easter messages are also important in that they depict that side of the pastoral ministry of St. Athanasius, which takes up little space in his other works, namely moral instruction; these are real sermons in the form of district epistles, where all the duties of the Christian life are set out in short exhortations. 24) Other letters from St. Athanasius, almost all are lost: what has survived, except for the noted messages, has little meaning. Of these, we can note: a) “To the monk Am[m]un” with instructions on maintaining the purity of the flesh, marriage and virgin life, written before 354; b) “To the Monks” 1129 (different from the one in which the “History of the Arians” was written), written in 358 to protect hermits from heretics; c) two letters “To Lucifer” 1130, Bishop of Calaris (359 or 360), in which St. Athanasius praises him for his zeal and steadfastness in the Orthodox faith; d) “To Rufinian” 1131, which reports the decisions of the Council of Alexandria in 362 regarding the return of the apostate Arians to the Church; e) “To Orsisius” two letters of 1132 (363 and 364), one of them concerns the visit of St. Athanasius of the Tavenna monastery, the second - the death of St. Theodora; f) “To John and Antiochus” 1133, “To Palladius” 1134 - two letters in which St. Athanasius defends St. Basil from unjust attacks (in 372); g) fragment of the message to “Kdiodorus”, Bishop of Tire 1135. 25) “Epistle to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms” 1136 is an instruction on the study and use of the psalms, in which the Divine and human being of Christ is prophetically indicated and in which one can find consolation in all life relationships: in the psalms all the feelings of the human soul are expressed - in them he prays, asks, thanks, pours out his heart, so to speak, in his own words. These pieces of advice were put into the mouth of a certain hardworking old man and addressed, in the form of a letter, to a hermit named Marcellinus. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this message: the usage of words and the nature of the style are the same as in scripture. yah st. Athanasius, but it cannot be identified with the essay “On the Inscriptions of Psalms”, about which the blessed one speaks. Jerome (De vir. ill. 87). 26) “Exposition of Faith” 1137 – a symbol in which the Catholic faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is set out and explained. Until recently, his belonging to St. Athanasius was not questioned; but now they no longer find it possible to place it among the indisputably authentic works of the Alexandrian saint. The only witness from the ancient church writers can be recognized as Facundus of Hermian, who in the XI book of his work “In Defense of the Three Chapters” speaks about the “Exposition of the Symbol” of St. Athanasius 1138. However, little importance is attached to this lack of historical evidence - more attention is paid to the very content of the “Exposition of Faith”, in which many features are found that make its origin from St. Afanasia. In fact, the work in question does not represent a symbol, but only an explanation of it - but the symbol underlying it is textually included in the explanation, and it can be highlighted. The symbol thus obtained is not identical with any of the ancient creeds; therefore, it was compiled by the author of the explanation himself, and in any case the latter belongs to the same theological direction that found expression in this symbol. Here, first of all, the question is raised whether it is likely that St. Athanasius, a tireless fighter for the Nicene symbol, could allow the creation of his own or the use of a symbol that differs significantly from the Nicene symbol. In the symbol “Statement of Faith” we find άγέννητος (1.1), while St. Athanasius in the first word “Against the Arians” (cap. 30) and “On the Definitions of the Council of Nicaea” (cap. 28) decisively polemicizes against this term. Even more striking is the presentation of the second clause: while in the Nicene Creed and in most modern confessions it is stated as follows: “and into one Lord Jesus Christ... begotten,” etc. (without Λόγος), here Λόγος is placed in first place (“And into one [Only Begotten] 1139 Word, Wisdom, Son,” etc. etc.), and the name “Jesus Christ” is completely absent from the symbol 1140 and is placed only in the second half of the chapter, but not to designate the one Lord, as is usually the case with St. Athanasius, but as the name of a person whom the Word accepted. We will not touch on other details; we will only note that in the theology of both the symbol and its explanation there are clear features of the Antiochian direction. If, moreover, we take into account the still noted presence, albeit small, of differences in the language and style of the “Exposition of Faith” in comparison with the original works of St. Athanasius, it will be clear why they now consider it necessary to place the “Exposition of Faith” at least among the dubia of St. Afanasia. The work is directed against the Arians and Sabellians. Its time of origin cannot be precisely determined. The use of the expression όμοιος τω Πατρι [like the Father] (cap. 1.5) in the Homousian confession of faith (cap. 2.2) was impossible after the speech of the Omian party, therefore, around 358, but besides this limit, no other limit can be specified as soon as 325 - the time of the Council of Nicaea. 27) “The most extensive discourse on faith” 1141 - first published by Montfaucon, who discovered it in a manuscript of the 10th century. Montfaucon accompanied the publication of this work with a lively expression of joy that “the excellent work of Athanasius against the Arians and other modern saints” had been found again. Athanasius of the heretics, in which he, through syllogisms and dilemmas, exposes and refutes these enemies of the light." The work reveals the doctrine of the deity of the incarnate Word and its relationship to human nature; then a large number of texts of Holy Scripture are given, pointing to both the human and the Divine nature in Christ. Most scholars recognize the authenticity of the "Word", as well as the "Exposition of Faith", with which it is internally connected. But a careful analysis of the “Most Extensive Discourse on Faith” leads to very interesting data regarding its nature. First of all, it was discovered that chapters 5–12 were borrowed from the “Tale of the Incarnation,” and the use was almost literal; further, part of chapter 14, the conclusion of chapter 21 and chapter 22 are taken from the Exposition of Faith. It seems even more strange that in the Lay itself some sections are repeated: the end of chapter 13 is literally at the end of chapter 37; Chapter 15, with minor changes, is repeated in half of Chapter 25; Chapter 16 is equal to the end of Chapter 26 and the beginning of Chapter 27, the first half of Chapter 17 is [in] Chapter 28; the second half of chapter 17 is repeated at the beginning of chapter 19, and the first half of this latter is repeated in chapter 28; beginning of chapter 18 – [at the beginning of] chapter 21; Chapter 19 - [in] chapters 28 and 29. Further, the text of the Lay undoubtedly suffers from many gaps and, in addition, a lack of connection between the individual parts. Most chapters start out completely sketchy. A whole series of chapters is nothing more than a set of provisions that were initially not connected with each other, and in their current combination remain unadapted to each other; this is quite clear in chapters 5–12; similar relationships are observed in chapters 13–20 - most of these chapters are composed of passages from the Exposition of Faith and from provisions that are in their place in later chapters. Chapters starting from 20 are better composed, but have as little connection with each other as the previous ones. This character of the “Most Extensive Discourse on Faith” in itself raises doubts as to whether it belongs to St. Afanasy. But, in addition, they find that the details of the content of the “Word” further confirm this unfavorable conclusion: in the “Word” all the signs of the theology of the Antiochian school appear even more clearly than in the “Exposition of Faith”. According to all these data, they deny that this work belongs to St. Afanasy. But with such a decisive conclusion, it is necessary to take into account the tradition that speaks of the ownership of the “Most Extensive Word on Faith” by St. Afanasy. True, the handwritten tradition belongs to a later time (manuscript of the 10th century), but quotations from it are already found in Theodoret: in all three dialogues of his “Eranist” he cites nine passages from the “Great Word on Faith” - St. Afanasia. By the end of the 5th century. traces appear again in the Books of the Two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches, written by Pope Gelasius (492–496) 1143 ; three quotations clearly name as their source the “Great Word on Faith” by St. Athanasius and are indeed in the work under consideration. The way out of the difficulty presented by the nature of the work, on the one hand, and the evidence of antiquity, on the other, can be found by following this path: St. Athanasius actually wrote “The Great Word about Faith,” but it has not been preserved in its original form. Currently, we have a reworking of it, which has also come to us in fragments and, perhaps, with distortions, but in any case with additions from other sources and, in particular, from the works of St. Afanasia. Reconstruction of the original work seems impossible. 28) “On the appearance in the flesh of God the Word and against the Arians” 1144 - in its content it represents an exegetical proof of the deity of the Son and the Holy. Spirit and is divided into three parts: a) a refutation of the objections made by the anomies against the deity of Jesus Christ; the Arians interpreted in favor of their teaching all the passages of Holy Scripture regarding the humiliation of the Word of God, not agreeing to explain them in application to His humanity, and concluded from them that it was impossible to recognize the Son as consubstantial or even only similar to the Father; St. Athanasius establishes the correct understanding of the controversial texts; b) evidence of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the proceeding from the Father and sending into the world by the Son and c) evidence from the Holy Scriptures of the consubstantiality of the Word. In addition, we are talking about many other dogmatic truths: about the birth of God the Son according to the flesh without a father from the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, about the salutary consequences of His incarnation, life and suffering for man, about the Eucharist as the true body of the Lord, etc. The authenticity of this work has long been disputed, and currently some researchers deny that it belongs to St. Athanasius, others claim its authenticity, attributing its composition to approximately 369. Ancient church writers: Theodoret, Gelasius, Facundus of Hermian, [as well as] the Lateran Council, the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Ephraim of Antioch) call it differently. There is also a variety of titles in the manuscripts. This is explained by the fact that the usual title of the work does not cover its content in the form in which it has come down to us. At the same time, its content raises doubts as to whether it has truly retained its original appearance. The first part (cap. 1–8) has a Christological character and ends with the words: “He, the true and by nature Son of God, bears in Himself all of us, and we all bear within ourselves the one God.” After this, chapter 9 puts it bluntly: “Therefore it is wicked to assert that the Spirit of God is created or created”; then begins a list of biblical evidence in favor of the fact that St. The same predicates belong to the Spirit as are characteristic of the Father and the Son - only chapters 11 and 12 again unexpectedly have Christological content, but are mostly a repetition of chapters 2–6; from chapter 19 to the end, all reasoning is Christological in nature, except for the conclusion of chapter 19, which is obviously inserted and can be omitted without difficulty. The doubt caused by this plan of the treatise is further strengthened by the fact that chapters 8–19 are almost word for word similar to another work placed among the Afanasyevs: “On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit”, while it cannot be allowed that the latter is dependent on the first, since in it the corresponding parts are in great coherence, while the treatise “On the Appearance in the Flesh” soullessly and without internal connection proves only individual predicates for Each of the three Divine Persons. Bearing in mind the construction of the treatise, its contact with the essay “On the Trinity and St. Spirit,” as well as the fact that both in all the manuscripts, and in Theodoret and Gelasius, the inscription does not have any relation to the trinitarian part, one can consider it completely justified to single out chapters 9–19 as not originally belonging to the treatise, agreeing, however, to admit that chapters 9 (in the second half), 11 and 12 preserved something from the original text. In this case, the second half of Chapter 19, beginning with the words: “and the Son is not the second God...”, would be a direct continuation of the end of Chapter 8: “Yes, we all carry within ourselves one God.” But even after highlighting the trinitarian part, they find, in addition to the difference in language and style, some features in the theological views of the author of the treatise “On Appearance in the Flesh”, which prevent him from being identified with St. Afanasy. In view of this, it is more correct to place this work, after highlighting the middle part, among the dubia, and it should be noted that its authenticity is not completely excluded. 29) “The Book of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.” The work has survived only in Latin, and the Latin text is not a translation from Greek, but the original. In its content and method it is closely related, especially to the treatise “On the Appearance in the Flesh” and to the epistles to Serapion. But this is contact with the original works of St. Athanasius has his basis in the fact that the Latin author used them to the best of his ability. The place and time of life of this Latin writer cannot be determined. 30) “Two books against Apollinaris” 1145, book one: “On the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ”; book two: “On the saving coming of Christ” - give a persistent and detailed refutation of the errors of the Apollinarians, without mentioning the name of Apollinaris in the text, and the integrity of human nature in Christ is especially clearly defended. The misconceptions of the Apollinarians about the Face of Jesus Christ were quite varied. Some of those who were mistaken renewed the docetic opinion that the Word only apparently became incarnate, or that He took on not created flesh, like human flesh, but heavenly flesh, similar in nature to the Word Himself. Others argued that the Word, during the incarnation, perceived only the body, but could not perceive the human soul, damaged by sins and evil thoughts. Others, finally, admitted the possibility of the Word accepting both the flesh and the human soul, but by soul they understood only the vital principle, the sensory soul, and not the rational soul. The author of the books “Against Apollinaris” examines all these opinions, refutes them and together sets out in detail and defends the essential points of church Christology, for example, the doctrine of the duality of natures in Jesus Christ, their hypostatic unity, the necessity for the work of redemption of the full human soul in Christ, His acceptance of the true human body from the Virgin Mary, the legality of Divine worship given by Christians to the Son of Man, and the like. “Two Books” are not two parts of one work, but two independent treatises; but the second has apparently not been preserved in full. Those who recognize the authenticity of this work date its composition to 372; but doubts about its authenticity were heard even before Montfaucon, who, however, recognized them as unfounded. This question was raised again by J. Dräseke, who, based on a thorough study of them, proved that both books were written after the death of St. Athanasius, between 373 and 377, Didymus the Blind and one of his disciples, Ambrose, about whom Blessed Jerome speaks (De vir. ill. 126). Without accepting all of J. Dräseke's assumptions and not sharing his objections, most researchers along with him deny, or at least consider the identity of their saints as doubtful. Afanasy. The main objections to authenticity are the following: a) evidence of the ownership of the books “Against Apollinaris” begins only in the 6th century. – from John Maxentius, Proclus and Leontius of Byzantium; b) “a striking difference in the language” of the original works of St. Athanasius and Two Books against Apollinaris. However, opponents of authenticity stipulate that this difference does not seem so strong as long as the fourth word “Against the Arians”, “Exposition of the Faith”, “The Most Extensive Discourse on Faith”, “On the Appearance in the Flesh of God the Word and Against the Arians” are recognized as authentic, the language of which deviates from the language of the authentic works of St. Afanasia. But as soon as these connecting members are highlighted, those who want to maintain the authenticity of both books abruptly move into the realm of a completely special language in comparison with the indisputable works of St. Athanasius, from the Apology to the Epistle to Epicgetus; c) opponents of authenticity are ready to agree with the defenders that the ideological content, the main tendency, the essential thoughts, in general and in particular, are thoroughly Athanasian, that the strongest argument against Apollinarianism is the idea that St. Athanasius struck Arianism, namely, that in the Person and life of the God-man, in principle, the deification of human nature was accomplished in all its life moments and that this idea, for which he lived, worked, fought, suffered, was carried out with the broadest consistency in the books “Against Apollinaris” and appears with particular strength, clarity and sharpness. But precisely what the main idea of ​​St. Athanasia is carried out here with great sharpness and with a strict, almost mechanical sequence, and arouses suspicion. In the books “Against Apollinaris” it is clearly established that between ομοούσια [consubstantial] unity is possible only according to φύσις, but not according to ύπόστασις, that is, the author stands on the basis of the latest (so-called Neo-Nicene) terminology: μία ούσία, τρΐς ύποστάσις, while St. Athanasius, even in his “Epistle to the African Bishops” (cap. 4), confuses ούσ ία and ύπόστασις; e) both books “Against Apollinaris” are considered to be the works of Apollinaris, which were written and became known only after the death of St. Afanasia. For all these reasons it is argued that “Two Books Against Apollinaris” could not have been written by St. Athanasius, and recognize it as very probable that they come from an Alexandrian, who owes the main views and some particulars to St. Athanasius, - this is the easiest way to explain both the similarities and deviations. But, as can be seen, the strength of the objections raised against the authenticity of the work is not so unconditional that the issue about it can be considered finally resolved - the authenticity of the books “Against Apollinaris” also has defenders. 31) “A saving word to a virgin”, or “On virginity” ήτοι nepl ασκήσεως) 1146, - belongs to the category of moral and ascetic works that have come down to us with the name of St. Afanasia. In it, in the form of exhortations to a virgin who dedicated herself to God, a number of ascetic and moral instructions are set out, which in their simplicity of design are reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount and the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles.” First, a brief statement of faith is given, and then ascetic exhortations to the virgin are mixed with simple general Christian rules of life. In special sections, the author of the treatise talks about fasting, prayer and the implementation of Christian love and mercy, and points to the example of the Lord. In the speech about fasting, the first place is given to humility, sincerity of mood and a warning against any boasting. The hours of prayer are put in relation to the life and suffering of the Savior, and ancient meal prayers are given, which are known from the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” and the “Apostolic Constitutions”. Exhortations to love are based on the commandment to love God and neighbor. The treatise ends with an admonition to the virgin to always have a lamp ready in order to meet the heavenly Bridegroom, praise to virginity and an admonition to direct her life in accordance with the rules set forth. The treatise contains in abundance the words of the Savior, psalms and sayings from the book of Proverbs; There is great freedom in conveying the words of the Lord. One can often observe a coincidence in thought and form with the Teachings of the 12 Apostles and other works of the second century; from later times the following were used: “The Canons of Hippolytus” and “The Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. Already the first publishers of this work (Erasmus - in the Latin translation and Hieronymus Commelinus - in the Greek text) expressed doubts about its ownership by St. Athanasius, followed by Montfaucon and Migne. The basis for this was a simple style, unlike other works of St. Athanasius, and the liturgical formulas found in it; in addition, they drew attention to the fact that ancient manuscripts of the works of St. Athanasius do not contain a treatise; Alb. Eichhorn, it seems, was the first to scientifically defend the authenticity of a work, based not only on the fact that the presence of such a work by St. Athanasia is attested by the blessed. Jerome (De vir. ill. [87]), but primarily on the fact that the way of life of virgins dedicated to God, assumed by the treatise, corresponds precisely to the period of St. Athanasius, and not to later times. Ad. Nagpask recognized these reasons as worthy of attention. P. Batiffol spoke out against Eichhorn, arguing that the confession of faith placed at the beginning of the treatise reflects the teaching of the time after St. Athanasius, and his proposed ethics are related to the ethics of the Eustathian sect, which was condemned at the Council of Gangra. In 1905 the study Ed appeared. ν. der Goltz'a 1147, in which the author declares that all discussions about this treatise are hanging in the air until its text is firmly established; but this is absolutely not the case: they are content with the text printed by Min, which is not only replete with typos, but does not even accurately reproduce its original - the Basel manuscript (XTVb.). In addition, previous studies did not find an explanation of the difference between the extremely ancient and obviously later parts of the treatise, which do not escape the attentive reader 1148. Ed. ν. der Goltz was the first to study manuscript material, among which an important place is occupied by a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, which best reproduces the original text of the treatise, and, based on a comparison of manuscripts, gave a critically verified text 1149, and it turns out that the liturgical passages that seduce researchers belong only to two later manuscripts. A careful and comprehensive study of the treatise is given by Ed. Goltz comes to the conclusion that the origin of the treatise “On Virginity” must be sought in the ascetic circles of Egypt in the first half of the 4th century, i.e. that is, that it belongs not to the later, but to the early stage of ascetic life in Egypt and that, in terms of the range of its ideas, the treatise best agrees with the works of St. Afanasia. Neither in the entire content of the treatise, nor in individual expressions, nor in the style of Ed. Goltz does not find data that could eliminate the direct testimony of Jerome (De vir. ill. 87) that St. Athanasius wrote the work De virginitate, indirect indications in the word of St. Gregory the Theologian (Orat. ХХЦ, 10; 36]), the testimony of Ephraim of Antioch and Photius (Biblioth. 229), as well as the testimony of a handwritten tradition from the 10th century, the study of which shows that the treatise in question belongs to those main works of St. Athanasius, which are invariably reproduced in all later manuscripts. There is no information about the time of origin of the monument. Goltz dates it to the second or third decades of the 4th century; but it seems more correct to place it around the time of writing the life of St. Antonia 1150. Exegetical works of St. Athanasius, which were known in ancient times, have not reached us in full. The most often mentioned is the Exposition of the Psalms 1151; Only fragments of it have been preserved in catenas. The collection of fragments under the title Expositiones psalmorum (in Min, PG 27. Col. 60–590, with an addition in Pitra) should generally be considered authentic; but some passages are forged, in some the text is shortened, in others expanded - for a critical assessment, the Syriac translation, preserved in the manuscript of 599, is of great importance. In the explanation of the text, in contrast to dogmatic-polemical works, allegory dominates. One might think that by interpreting the psalms of St. Athanasius studied in the last years of his life (366–373), when persecution did not disturb his peace. Like St. Athanasius looked at the Psalter, shows the already mentioned letter to Marcellinus. The work of St. mentioned by Jerome. Athanasius “On the inscriptions of the psalms” (De vir. ill. 87) has not survived to our time, and the commentary on the psalms found in Min with the inscription “On the inscriptions of the psalms” 1152 does not belong to St. Athanasius and perhaps written by Hesychius of Jerusalem. Commentaries on the book of Job, Song of Songs, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, and 1 Cor., added by Min and supplemented by Pitra and Mai. 1153, borrowed from catenas, need careful study. Without listing all the works that are placed in volume 28 of Minh’s “Patrology” under the headings dubia and spuria, we will note only the most important. 1) Interpretatio in symbolum (Ερμηνεία εις το σύμβολον [Interpretation of a symbol]) 1154. According to the research of Caspari and Kattenbusch, Ερμηνεία comes from the symbol given by St. Epiphanius at the end of his Ancoratus, and does not belong to Athanasius - it may have been the work of one of the first successors of St. Afanasia. 2) Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos [Syntagma of teaching, to the monks] 1155 stands in close connection with Doctrina 318 Patrum [Teaching of the 318 Fathers] 1156. The latter consists of two parts - a brief statement of religion and a more extensive statement of moral teaching. The first part was assimilated by St. Basil the Great as his explanation of the Nicene Symbol, and the second part is the Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos. It is considered proven that the whole work is original, which later fell apart into parts. Its author was not St. Basil, nor St. Afanasy. Armenian tradition assigns it to Evagrius Pontius, and this view currently has defenders (for example, [G.] N. Bonwetsch). 3) The so-called “Symbol of St. Athanasius" 1157 (according to the initial word - Symbolum Quicumque 1158) arose on Latin soil and from the 9th century. enjoyed great authority throughout the West; He became known to the East quite late (around the 12th century), undoubtedly by St. Doesn't belong to Athanasius. Regarding its origin, science, despite zealous efforts, has not yet achieved indisputable results. Its author is called Vincent of Lyrinsky, Honoratus of Arles, Caesarea of ​​Arles, Ambrose of Milan; proved its origin in Spain at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century. in the fight against Priscillianism, etc. 4) “On the Incarnation of God the Word” (Per1 σαρκώσεως του 0eoö Λόγου) 1159 – two small works; the first of them is a kind of symbol in which there is the expression μίαν φύσιν του 0eoö Λόγου σσαρκωμένην [one nature of God the Word incarnate], which was used in different senses by the Monophysites and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who recognized his descent from Athanasius (PG 76. Col. 1212 [A]) 1160; the second work is an anti-Nestorian treatise with characteristic Apollinarian expressions. Their origin is from St. Athanasius was disputed back in the 5th century, and at present it can be considered proven that their author was Apollinaris of Laodicea, whose followers distributed them under the name of St. Afanasia. It is very likely that this is the same origin of the works 'Ότι εΪς about Χριστός [(About) that Christ is one] 1161. 5) The canons of St., published in 1904 in Arabic and in fragments in Coptic. Athanasius 1162, numbering 107, can hardly be considered authentic, although they undoubtedly come from Egypt and are not far from the time of St. Afanasia. Theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria St. Athanasius did not present his theological teachings in the form of a complete system in any of his works. He was a man of practical activity, and his works, as has been repeatedly noted, were written at the request of the circumstances of church and personal life - to defend the faith and fulfill pastoral duties - and reveal individual points of church doctrine. And, however, among the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church, few had such a deep and constant influence on subsequent church writers and on the revelation of church dogma as St. Afanasy. His works are distinguished by an amazing wealth of dogmatic content. In his words “Against the Gentiles,” he reveals the doctrine of one God, His creation of the world and providence, the primitive state of man, the Fall, the consequences of sin and the need for the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of people. He constantly studied the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the trinity of Persons and the unity of Their being, trying to explain the highest mystery with the completeness possible for a person. But also by his own motivation, and even more in view of the nature of the modern church-theological struggle, he concentrated his speculation, all the power of his great mind, primarily on one problem - both fundamental in Christianity and fruitful in its theological content, namely, on the problem of the Word incarnate, God made man and the Savior of the human race. He reveals the doctrine of the Word in all His relations - in His being in the bosom of the Father, in the work of creation, in the work of redemption, which He performs as the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ - the God-human Person of the Redeemer - becomes the center to which everything is raised and from which, in turn, light emanates on the entire content of the Christian religion. Therefore, the ultimate task of Christian theology in its essence should be nothing other than knowledge - as far as possible for a person - of the Person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the light of Divine Revelation. In revealing the truth about the Face of the God-Man, St. Athanasius is so deep and comprehensive that he not only clarified it and substantiated it against the Arians and Apollinarians of his time, but laid a solid foundation for the fight against subsequent heresies of a Christological nature - the Nestorians and Monophysites. St. Athanasius did not ignore Christian moral teaching, but for the most part he explained it not specifically, but in relation to other issues; however, it should be noted that all of his theology is based on moral and ascetic views and aspirations. Finally, the works of St. Athanasius are rich in information about church life and worship of that time. We will note only the essential provisions of the dogmatic teaching of the great father of the Church. The teaching of St. Athanasius on the Holy Trinity. On the doctrine of God in Himself, St. Afanasy does not stop and does not reveal it in detail; nevertheless, it is precisely this teaching that is a necessary point of his theological speculation. Deity of St. Athanasius, in the spirit of Platonic philosophy, defines in the same abstract terms as Origen. God is a simple, blessed and incomprehensible essence (De synodis 35.2). He is inaccessible to any definition: one cannot say that God Himself exists - one can only say that He does not exist (Epist. ad monachos 2 .3). The Divinity is above all essence and human imagination [(έπινοίας)] (Contra gentes 2). God is beginningless and eternal, incorporeal, invisible and intangible. He is the real bearer of the entire fullness of Divine life, the single beginning of the Divine essence (Contra gentes 41). Like Arius, St. Athanasius, with a sharp line, separated the Divinity in Itself from everything created by Him. “Everything created,” he says, “has nothing similar in essence to its Creator.” “What is the similarity between that which is out of nothing and the Creator who creates it out of nothing?” (Contra Arianos I, 20; 21). But while Arius believed the Logos to be on the side of the edge that touches the creature, St. Athanasius puts Him absolutely on the side of God. The Word was not created, but born. To give birth means to produce a perfect image of oneself and to communicate everything that is in oneself, one’s essence, one’s nature, one’s glory: thus God gave birth to the Word-Son. The concept of “Son” and “Word” in St. Athanasius are mutually interchangeable: “We acknowledge Him [and worship Him] 1163, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Son is that very Word...” (Epist. ad Epictetum 12). Defining more closely the relationship of the Word the Son to God the Father, St. Athanasius, on the one hand, argues that the Son is different from the Father, and on the other hand, that the Father and the Son are one, since they are of the same essence. The Son is the true and sincere Son of the Father, actually belonging to the Father’s essence, the only begotten Wisdom, the true and only Word of God. He is not a creature, not a work, but the own Birth of the Father’s essence. Therefore He is true God as consubstantial with the true Father (Contra Arianos I, 9). But the unity of the Father and the Son cannot be represented in the Sabellian way: They are one not in the sense that one and the same is sometimes the Father, and sometimes the Son of Himself; on the contrary, two are in number, because the Father is the Father, and He is not the Son, and the Son is the Son, and He is not the Father, but the nature is one, because Birth is not dissimilar to the One who gave birth, and is His image, and everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the Son is not another God, for he was not invented from outside. If the Son is anything other than birth, then He is the same as God. He and the Father are one in affinity and property of nature and in the identity of the one Divinity (Contra Arianos III, 4). Since God cannot be without His Word, the Son is eternal in the Father (Contra Arianos II, 32). But as a Son, He is begotten of the Father. Since God is eternal, then the birth of the Son can only be thought of as eternal, because the essence of the Father was never imperfect, so that what actually belonged to it would come to it later: the Son was not born as a man from a man, so that he would appear later than the Father’s existence; He is God's Birth and, as the actually existing Son of the ever-existing Father, exists eternally. People tend to give birth in time due to the imperfection of nature; and God's birth is eternal according to the everlasting perfection of nature (Contra Arianos I, 14). Therefore the Father is always by nature a Parent (Contra Arianos III, 66), and the very name of the Father indicates the existence of the Son. In explanation of this thought, St. Athanasius points to the usual comparisons in the Alexandrian school between light and radiance, source and flow. He eternally exists who is the image, the radiance of the Father, God from God, without Whom the Father would be ασοφος και άλογος (Contra Arianos I, 14; 25; 27; III, 66; De decretis 12; 15). But in this case, the question arises: is this birth voluntary on the part of the Father? The answer to this can be yes and no. Yes - in the sense that the birth was not against the will of the Father and was not the fulfillment of a higher law. No - in the sense that the Father both wants and loves the Son necessarily, just as he wants and loves Himself. “Since the Son (is born) by nature, and not by will, is He really not desired by the Father and contrary to the Father’s will? No way; on the contrary, the Son is desirable to the Father, and, as He Himself says, “The Father loves the Son and shows Him everything” (John 5:20). Just as God, although he did not begin to be good by will, is nevertheless good not against will and will, for what He is is what He desires: so this, that the Son is, although it did not begin by will, is not against the desire and will of God. Just as God’s own hypostasis is desirable, so His own Son, who exists from His essence, is not undesirable to Him. Therefore, let the Son be both desired and beloved of the Father” (Contra Arianos III, 66). But it is also impossible to think that the Son came from the Father “by will or pleasure” (Contra Arianos III, 59), because through this the Son would be relegated to the series of temporary beings that the Father first wished to create, and then actually created (III, 60-63). Everything, indeed, was created by the will of God, but one must think about the Word that It consists outside of those who received being by will, or better to say, It Itself is that living Father’s council, by which “all things were made” (III, 64). The Son of God Himself is Word and Wisdom, He Himself is reason and living counsel; in Him is the will of the Father, He is the truth, light and power of the Father (III, 65). Therefore, he is mad who puts will and consultation between the Father and the Son. It is another thing to say: He came into existence by will, but another thing to say: he loves and desires the Son as his own by nature (III, 66). Consequently, the Son is not an accidental product of the Father’s will, but an eternal, essentially necessary birth of the Divine nature; at the same time, the birth of the Son is not only a metaphysically necessary process of self-development of beings; it is an act of the life of a personal God, a manifestation of its moral fullness, and therefore is imbued with the love of the One who gives birth and the One who is born. St. Athanasius, like St. Irenaeus, decisively rejects all reasoning and assumptions about how God gave birth to the Son: “It is indecent to seek how the Word is from God, or how It is God’s radiance, or how God gives birth and what is the image of God’s birth. Whoever dares to undertake such an investigation is mad, because he wants to interpret in words what is ineffable, characteristic of God’s nature and known only to God and His Son. This means the same thing as trying to find out where God is, why He is God, and what the Father is like. But just as it is impious and characteristic of those who do not know God to propose such questions, so it is impermissible to venture into such research about the birth of the Son of God, and to measure God and His Wisdom by one’s nature and one’s weakness. But therefore one should not imagine this contrary to the truth” (II, 36). Born from eternity, the Son is from the essence of the Father, έκ της ούσίας του Πατρός. St. Athanasius insists on this expression of the Council of Nicea, which contains in itself the condemnation of the blasphemy of Arius (De decretis 19–23; De synodis 41–48). But at the same time, it is necessary to eliminate any sensory idea: one cannot think about the flow from the Father or the division of His essence. The Son is not a part of the Father, since the essence of the Father is indivisible. “Otherwise human birth takes place, and otherwise the Son is born from the Father. Human creations are, as it were, parts of those who give birth... people, when giving birth, exude from themselves... But God is not divided into parts; He is the indivisible and dispassionate Father to the Son. In the Ethereal there is no outflow; there is no flowing into Him, as happens with people, but, being simple by nature, He is the Father of the one and only Son... He is the Word of the Father, in Whom one can imagine the dispassion and indivisibility of the Father” (De decretis 11.3–4, 5). Hence St. Athanasius draws two conclusions: first, the Son possesses the entire essence of the Father, because this essence, which cannot be divided, is necessarily given to Him entirely. “Not in part only the image of the Divinity, but the fullness of the Father’s Divinity is the being of the Son, and the Son is entirely God” (Contra Arianos III, 6; cf. I, 16; II, 24); secondly, the Father can only have one Son, because in Him is all the fullness of the Father: “Being simple by nature, He is the Father of the one and only Son” (De decretis I.4). These two conclusions destroy the very basis of subordinationism: the Son is everything that the Father is, except that one is the Begetter, and the other is the Begotten. On the contrary, the consubstantial things directly follow from them: the Son is ομοούσιος to the Father. St. Athanasius rejects the expression δμοιος primarily because it denotes only accidental and external similarity: “Like is said to be like in relation not to essences, but to appearance and to qualities” (De synodis 53.2); “tin is like only silver, and the wolf is like a dog... but tin is not made of silver, and the wolf is not considered the son of a dog” (De synodis 41.3). The term όμοιούσιος cannot be considered completely appropriate, since to say that one object is δμοιος κατ' ούσίαν to another means to talk about its essence as if it were a simple attribute or accident. In any case, “whoever calls something similar in essence calls it similar in participle, because similarity is a quality that can be brought to essence, and this is characteristic of creatures; creatures by communion are likened to God... If He is also called the Son by communion, then... called so, He is no longer Truth, and not Light at all, not God by nature” (De synodis 53 .3,4). But if they want to use this term, St. Athanasius is ready to put up with this, then at least they should add έκ της ούσίας and insist on unity, which δμοιος destroys. The term ομοούσιος simultaneously means that the two beings to which it is applied are of the same essence and that one of them has existence from the other. St. Athanasius is not inclined to argue about the term with those who accept everything else written in Nicea, but only doubt the phrase “consubstantiality”; however, the fathers of the Council of Nicea rightfully introduced ομοούσιος into the language of the Church: they could not find a better term (De synodis 41). The following gives the main provisions of the teachings of St. Athanasius about the Son. The dominant thought, which he comprehensively reveals, is that the Word is the Son, namely, the Son of God. One must never separate the Son from the Father and strive to know them separately: “Being the Son, He is not separated from the Father” (Contra Arianos III, 28). As the Son He is numerically distinct from the Father, but as the Son He is of one essence with the Father, absolutely the same essence as the Father, because this essence, which is communicated to Him, can neither be divided nor diminished. The bearer of this unity, when we have to talk about one God as a personal Spirit, is God the Father. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is revealed by St. Athanasius is less complete than the teaching about the Son. However, he had to give an answer to the directly posed question about the third Person of the Holy Trinity. He outlined his explanations in Epistles I, III and IV to Serapion. St. Athanasius affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit on the basis of Holy Scripture (Epist. ad Serapionen! I, 4–6; 26), on the original Tradition, teaching and faith of the universal Church (I, 28). By whom all creatures are sanctified, He Himself cannot be a creature; He who gives life to creatures has no affinity with creatures and does not belong to them (I, 23). If through the communion of the Spirit we become partakers of the Divine nature, then the one who claims that the Spirit is of the nature of creation, and not of God, is crazy. Those in whom the Spirit abides are adored by the Spirit; and if the Spirit creates gods, then there is no doubt that His nature is the nature of God (I, 24). Recognition of the Spirit as a creature destroys the Holy Trinity: if He were a creature, he would not be joined to the Trinity, because the entire Trinity is one God. And it is enough to know that the Spirit is not a creature and is not counted among the creatures, because nothing alien is mixed into the Trinity; on the contrary, She is inseparable and similar to Herself (I, 17). The Spirit is God, of one essence with the Father and the Son, consubstantial (ομοούσιος) with Them (I, 2; 20; 27). “What properties we have recognized in the Son with the Father, the same properties... the Spirit has with the Son” (III, 1). “Since the Spirit and the Son have both the same power and nature as the Son and the Father, 1164 will not he who calls the Spirit a creature necessarily have the same thought about the Son? For if the Spirit of the Son is a creature, then heretics should affirm that the Word of the Father is a creature” (I, 21). The stated teaching of St. Athanasius about the Holy Trinity can be briefly expressed in his words: “So, there is a Holy and perfect Trinity, cognizable in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having nothing alien or imparted from the outside, not composed of the Creator and the creature, but entirely creative and creative. She is similar to Herself, inseparable by nature, and Her action is one. For the Father creates all things by the Word in the Holy Spirit. This is how the unity of the Holy Trinity is maintained. Thus, it is preached in the Church “one God, who is above all, and through all, and in all” (Eph. 4:6), “above all,” as the Father, the beginning and source, “through all,” in the Word, and “in all,” in the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not only by name and manner of expression, but in the very truth and essence there is a Trinity, for just as the Father is He, so He is God above all - His Word, and the Holy Spirit is not alien to being, but truly exists and abides. And the universal Church does not subtract anything from this wisdom... and does not invent anything more, so as not to fall into pagan polytheism” (I, 28). The doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word. But the center of the theology of St. Athanasius was the Word incarnate - just as his faith in this Word was the soul of his entire life, full of struggle. Based on this faith, he most strongly attacked Arianism, showing that, by denying the divinity of the Word, heresy becomes contrary to the innermost feelings of true Christians, that it erects an indestructible barrier between God and man, since, according to the word of God, we can know the Father only through the Son, that it, in essence, destroys the work of redemption, since we can receive salvation only if the historical Christ appeared God in the full sense of the word; only God could restore in us the original image, destroyed by sin, and make us children of God: if people, as a result of crime, became subject to natural corruption and lost the grace of God's image, then what else should have happened? Or was there a need for anyone else for the return of such grace and for the proclamation of man, other than God the Word, who created the universe out of nothing in the beginning? It belonged to him to bring the corruptible again into incorruption, and to observe [that] which was most just for the Father. since He is the Father's Word and above all, then naturally He alone could recreate everything, He alone was able to suffer for everyone and intercede for everyone before the Father (De incarnatione Verbi 7 .4–5). If the Savior were a created being, then His incarnation would not have brought humanity what it needs. If the Word, being a creature, had become man, then man would still have remained what he was, not being united with God (Contra Arianos II, 67). Man, united with creation, would not have been deified if the Son had not been the true God. Man would not have appeared to the Father if the one who took on the body were not truly the Father’s Word by nature. And just as we would not have been freed from sin and curse if the flesh in which the Word was clothed had not been human by nature (for we would have had nothing in common with what was alien to us), so man would not have been deified if He who was made flesh was not by nature the being of God, the true and proper Word (Contra Arianos II, 70). If the Son were a creature, then man would still remain mortal, not uniting with God, because creation would not unite creatures with God, itself requiring for itself the uniting one, and one part of the creation could not serve as salvation for the whole creation, itself having a need for salvation (Contra Arianos II, 69). Therefore the Word, being God, became flesh, so that, having died in the flesh, He might by His power give life to all (Contra Arianos I, 44). Thus, the Son of God became the Son of Man (De decretis 14.2), the Only Begotten - the Firstborn (Contra Arianos I, 62). It was not man who became God, but God the Son became man in order to deify us (Contra Arianos I, 39). The Incarnation must be understood in its proper sense: “The Word became man, and did not descend into man.” One cannot think that just as in former times there was the Word in each of the saints, so now It descended into man, and sanctified him, and appeared in him, as in other people. “The Word of God itself... condescended to become man 1165” (Contra Arianos III, 30). It is said about Him that He “became flesh,” not because He changed into flesh, but because for our sake He took upon Himself living flesh and became man (Epist. ad Epictetum 8). It is unreasonable to assert that the Word changed into bones and flesh: “The body was not the Word, but the body of the Word was” (Epist. ad Epictetum 6). Thus, “the true God was in the flesh, and the Word had true flesh; Therefore, by deeds He made Himself known as the Son of God and His Father, and by the infirmities of the flesh He showed that He bore the true body, and that it was His own” (Contra Arianos III, 41). St. Athanasius always spoke only about the flesh (σάρξ) or about the body (σώμα), which received the Word, but at the same time he understood the whole of human nature. This must be emphasized in view of the newest view 1166 that St. Athanasius did not recognize a human soul in Christ: the Word allegedly became a man in the sense that It was united with the body, but Itself took the place of the rational soul. But St. Athanasius uses the terms σάρξ and σώμα in the biblical sense, which he himself explains as follows: “It is customary for Scripture to call man flesh” (Contra Arianos III, 30). ““The word became flesh” means the same thing as to become a man” (Epist. ad Serapionen! II, 7). Hence, St. Athanasius indifferently uses the terms “flesh”, “body”, “humanity” to designate the human element in Christ. To this it is necessary to add the general teaching of St. Athanasius about the incarnation, which he does not designate by the term ένσωμάτωσις (like Apollinaris), but ένανθρώπησις, thereby expressing the idea of the Word made man (cf. De incarnatione Verbi 37; Contra Arianos I, 43; Epist. ad Maximum 2 1167). Since the body of the Word was His own or belonged to Him, It manifested Itself through it and in it. “Since the Word was in the flesh, then things characteristic of the flesh are said about Him, for example: hunger, thirst, suffering, toil, and everything like that that is acceptable to the flesh. The works characteristic of the Word Himself, such as: raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, healing the bleeding woman, He performed through His body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh as His own, because this flesh was His; and the flesh served the works of the Divinity, because the Divinity dwelt in it, and the body was of God” (Contra Arianos III, 31). Therefore, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not outside it, which is why the suffering is called His suffering. And when He did the works of [the Father] divinely, the flesh was not outside of Him, but again in the body itself the Lord did these things. When it was necessary to restore Peter’s mother-in-law, then he stretched out his hand in a human way, and divinely stopped the illness. Lazarus, as a man, called out with a human voice, and Divinely, as God, he raised him from the dead. Just as the body is called His own body, so bodily sufferings are called His own, although they do not concern the Divinity (Contra Arianos III, 32). The Word refers to Himself suffering for the sake of our salvation: “What the human body of the Word endured, the Word united with it attributed to Himself, so that we could partake of the Divinity of the Word. And what is extraordinary: One and the same suffered and did not suffer. He suffered because His own body suffered and He was in a suffering body, and did not suffer because the Word, who is by nature God, is impassive. It was disembodied in a painful body, but the body had in itself the dispassionate Word, destroying the infirmities of the body itself. This Word did this, and it was so that the Word, having taken upon Himself what is ours and offering this as a sacrifice, could destroy it and, finally, having clothed us with His own, give the apostle a reason to say (1 Cor. 15:53): “It is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruptibility, and for this dead thing to put on immortality”" (Epist. ad Epictetum 6). Therefore, St. Athanasius can speak about the crucified God (Epist. ad Epictetum 10) and about Θεοτόκος (Contra Arianos III, 14; 29; 33). The teaching of St. Athanasius about the world and man, about the fall and redemption. According to the teachings of St. Athanasius, the truly existing is only the Divinity, yet created things have only relative existence and, in comparison with the truly existing, can be called non-existent. “The nature of created things, as having come from nothing, taken in itself, is something fluid, weak, mortal” (Contra gentes 41). The created world can be maintained in its existence only by communion with the Word that truly exists from the Father: “The Almighty, All-Perfect, Holy Father’s Word, descending into the universe, spread His powers everywhere, illuminating the visible and invisible, containing and holding together everything in Himself, leaving nothing deprived of His power, but quickening and preserving everything in everything, and each thing in particular, and suddenly everything in the aggregate.” (Contra gentes 42). Like a skillful musician who combines different tones into one sweet voice, and an experienced regent who stands at the head of the choir of singing children and wives, old people and young people and helps them bring out one harmonious song, the Word reconciles all the opposites in the world and produces a single world and a single order in the world. The Word rules over everything, provides for everything, arranges everything; It is only thanks to Him that creation stands firmly in existence and is not destroyed (Contra gentes 42 sqq.). Like the entire created world, man does not have the power to always remain within himself: he is mortal, as if he came from nothing (De incarnatione Verbi 3–4). Only communion with the Word could impart stability and constancy to its existence. If the rational nature participates in the Word and is created in His image, then man participates in this in a primary sense. “Before everything on earth, having compassion on the human race and seeing that, according to the law of its own existence, it [(the human race)] does not have sufficient strength to remain forever, God gave people something greater: He did not create them simply, like all dumb animals on earth, but created them in His image, imparting to them [and] the power of His own Word, so that, having in themselves, as it were, certain shades [of the Word] 1168 and having become verbal, they could remain in bliss, living a true life, and in the true sense - the life of saints in paradise" (De incarnatione Verbi 3.3). The life of the first person in paradise St. Athanasius draws these lines: “The Creator of the world and the King of kings is God, who is above all essence and human imagination... created the human race in His own image by His own Word, our Savior Jesus Christ, and through likening Himself made [him] a contemplator and knower of things, giving him the thought and knowledge of His own eternity, so that man, while maintaining this similarity, would never remove from himself the idea of God and would not retreat from cohabitation with the saints, but, having in himself the grace of the Giver, having his own power [from] the Father Words, was happy and conversed with God, living an innocent, truly blessed [and immortal] 1169 life. Having no obstacles to knowledge of God, man, in his purity, constantly contemplates the Father’s image - God the Word, in whose image he was created, and comes into amazement, understanding the Father’s providence through the Word about all things, rising in thought above the sensory and above any bodily representation, touching with the power of his mind the Divine and mental in heaven. When the human mind is not occupied with bodily objects and the lust aroused by them is not mixed with it from the outside, but it is all grief and collected in itself, as it was in the beginning: then, having transgressed the boundaries of the sensory and everything human, it soars in the heavenly and, looking at the Word, sees in Him the Father of the Word, enjoying the contemplation of Him and being renewed in love for Him” [(Contra gentes 2)]. While man's mind was entirely occupied with the contemplation of God, he did not pay attention to the needs of the body, passions and desires, which were inherent in him in paradise; they were silent and could not become the determining principle for his will. But as soon as, on the advice of the serpent, he abandoned the thought of God and turned to what was closer - to the body and bodily feelings, they began to grow and strengthen. Man fell in love with pleasure, considering it the most essential good; then the soul began to strive in various ways to reproduce them. Following pleasures, passions penetrated the soul, then crimes. The body has become an instrument of sin. Passions and desires have darkened the image of God in the soul. “Having turned aside from the path and forgetting about itself that it was created in the image of the good God, [(the soul)] no longer contemplates, with the help of the powers given to it, that God the Word, according to whom it was created, but, having become outside of itself, stops in thought on the non-existent and imagines it. And this, as it were, a mirror in which one could see the Father’s image, having covered within itself a multitude of crowded bodily desires, no longer sees what the soul should mentally imagine, but rushes around and sees only what is subject to feeling. From this, filled with all sorts of carnal desires and confused by respect for the sensual, she finally imagines that God, whom she consigned to oblivion in the mind, in the bodily and sensual, appropriating the name of God to the visible and glorifying that one thing that seems pleasing to her and what she looks at with pleasure” (Contra gentes 3; 4; 8 [cited: 8]). The fall returned man to his natural state. People were subjected to the mortal condemnation that God threatened them with, they were corrupted, and death, having reigned, took possession of them (De incarnatione Verbi 4). The work of saving man, naturally, took upon Himself the Word as the Creator of the world. “It was fitting for Him, who is the Creator of works, to take upon Himself the renewal of works, so that He, who was created for our sake, could recreate everything in Himself” (Contra Arianos II, 53). God, in His omnipotence, could resolve the oath, and man would become the same as he was before the Fall, but he could soon become worse, because he had already learned to break the law. Again the need would arise to pronounce the command and resolve the oath, the need for this would continue indefinitely, and people would still be guilty, servile to sin (Contra Arianos II, 68). Since corruption was not outside the body, but began in it itself, it was necessary, instead of corruption, to instill life into it, so that, just as death occurred in the body, so life also occurred in it. Therefore, if the Word were outside the body, and not in the body itself, [then] although death would naturally be overcome by the Word, because death cannot resist life, nevertheless corruption would remain in the body (De incarnatione Verbi 44). The Word in the Person of Jesus Christ came into the closest contact with human nature, penetrated all its members and compositions and destroyed the very beginning of corruption in the body: “The Savior... put on a body, so that after the body was grafted into life it would no longer remain in death [as mortal] 1170, but, having been clothed with immortality, after the resurrection it would remain immortal” (44.6). Straw can be protected from fire, but straw remains straw, and fire never ceases to threaten it; but if the straw is covered with a large amount of “stone flax”, then the straw is no longer afraid of fire, being protected by a fireproof shell. Likewise, the body of Christ was clothed in the incorporeal Word of God and thus no longer fears death or corruption, because it has life as a robe, and corruption (ibidem) is destroyed in it. The consequence of the union of human nature with the Divine Word in the Person of Jesus Christ was the transformation of this nature, its deification. The improvement and deification of the human nature of the God-Man occurred gradually, in accordance with its natural development and growth: “Humanity excelled in wisdom, gradually rising above human nature, being adored, becoming and being for all the organ of Wisdom for the effectiveness of the Divinity and His radiance” (Contra Arianos III, 53). As the body progressed, the appearance of the Divine also progressed in it for those who saw it, and the presence of God in it became more and more obvious to all people. “As a child He was carried; Having become a youth, he remained in the church and asked the priests about the law; and as the body gradually grew and the Word revealed Himself in Him, they confessed—first Peter, and then everyone—that He is truly the Son of God” (Contra Arianos III, 52). Mortal in itself, the body of the Lord could not remain dead, because it became the church of life; therefore, although he died as a mortal, he nevertheless came to life according to the power of the Life that dwells in him (De incarnatione Verbi 31.4). The Lord removed from the flesh the fall of sin, of which she was a captive; in contrast to the changeability of Adam, expressed in his fall, Jesus Christ as a man was unchangeable in goodness, so that the new seduction of the serpent in relation to the second Adam could not have any power (Contra Arianos I, 51). The Son of God, as God, poured out the Holy Spirit on His human body, and it took part in performing numerous miracles for which the flesh served as the instrument. Grace and power to perform miracles belonged to the Word itself, the body was only “moved by God” 1171 in the Word (Contra Arianos III, 31). The deification of the flesh of Jesus Christ reached its completion in His resurrection; she now receives new and more perfect grace-filled gifts. After the resurrection, He calls Himself having received according to humanity that very thing that He had as the Word (Contra Arianos III, 40). Finally, in the ascension of the Lord, His glorified and deified flesh ascended to heaven in the host of celestial beings and became an object of worship for the angels and other heavenly powers (Contra Arianos I, 42). In the Person of Jesus Christ, human nature took part in the properties of the Divine nature, reached the highest possible degree of perfection, and became deified. But through His humanity, Christ is united with all humanity, and as a result, all the gifts of grace received by the human nature of the God-Man are the property of all humanity. Explaining the words of the Savior’s high priestly prayer: “I am in them, and You are in Me, that they may be perfect in one” (John 17:23), St. Athanasius writes: “Here the Lord asks for us something greater and more perfect. For it is known that KaiC the Word became in us; It has taken on our flesh. But “You also are in Me,” Father, because I am Your Word. And since [You] are in Me, because I am Your Word, and I am in them according to the body, and through You the salvation of people was accomplished in Me, then I ask that “they also may be one” according to the body [in Me] and [according to] its completion; “that they also may be perfect”, having unity with this body and becoming “one” in it, so that all, as those borne by Me on Myself, will be one body and one spirit, and will achieve perfect manhood” (Contra Arianos III, 22). The Word covered Himself with a body so that we, as fellow-corporeals, would remain immortal and incorruptible in Him (Contra Arianos II, 74). That change, glorification, which will occur in the nature of the true followers of Christ as a result of the mutual contact of the Divine and human principles in the God-Man, St. Athanasius uses the term “deification.” The Son of God became the Son of Man for this purpose, so that the sons of men might become sons of God 1173. Just as the Lord, having put on flesh, became man, so we humans, perceived by the Word, are adored for the sake of His flesh (Contra Arianos III, 34). The Word put on a created body so that in Him we could be renewed and deified (Contra Arianos II, 47; cf. Epist. ad Adelphium 4). The deification of the redeemed is expressed in the same features as the deification of the human nature of Christ, differing, while being qualitatively similar, quantitatively. The Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant of His flesh in order to give it - and with it all humanity - the power to know the Father (Contra Arianos III, 38; Epist. ad Serapionen! II, 9). He feared death in order to free us from the fear of death and make us partakers of immortality (Contra Arianos III, 54; II, 70). He was baptized, received the anointing of the Spirit, increased in wisdom, and age, and grace, so that through His flesh we might receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, grace and immortality (Contra Arianos I, 43-48). Since the human flesh of Christ was in unity with the true God (II, 70; 67), sin was destroyed, and humanity became free from it and immortal (II, 56; III, 33); we become the church of God and His sons (I, 43; II, 59); The Spirit of God lives in us, and we are united with the Father (III, 25). The man Jesus is in every way the representative of the entire human race, second to Adam (1:44; II:65). His death is the death of all; for all He gave His body to death and thereby fulfilled the Divine sentence to sinful man (II, 69). This voluntary surrender of Himself to death was the atonement for human sins and the destruction of death (I, 45). He brought Himself to the Father and with His own blood cleansed us all from sins (II, 7). Having accepted death and rendered it inactive, He was the first to rise as a man, resurrecting His body for us; and since He has risen, we too are raised from the dead by Him and for His sake (II, 61). During His ascension He accepted man, and through His ascension his deification took place (I, 45). Thus, the Son of God, having put on created things, became similar to us in body and is rightly called both our Brother and Firstborn. He is the First-born because when all people perished due to Adam’s crime, His flesh was saved and liberated before others, as having become the body of the Word itself, and we are saved after it as co-corporeals of the Word. In this body the Lord becomes our leader into the Heavenly Kingdom [and] to His Father (I, 61). Concluding the speech about the life, literary activity and basic principles of the theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, we can say that he was not an original thinker and pure speculation did not captivate him. He is not distinguished by peculiar scientific concepts, like Origen. Nevertheless, its immeasurable church-historical significance is based not only on the great feat of life in the fight against Arianism, but also on the decisive reform in the direction and nature of scientific theology. This was achieved by a new, unique combination of theological ideas and scientific concepts that had already been revealed and used in the theology of his predecessors, and agreement with the essence of the Christian religion and its significance for humanity, deeply imbued with him. St. Athanasius is an Origenist, and his theology included, first of all, essential elements of right Origenism and Alexandrian church traditions, which characterize the theological teaching of his predecessor in the department, Bishop Alexander; he also mastered the terminology of Origen's theology. The influence of Origen is especially noticeable in the two earliest works of St. Athanasius, written before the fight against Arianism and distinguished by their depth of speculation, scientificity and systematicity. St. Athanasius never addresses Origen with a reproachful word; he even praises him as “much learned and hardworking” [(Epist. ad Serapionen! IV, 9)]. Together with the influence of Origen on the theology of St. Athanasius was also significantly influenced by the philosophy of Plato. But with these elements established in Alexandrian theology, St. Athanasius combined the soteriological teaching of the Asia Minor theology of St. Irenaeus: close kinship and agreement of the soteriological views of St. Irenaeus and Athanasius, no doubt. True, St. Athanasius gave the teachings of St. Irenaeus philosophical justification using the concepts of Platonic philosophy; however, Asia Minor theology had such an influence on the general system of theology of St. Athanasius, that Origenism itself underwent significant changes, resulting in a real reform of church-scientific theology. He concentrated the entire Christian worldview in the idea of ​​salvation and established an understanding of the essence of Christianity as a religion of salvation. This idea was outlined by St. Irenaeus; St. Athanasius developed it in his essay “On the Incarnation of the Word” and later especially advanced and deepened it in the fight against heresy. All his aspirations are directed towards knowledge of the Savior and the central significance of Christ in Christianity from the point of view of salvation. In the thought of saving St. Athanasius, with a deep religious feeling, learned the path that alone leads to the understanding and confirmation of the position of the church confession that in the Person of Jesus Christ the full and real Divinity appeared on earth. In the great religious principle - the salvation of humanity for Divine life through the God-Man - Christian faith and thought must receive their norms, theology - its direction. In the firmness and consistency with which St. Athanasius reduced all the tenets of faith to this basic central idea; the outstanding greatness and significance of St. Athanasius for religious thought and life of Christianity. Although St. Athanasius, during the long struggle with Arianism, which so deeply captured him, could not write systematically, with full disclosure and justification of his thoughts, nevertheless, in his polemical works, genuine Christian speculation is based, so that St. Throughout his literary career, Athanasius did not abandon the scientific soil - he only to a certain extent weakened the metaphysical idealism of Origen's theology with religious and practical principles and aspirations, with a significant inclination towards the latter. Origen's theology was also placed within this framework. St. Athanasius limits Origen's desire to combine Christianity and natural knowledge into a universal system of religious philosophy and excludes the purely philosophical problems of the Origenists from Christian teaching, subordinating speculative and cosmological interests to religious and practical goals. Thus, St. Athanasius introduced a new stream into the theological science of the Alexandrians and thereby gave church theology a new imprint and direction, which determined the essential character of all subsequent church theological science. Didim of Alexandria 1174 The complete opposite of the life of St., filled with anxiety, tireless struggle and controversy. Athanasius of Alexandria presents the life of his younger contemporary Didymus of Alexandria, this famous blind man who occupies a prominent place among the outstanding men of the 4th century. Among the storms of this time, his life is amazingly calm, very little affected by general church interests. Despite this, few theologians in the 4th and 5th centuries. enjoyed such respectful respect as Didim. The historian Socrates, not at all generous with praise, does not find enough words to glorify him (Hist. eccl. IV, 25); he calls him wondrous, eloquent and glorious for his learning and places him next to Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The fame of Didymus's learning even reached the great hermit Anthony. Didymus was born in Alexandria in 313 1175. At the age of four—hence, before he could attend school—he lost his sight. This circumstance was to have a profound influence on the rest of his life. Although Didymus rarely talks about his blindness in his works, it was not easy for him to endure this misfortune. The message of the blj. is very characteristic in this regard. Jerome (in a letter to Castrutius) and the historian Socrates (Hist. eccl. IV, 25) about the meeting of Didymus with St. Anthony: when St. Athanasius, says Jerome, summoned St. to Alexandria to refute the heretics. Anthony and when Didymus came to this latter, then, among other discussions regarding the Holy Scriptures, marveling at Didymus’s mind and praising the strength of his spirit, St. Anthony asked him: “Doesn’t the loss of your bodily eyes sadden you?” When Didymus was silent in embarrassment, then, asking him a second and third time, St. Antony finally forced him to openly admit that he regretted the loss of his sight [(Epist. 68, ad Castrutium, cap. 2)]. Then St. Antony said to him (according to Socrates): “Do not be embarrassed, Didymus, that you have lost your sensory vision; for you have lost the eyes with which mosquitoes and midges look; rather, rejoice that you have eyes with which angels look, God is contemplated and His light is perceived.” With the zeal that can often be observed in blind people, he took up science, which was supposed to compensate him for the joys that nature had deprived him of. Not being able to read himself, he listened to the reading of others and, with the extreme power of memory, easily noticed, and when his fellow students and teachers rested, he reproduced in his mind what he perceived during his studies, and assimilated through prolonged reflection, “inscribing what he heard on the tablets of his spirit” (Rufin., Hist. eccl. II, 7). Perhaps he even used carved letters for independent reading - at least Sozomen (Hist. eccl. III, 15) points to such a tradition. His efforts were crowned with complete success: “Having been very capable since childhood,” says Socrates, “and having a beautiful soul, he was ahead of those who, in addition to abilities, also had sharp eyesight; (Didemus) easily learned the rules of grammar, and learned rhetoric even faster; having turned to the philosophical sciences, he marvelously mastered dialectics, arithmetic, music - in general, he composed all the philosophical sciences in his soul in such a way that he could easily resist those who studied them with the help of their eyes” [(Hist. eccl. IV, 25)]. He also studied the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and amazed those who listened to him with his knowledge. St. Athanasius placed him at the head of the Alexandrian school [(Rufin., Hist. eccl. II, 7)]; he honorably led the famous school as its last great teacher: after his death, the school with Rodon moved to Sida and there soon ceased to exist. It is not known exactly at what time Didim ruled the school. One might think that his life at that time was completely calm. Although he was a faithful follower of St. Athanasius, but was not persecuted by the Arians - he was probably protected from them by blindness, since they did not think that he could have any influence on the course of events. Like most of the fathers of his time, Didymus lived an ascetic life. The assumption - based on some passages of his works (De Trinitate II, 7[.]8 1176; III, 1), in which Didymus speaks of his children - that he was married seems unfounded, since he had in mind his students. There is no doubt that he felt an attraction to the ascetic life from an early age. He lived in a tent and was acquainted with the outstanding ascetics and ascetics of Egypt. Anthony the Great often visited him and loved to talk with him about the beauties of the invisible world. It is no coincidence that it was among the hermits that he met his most faithful friends and his best students. The hermit Anthony persistently read his interpretations of biblical books. Palladius, who came to Egypt to comprehend the essence of the ascetic discipline, visited Didymus four times [(Hist. Laus. 4.1 Bartelink)]. Evagrius Ponticus revered him as a “great [and] Gnostic teacher” [(Gnosticus 48)]. The most outstanding students of Didymus, Jerome and Rufinus, were ascetics. True, Jerome directly listened to Didymus for no more than thirty days 1177; but he later corresponded with him, often calling him his teacher 1178; he glorified his learning, lovingly called him “sighted” and even “prophet” and “apostolic man” 1179. Later, when Origenism disputes arose and Jerome broke up with his former friend Rufinus, and Didymus wrote an essay in defense of Origen, Jerome changed his attitude towards Didymus; but he still did not dare to insult the Alexandrian teacher, as he usually did in relation to others. Rufinus was a student of Didymus for several years and, if he did not praise him in such pompous terms as Jerome, he remained forever faithful to his teacher. The assumption that St. Gregory the Theologian listened to Didymus during his stay in Alexandria in the early fifties of the 4th century cannot be proven. It goes without saying that Didymus’s influence went far beyond the close circle of his immediate students: not only Cyril of Alexandria, but also Ambrose of Milan wrote under his strong influence. No information has been preserved about the last years of Didim’s life. He died in 398. Literary activity of Didim Didim wrote a lot. But very little of his rich literary heritage has survived: a significant number of works have been completely lost, only fragments of others have survived, and some have survived only under someone else’s name. The reason for this sad situation is that during his lifetime Didymus was accused of Origenism; in the 5th century the negative attitude towards him intensified, and Didymus’s suspicious books shared the fate of many of the works of his famous teacher. Dogmatic works. 1) “Three books about the Trinity” 1180. This work was considered completely lost and was found only in 1759 in a manuscript of the 11th century, published in 1769. The text of the manuscript is damaged: there are gaps, several chapters and a conclusion are missing. In the first book, the author, based on many places of Holy Scripture, proves that the Word is the Creator, God, the hypostatic radiance of the Father, a single being with Him and the Holy Spirit, and refutes the opinion and argumentation of the Arians and Macedonians. The second book continues these proofs and then very thoroughly proves that the Holy Spirit is ineffable in Himself and in His gifts and Divine in His properties and deeds, essentially one with the Father and the Son and together with Them there is the Holy and Worshipful Trinity, one God. The third book summarizes in brief syllogisms all the evidence given in favor of the deity and Hypostasis of the Son and Spirit and then very thoroughly and in detail explains all the biblical texts that were usually put forward against the deity of the named Persons. The work, apparently, represents the fruit of the author’s long labors and, one might think, was written by him in the last years of his life, since St. He already ranks Basil the Great among the holy fathers [(III, 22)] and, therefore, assumes him dead (January 1, 379), fights mainly against the Macedonians and assumes anathema on them by the Second Ecumenical Council of 381; in addition, Jerome, when calculating the works of Didymus in his work “On Famous Men” [(cap. 109)], written in 392, does not mention this work. From here the natural conclusion is drawn that the “Three Books of the Trinity” were written by Didymus after these events of 1181. 2) “Book of the Holy Spirit” 1182. The original text of this work is lost; it was preserved only in the Latin translation of the bl. Jerome, made at the request of Pope Damasus. The translation is undoubtedly accurate even in details; but he does not convey the authentic Trinitarian terms and formulas of Didymus. The work was written by Didymus at the request of his friend with the aim of thoroughly expounding the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, His deity, Hypostasis and activity on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and thereby giving ordinary believers a reliable weapon against heretics and their biblical evidence. The work is divided into two parts, of which the first (cap. 4–29) seeks to prove that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is consubstantial with the Father, and in the second, in the form of homily, passages of Holy Scripture are revealed in detail that affirm the Orthodox faith in the Holy Spirit. Although the book on the Holy Spirit is inferior in treatment to the books “On the Trinity,” it should be considered one of the best treatises of the 4th century. about the Holy Spirit. In the West it enjoyed particular success: St. Ambrose of Milan, who began writing a treatise on St. in 381. Spirit, used the Greek original of Didymus's work to such a strong extent that Bl. Jerome, in the preface to the translation of Didymus’s book “On the Holy Spirit,” made a sharp attack against St. Ambrose. Later it was used by the blzh. Augustine and the author of the essay “On Church Dogmas” (Gennady). The work was written before 381. 3) “Against the Manichaeans” 1183. The Manichaeans were the most influential and most dangerous enemies of the faith in Egypt. At the beginning of the 4th century. they were refuted by the Neoplatonic philosopher Alexander of Lycopolis, then by St. Athanasius in "The Word on the Gentiles"; later the author of the books “Against Apollinaris” (attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria), Serapion of Tmuya, Gregory of Nyssa, and Abba Shenuti wrote against them. During the time of Timothy of Alexandria, the influence of the Manichaeans in Egypt was so strong that many of the bishops and clergy became Manichaeans, and the patriarch was once forced to order meat on Sunday for his clergy in order to see who among them were Manichaeans. It is therefore clear that Didymus paid a lot of attention to polemics with the Manichaeans, and the struggle against them clearly sounds in all his works, especially in exegetical ones; although they are only rarely called by name, for the most part they are designated descriptively or are refuted without any indication of them. The essay “Against the Manichaeans”, specially dedicated to the polemics with the Manichaeans, presents a refutation of the main teaching of the Manichaeans that there are two higher, eternal beings - good and evil. Didymus proves that there is no evil being by nature, but the evil ones became such as a result of their own perverted will. The refutation is carried out by philosophical and biblical evidence. The text of the work has not been completely preserved: the beginning is missing, which is indicated by a fragment in the Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus. This fragment in the Sacra Parallela provides the only external evidence of the work's attribution to Didymus. The question of authenticity is complicated by the fact that Didymus’s work is closely related to the “Book against the Manichaeans”, known by the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa 1184: the text of Gregory's work is largely literal, sometimes only a slightly abbreviated reproduction of the text of Didymus, the latter representing the best manuscript tradition. In addition, the work of Didymus reveals similarities in some details with similar works of Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostria, Serapion of Tmuya, and Abba Shenuti. An exact comparison of all these works to establish the originality of each author and to determine the common sources they used has not yet been made. But whatever the results of such a study, sufficient grounds for asserting that the work in question belongs to Didymus lie in the noted fact that his authentic works strongly reflect his struggle with the Manichaeans as a constantly facing task. It is not surprising if he also devoted a separate work to refuting them. 4) “Commentary on Origen’s work “On the Elements.” Socrates (Hist. eccl. IV, 25) writes that Didymus “interpreted the books of Origen’s On the Elements and made notes on them in which he recognizes these books as beautiful, saying that scientists argue in vain, trying to blame this man and blaspheme his writings - “they cannot even understand the wisdom of this man.” Blzh. Jerome often speaks of this work in his dispute with Rufinus (“Apology against Rufinus”), calling it a “commentary” or even “brief remarks,” which gives rise to the assumption that we are talking about simple scholia of Didymus on the text of Origen. This work has not survived. About the contents of his blzh. Jerome says that Didymus tried to explain Origen's teaching about the Trinity in an Orthodox sense; but he himself adopted other errors of Origen - about the fall of angels, about the fall of souls, about the miracles of the resurrection, about the world or worlds, restoration, and so on. [(Apol. adv. Rufin. II, 11; 16)]. Rufinus used Didymus's work in his translation of Origen's On the Elements, and with the help of the student's explanations he tried to clarify the teacher's thought. 5) Blzh. Jerome in his “Apology against Rufinus” (III, 28) says that Didymus wrote, at the request of Rufinus, a book in which he answered his question: why do infants die after receiving bodies for their sins? Didymus, taking the Origen point of view, explained that they had not committed many sins and therefore they only needed to touch the prison of the bodies. The work has not survived. 6) Recently, Didymus has been mastering Books IV and V of the work “Refutation of the Defensive Speech of the Evil Eunomius,” belonging to St. Basil the Great 1185. It has long been pointed out in the scientific literature that books IV and V, although they speak of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit, do not stand in internal connection with the previous books, that they are not directed against Eunomius and his “Apologetics”, but in general against those who pervert the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, among whom Eunomius is named five times; that both in style and in the nature of the argument they differ significantly from the first three books and that for all these reasons they cannot belong to St. Basil the Great. This conclusion is considered indisputable in science. It is also undoubted that the IV and V books, in their content, should be attributed to the last quarter of the IV century. But determining the actual author is made difficult by the fact that the work, which is not at all distinguished by outstanding literary merits, has been preserved only incompletely or in extracts. An attempt was made (J. Dräseke) to assimilate this work to Apollinaris the Younger; but she had no success. Then, simultaneously and independently of each other, prof. A. A. Spassky 1186 and Fr. Ks. Funk pointed to Didymus as the actual author of books IV and V, noting a whole series of data that establishes a close relationship between the work of Pseudo-Basily and the “Three Books of the Trinity”, and Didymus’s “Book of the Holy Spirit”: both from the point of view of theological ideas and from the style side, these works seem to have an indisputable connection. Although not without some objections, this view is now firmly established in science. By the way, I must say that the assimilation of this work by Didymus makes it possible to attribute numerous references in the books “On the Trinity” to πρώτος λόγος [the first word] specifically to this work. 7) “Book against Arius and Sabellius” 1187. This treatise has been preserved with the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa. K. Holl proved that it cannot be the work of St. Gregory, and indicated its author in Didim. His argument was accepted wholeheartedly by some (J. Leipoldt and F. Loofs); to others (G. Krüger, Fr. X. Funk, E. Stolz, G. Bardy) it seemed insufficiently substantiated. And indeed, the only thing that can be considered proven is that the work does not belong to St. Gregory of Nyssa; but the authorship of Didymus is unfounded: although the totality of Trinitarian teaching in the treatise “Against Arius and Sabellius” is in the line of thought of Didymus, a significant number of expressions or ideas do not find any parallel with the authentic works of the Alexandrian scientist. 8) In the “Book of the Holy Spirit,” Didymus names two of his earliest works: “The Book of Sects” [(cap. 5; 21)] and “The Book of Dogmas” [(cap. 32)], both works apparently contained discussions about the Holy Spirit. Blzh. Jerome calls (De vir. ill. 109) “Two books on dogmas and against the Arians,” - the work is probably identical with the title “Book of dogmas.” All these works, like some others, known only by their titles (“To the Philosopher,” “On the Incorporeal,” “On the Soul,” “On Faith”), are known only by titles or small fragments. Exegetical works 1188. Didymus was famous as an outstanding expert on the Holy Scriptures and compiled numerous biblical commentaries. Jerome lists with surprise the large number of his exegetical works (De vir. ill. 109). But of all these works, not a single one has survived intact. We owe fragments of these works of Didymus to the so-called catenas, which very early began to be compiled from fragments of interpretations of St. fathers; fragments of Didymus's exegetical works are very numerous here. But it seems difficult to determine the volume of Didymus’s exegetical works on the basis of the catenas for the following reasons: firstly, it cannot be argued that all the passages placed in the catenas necessarily belong to biblical commentaries - they could have been taken from other types of works; secondly, the presence of a passage with the name Didymus in the catenas on one or another biblical book does not give an indisputable right to conclude that Didymus wrote a commentary on this particular book; the more such passages there are in one book, the greater the confidence will be that such a commentary was actually written; finally, thirdly, the authenticity of passages in the catenas cannot always be accurately established on the basis of inscriptions: the authors could be quoted abbreviated, and the formula Δ' could denote Didymus, Diodorus or Dionysius; on the other hand, scribes could omit or shorten passages. It is safe to say that Didymus wrote a commentary on all psalms 1189 - this commentary in its original composition was supposed to represent a huge work; Significant fragments of it have survived, and there is no reason to doubt their authenticity. They show that in exegetical method Didymus was a faithful disciple of Origen: to establish the Greek text he collated different lists of the LXX; but at the same time it gave wide scope to allegory. Minor passages indicate the existence of commentaries on Job 1190 and Proverbs 1191. The commentary on the prophet Isaiah 1192 numbered 18 books, but extends only to chapters 40 - 66: 5. The commentary on Hosea in three books 1193 and on Zechariah in five books 1194 were written at the request of Jerome and were dedicated to him. 1195 From the New Testament books, Didymus, one might think, wrote commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John 1196, on the Acts of the Apostles 1197, on the letters of the Apostle Paul 1198 - on First Corinthians 1199, Galatians and Ephesians 1200. Cassiodorus mentions his explanation of the seven conciliar epistles in 1201, with the remark that the scholastic Epiphanius translated them into Latin in 1202. This translation has survived and is placed among the works of Didymus; but its attribution to Didymus is questioned, since its passages in the catenas are found with the name of other writers, and on the basis of this the assumption is made that Cassiodorus and Epiphanius considered Didymus’ commentary to have been compiled no earlier than the 6th century. a collection of passages from Greek exegetes. In the second half of the 4th century. There is a significant spiritual upsurge in Greek theology. It is associated, on the one hand, with a freer attitude towards ancient education, since by this time paganism had been essentially defeated and Christians could devote themselves to the study of classical literature without the same fears; on the other hand, with the coming [revival in the development of Origen's legacy] 1204 and the more complete and direct use of the fruits of his learning. This rise of the scientific theological spirit found brilliant expression in the theological activity of the great Cappadocian fathers - Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory the Theologian. The theology of each of them presents individual characteristics both in general and in detail, but these are actually only varieties of one theological type. In terms of its basic principles and essential elements, it seems very complex. First of all, he was affected by the influence of Origen, who acted on the Cappadocian fathers all the more irresistibly because the principles of Origen’s theology turned out to be the theological traditions of their native country: a living tradition connected them with the recognized authority of the pre-Nicene era - Gregory the Wonderworker, a direct student of Origen. Memories of him by the time of the Cappadocian fathers, especially in the family of Basil the Great through his grandmother Macrina, were still extremely vivid; his theological views were also not yet forgotten: the Cappadocians themselves testify to the influence that the “Symbol” of the Apostle of their country had on their religious education (Basil. Caesar., Epist. 204 1205, ad Neocaesar. [, cap. 2; 6]; Gregor. Nyss., De vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi). Traces of significant dependence on him in the theological thought of the Cappadocians are indisputable. But Gregory the Wonderworker led the Cappadocians to Origen himself. They studied Origen carefully and were fascinated by him. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian even compiled a selection of the best passages from Origen’s works - “Philocalia”. True, they did not assimilate the erroneous opinions of Origen (with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa), but undoubtedly they penetrated into the spirit of his theology. However, the influence of Origen affected them to varying degrees: Basil the Great, a man of a more practical direction, a stronger and more positive spirit, was less subject to the influence of Origen; it was much more reflected in Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa is a true Origenist. Thus, Origenism, in the softened form in which Gregory the Wonderworker presented it, and with those restrictions on its freedom that were gradually made before that time and flowed naturally from the state of church doctrine, constituted one of the essential assumptions of the theological activity of the Cappadocian fathers on specially dogmatic issues of their time. But Origen actually defined the general character and spirit of their theology, providing at the same time a whole series of concepts and necessary terms. The content of [their] theological teaching was based on the Nicene Confession; hence their dependence on the theology of St. naturally follows. Athanasius: they were disciples of St. Athanasius and thereby strengthened their connection with New Alexandrian theology, with that essential feature that St. Athanasius noticeably outweigh the tendencies and range of thoughts of the Asia Minor theology of St. Irenaeus, and among the Cappadocian fathers - the Origen direction. This preponderance is explained not only by the increased influence of Origen on them, but also by the reinforcement that Origenism found in their broad and deep classical education. Thanks to the latter, they comprehended the spirit of Hellenic culture and science and stood at the level of their contemporary scientific worldview. When the Cappadocian fathers turned to the Hellenic school, the days of the dominance of one philosophical system had long passed: in the 4th century, syncretism came into its own, and everyone chose their own paths, borrowing from one or another system the necessary data for their own constructions. Therefore, among the Cappadocian fathers we see, on the one hand, the predominance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influences, which were akin to the Origenian direction of their theology and reinforced and explained it, but, on the other hand, they turned out to be not alien to Aristotelian views: the struggle against Arianism, mainly with Eunomius, who, with the help of Aristotelian philosophy, informed Arian dogmatics with dialectical, scientific and philosophical form, forced the Cappadocians, with all their dislike for Aristotle, to largely use the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, which could not remain without influence on some aspects of their theological teaching and its terminology. Finally, church-historical circumstances and the Cappadocian fathers’ own aspirations in serving the Church placed them, especially Basil the Great, in close relations with the leaders of that conservative trend in theology, which represented the traditions of Asia Minor theology: in connection with the influence of St. Athanasius, it undoubtedly had its share of influence on the direction and character of their theology, restraining them from one-sided enthusiasm for metaphysical problems and encouraging them to pay attention to practical-religious interests. With such an abundance of essential elements that were organically combined in the theology of the Cappadocian fathers, they, for their part, greatly contributed to the development of church theological science: what St. Athanasius expressed, although in a deeply philosophical spirit, but without proper formal-dialectical processing, more like a biblical-church dogma than a strictly philosophical theory, they developed it using a scientific-dialectical and philosophical-critical method, translated into the exact language of modern philosophical concepts. Therefore, the theological teaching of the Cappadocian fathers is extremely important in the history of church theology. In their theological works, the Trinitarian problem received a final resolution, and the understanding they established of the church teaching about the Holy Trinity and the formulas they created became a precious asset of Orthodox theological dogmatics. But they not only interpreted and revealed church doctrine, as it was expressed in the Nicene Confession, without changing its essence. The mission of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa was different from that of St. Athanasius: at a critical moment in church life, they were called to give form and precise expression to the teaching that was observed from the beginning in the Catholic Church, the defense of which was St. Afanasy set the goal of his life. St. Gregory the Theologian presented this teaching with complete clarity and gave it the most perfect expression, making the lofty secrets of the faith accessible to everyone; Basil the Great put it into practice, and Gregory of Nyssa gave it a scientific and philosophical basis. Involved in a dogmatic struggle, the Cappadocian fathers had to develop their activities in an environment that did not make it possible to remain only a temporarily accepted point of view. In no country were the dogmatic contradictions of that time so fully represented as in their homeland and neighboring provinces. In Asia Minor until the 90s lived the wittiest among the Arians - Eunomius. The fight against the pneumatomachus was more lively here than anywhere else, and the personal relationship between Basil and Eustathius of Sebaste intensified its passion. Finally, the Apollinarians especially developed persistent agitation in Cappadocia. But it was difficult to fight all these opponents, not only because of the large number of attackers, but also because the fight had to be waged on two fronts: it was difficult, for example, to refute Eunomius without incurring criticism from the Apollinarians, or to consistently reveal the Orthodox teaching against the pneumatomachus without causing confusion in the ranks of some adherents of the Nicene confession. The Cappadocians saw the best defense in establishing a positive teaching that would provide a solution to the problems posed by their opponents. Their formulas were always directed against objections that were raised from without; but with all their constructions they did not lose the ground of their own religious principles. There can be no dispute that the leader among the Cappadocians, both in church-administrative and theological relations, was St. Basil the Great: he drew the main lines within which Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa carried out their further constructions. Brief information about the life of St. Basil the Great St. Basil the Great was born in Caesarea Cappadocia around 330 (suppositions range between 329 and 331) and came from a well-known family in Pontus and Cappadocia (as well as in Lesser Armenia), famous both for its wealth, nobility and talents, and for its zeal for the Christian faith. His paternal grandparents had to flee to the forests of Pontus for seven years during Diocletian's persecution. Father St. Vasily, also named Vasily, was a lawyer and professor of rhetoric and had his permanent place of residence not in Cappadocia Caesarea, but in Pontic Neocaesarea; his mother Emmelia was the daughter of a martyr. They had ten children - five sons and five daughters, of whom the most famous were: the eldest son Basil, Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Peter, Bishop of Sebaste, and the eldest daughter Macrina - an example of ascetic life, which had a strong influence on the life and character of St. Vasily. One of the brothers of St. Vasily - Naucratius - was a lawyer, but while still very young he gave himself up to an ascetic life and died early. The first years of St.'s childhood Vasily spent time near Neocaesarea on an estate that belonged to his parents and owes his initial upbringing to his mother Emmelia and especially to his highly educated grandmother Macrina, who was a living witness to the last persecution of Christians and faithfully preserved the tradition of the famous Apostle of that country - Gregory the Wonderworker. Subsequently St. Basil, in a letter to the neo-Caesarians, who believed the slanderous accusations against him, speaks of the deep influence of Macrina on him: “As for my faith, what proof could be clearer than the fact that I was raised by my grandmother, a blessed wife, who is yours by birth? I’m talking about the famous Macrina, from whom I learned the sayings of the most blessed Gregory, preserved before her by succession of memory, and which she herself observed, and imprinted on me from an early age, forming me with the dogmas of piety” (Epist. 204[, cap. 6]). Thus, Macrina’s speeches and example of life made an indelible impression on Vasily, and one can think that in the quiet of village life on the Iris River, the seeds of the ascetic direction in its purest form were planted in the boy’s soul. After initial training under the guidance of his father, Vasily was sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where his relatives on his mother’s side lived and where he could benefit from the lessons of the most famous representatives of science. Here he met his future friend, Gregory of Nazianzus. Then he moved to the schools of Constantinople, where he listened to the then prominent sophists and philosophers and probably became known to Lebanon. Finally, to replenish and complete his education, he went to Athens, famous in ancient times, but even then it was still the center of classical paganism and enlightenment. In Athens, Vasily already found Gregory, who took him under his protection and protected him from some of the troubles that newcomers were usually exposed to. A very close friendship was established between them, which then continued throughout their lives. Gregory the Theologian, in his eulogy to Basil the Great (Orat. XLIII), enthusiastically and eloquently describes both this friendship and scientific studies in Athens. “We were led,” he says, “by equal hopes in the most enviable matter - in teaching. But envy was far from us; competition made us the most diligent. Both of us strove not for one of us to become the first, but in some way to give up primacy to each other, because each of us considered the glory of the other to be our own glory. It seemed that one soul [in both] 1207 had two bodies... As for lessons, we loved not so much the most pleasant as the most perfect... We knew two roads: one - this is the first and most excellent - led to our sacred churches and the teachers there; the other - this is the second and of unequal dignity with the first - led to the mentors of the external sciences. We provided other roads - to holidays, to spectacles, to public gatherings, to feasts - to those who wished” (20.1–2, 4; 21.1). Vasily’s natural talents received full development here. By the end of his stay in Athens, he was far superior to all his peers and possessed all the knowledge then available: “He studied everything in a way that another does not study one subject; He studied every science to such perfection, as if he had never studied anything else” (23.2). He was a philologist, orator, philosopher and dialectician. “It was easier to get out of the labyrinth than to escape the snares of his word when he found it necessary” (23.4). He learned so much about astronomy, geometry and the science of number relations that those skilled in this could not confuse him. His own physical ailments forced him to study medical science. He was also a lawyer and natural scientist. In a word, “it was a ship, as much loaded with learning as this could accommodate human nature” (24.1). After 4 or 5 years of stay in Athens, Basil returned to Cappadocia around 357 and for some time was in great indecision regarding his further path in life: his heart attracted him to a solitary and contemplative life, and his ebullient spirit and consciousness of outstanding powers in himself - to public activity - he chose the career of a lawyer. The extraordinary general approval with which his conduct of the trials was met represented a difficult test for him, from which, however, he was protected by the sensitivity of his conscience, the concerns of his sister Macrina and the loyalty of his friend Gregory. He soon abandoned a career that promised him fame and embarked on the path of an ascetic life. It is believed that Vasily was strongly influenced in this regard by Eustathius of Sebastia, whose close relationship with whom caused Vasily [subsequently] a lot of trouble. Eustathius was an ascetic and preached a new form of monasticism at that time. Around 356 he was elected Bishop of Sebastia, Metropolitan of Lesser Armenia. But it is even closer to look for an explanation for this step of Vasily - in family relationships, in which the powerful desire for an ascetic life in his contemporary Christian society was strongly expressed. After the death of Father Vasily, his mother, with his elder sister Macrina and some virgins, retired to the family estate on the Iris River near Neokesarea and there they spent an ascetic and contemplative life. It was probably only at this time of internal crisis that Vasily received baptism from Bishop Diania of Caesarea and, perhaps, soon after his baptism he was added to the clergy with the rank of reader. Then, no doubt, on the advice of Eustathius of Sebastia, Basil undertook a great journey to Egypt, Syria and Palestine to visit famous Christian teachers and ascetics (cf. Epist. 223, adv. Eustath. Sebast. [, cap. 2]). He was captivated by their ideal of life and finally established himself in that direction, which created his fame as a great teacher of asceticism. After two years of travel, he returned to his homeland, distributed his property to the poor and settled near his mother and sister on the other side, along with several persons of the same mind as him. They spent their time in prayer, contemplation, physical labor and the study of the Holy Scriptures, with Gregory, who often visited him, under the guidance of the most ancient interpreters, especially Origen, from whose works they compiled a collection at that time - Ώριγένους Φιλοκαλία [Philokalia (from the writings) of Origen]. Eustathius of Sebastia came here from time to time to visit his new students, and together with Vasily they visited Vasily’s mother, Emmelia. Soon, many imitators and disciples gathered around Vasily and monasteries for men and women were formed, in the organization of which Vasily sought to combine the cenovic life with the hermit life. At this time, Vasily, with the assistance of Gregory, wrote, at the request of the monks, his Τά ηθικά - a collection of rules of moral life selected from the New Testament. By his example and preaching, he so contributed to the Christian improvement of the surrounding inhabitants that, according to the testimony of Rufinus (Hist. eccl. II, 9), in a short time the whole of Pontus took on a different appearance. At the same time, Vasily began to take some part in the dogmatic disputes that worried the Eastern Church. When Constantius forced (in 359) the westerners in Ariminum and the eastern ones in Seleucia to sign the colorless confession of the Omians, Basil took the side of the Omiusian Basil of Ancyra, and in 360 he was in Constantinople with an embassy from the Council of Seleucia and listened there to the debates of Eustathius of Sebastia and Eunomius. From this time on, Basil took a very definite position in the sense of those Omiusians who, in the common struggle against Arianism, overcame their suspicious attitude towards ομοούσιος and united with Athanasius of Alexandria. When George of Laodicea brought the connecting formula of Constantius (the Nicene formula) to Caesarea, Dianius of Caesarea did the same thing that the leaders of the Omiusians did in Constantinople and what many others did (including Gregory of Nazianzus the Elder) - he signed it. This led to an estrangement between Vasily and Dianius, whom he revered from his youth, and Vasily avoided communicating with him for some time. On his deathbed, Dianius called Basil to him and convinced him that, despite signing the Nicene Formula, he remained internally faithful to the Nicene Confession. This was in 362. After the death of Dianius, great controversy arose when electing his successor, and the bishops, having gathered in Caesarea, yielding to popular pressure, elected one of the noble townspeople - Eusebius, a man distinguished by an exemplary life, but not only a layman, but not yet baptized and little familiar with church affairs. Eusebius, in order to attract a husband of such respect and importance as Basil to closer participation in church affairs, ordained him, probably in 364, to the rank of presbyter and used his help in preaching and in administrative matters. But the theological and ecclesiastical superiority of the presbyter over the bishop soon led to disagreements between them (their immediate cause is unclear), which even threatened church division in Caesarea due to the fact that the monks took the side of Basil. To prevent disorder, Basil wisely left Caesarea and retired to his dear solitude in Pontus; here he again took up the establishment of monasteries. But difficult times came for Orthodoxy when Emperor Valens declared himself a strong supporter of Arianism. The Arians directed all their efforts to take possession of the Cappadocian Church, and the expected arrival of the emperor himself in Caesarea threatened the Orthodox with great dangers. Then Basil, with the assistance of Gregory, reconciled with Eusebius, returned to Caesarea in 365 and energetically opposed the aspirations of the Arians. From that time on, Presbyter Basil appeared as the de facto leader of the Caesarea Church and during the rest of the time of Eusebius’s bishopric he developed the most extensive and fruitful activities in leading the community, establishing church discipline, inculcating monasticism and asceticism, and in constant preaching. According to Gregory the Theologian, “he was everything to the primate: a good adviser, a truthful representative 1208, [an interpreter of God’s word, a mentor] 1209 in affairs, a rod of old age, a support of the Faith, the most faithful in internal affairs, the most active in external affairs. In a word, he is recognized as benevolent as he was previously considered unfriendly. From that time on, church rule passed to Vasily, although he occupied second place in the department” [(Orat. XLIII, 33.3–4)]. Speaking about the activities of Basil at this time, St. Gregory praises his “courage in front of his superiors - both in general before everyone and before the most powerful in the city; his decisions on disputes, not taken without trust, but upon pronouncing through his lips through use, turned into law; his intercession for those in need, [mostly] in spiritual matters, and sometimes in carnal ones (because this, too, by winning people over with good disposition, often benefits the soul), feeding the poor, receiving strangers, caring for virgins, written and unwritten rules for monastics, orders of prayers, decorating the altar and other things that only a truly man of God and acting according to God can use for the people.” (34.1–2) . Basil's charity was especially evident during the severe famine that befell Cappadocia in 368, when he used all his estate, inherited from his mother who died around that time, to feed the hungry and, with his admonitions, encouraged others to generous charity. This period of Vasily’s activity dates back to his compilation of the second collection of monastic rules. His conversations “On the Sixth Day”, “On the Psalms” and many others come from the same time. While in the rank of presbyter, he also wrote the books “Against Eunomius.” In 370, the Caesarea bishop Eusebius died, and in his place, despite strong opposition from some bishops, with the energetic assistance of Gregory of Nazianza the Elder, Basil was elected. Opposition found its basis in personal and dogmatic antipathies, especially possible among the difficult and unclear religious-party relations in the East. Therefore, Basil found general recognition in his diocese only after a certain period of time. As bishop of Caesarea he was metropolitan of all Cappadocia, and his jurisdiction extended over 50 suffragan bishops in eleven provinces. A better choice could not have been made for such an important department. Vasily had everything for this: personal holiness, extensive general education, eloquence, deep knowledge of Christian teaching and administrative talent. From the point of view of Orthodoxy, he had an unblemished reputation: he was not bound by party obligations and no compromises or signatures of religious formulas could be pointed out to him. He represented the ancient and simple faith of Pontus, preserved in his family. St. Athanasius, with joy and gratitude to God, welcomed the gift of a bishop to Cappadocia - a true servant of God (Epist. ad Palladium). Vasily's episcopal service lasted about ten years and was full of tireless work, struggle and grief. The very election to the see was accompanied by a painful circumstance for him - the disagreement with him of many Cappadocian bishops (including even his uncle Gregory). With the assistance of friends who acted as mediators, Vasily, through a prudent, restrained course of action, without excessive severity, without any pandering or ingratiation, achieved that in the middle of 371 the danger of church schism was eliminated and those dissatisfied with him were convinced of the need for unity with him. But just as peaceful relations in the diocese began to improve, an accidental circumstance caused new troubles. Valens's government was busy redistributing provincial districts. Cappadocia, from which Armenia Minor and Pontus had already been separated, was again divided into two civil provinces, the new district being called Cappadocia II. Basil tried in vain to prevent this by writing letters to his most influential friends under Valens, since such a division, with the formation of a new center of civil life, was unprofitable for the Caesarea residents and threatened a sensitive violation of the rights of the Caesarea metropolitan. The city of Tiana was made the civil metropolis of the new province. The Tian bishop Anthimus was not slow in drawing a corresponding conclusion from this administrative calculation in relation to church administration: he immediately appropriated to himself metropolitan rights over the bishops of Second Cappadocia. Vasily rebelled against this. From here a discord [arose], and Anthimus took advantage of the previous discontent of the bishops towards Basil and began to attract dioceses and parishes to himself, either by flattery or by violence, deposed and expelled bishops and presbyters inclined towards Basil, and forcibly delayed the delivery of products to Caesarea from the estates of the Caesarian Church in Taurus, since they had to go through the new province. Basil, for his part, as far as he could, supported the former unity of the metropolis and, as one of the means to this, established bishoprics in the regions of Second Cappadocia and replaced them with the most worthy and faithful persons to him. Nazianz remained faithful to him; He placed his brother Gregory in Nissa, a small place west of Caesarea. To the south he wanted to have a bishop at Sasima, a postal station on the way from Cilicia. Vasily appointed his friend Gregory for this department. The latter did not share Vasily’s plans, did not want to be drawn into the struggle between metropolitans, and protested against moral violence. There was a painful disagreement between friends. Gregory with great reluctance yielded to Vasily, but did not actually take over the administration of his diocese. The struggle ended with reconciliation between Vasily and Anfim; the details of this event are unknown, but it is very likely that St. In order to restore peace and preserve unity in the faith, Vasily found it necessary to give in. In any case, the discord was ended, on the initiative of Basil, with a personal meeting and agreement with Anthimus and other bishops of Second Cappadocia on the possible multiplication of bishops everywhere to confirm the believers in the unity of doctrine and for the moral improvement of life. In his ecclesiastical area, both in its original full scope and in its reduced limits, Vasily showed himself to be an outstanding organizer. He was especially concerned about the strict implementation of the laws of the Church: he carefully ensured that only worthy persons entered the clergy, eliminating any partiality and any type of simony, and demanded the same attention and rigor from the bishops under his command; He prepared a lot of bishops in his clergy for other Churches and directed the newly installed bishops with his messages, for example, Amphilochius of Iconium and Ambrose of Milan. He traveled tirelessly, surveying his Churches and making sure that church discipline was not violated anywhere, restored the effect of violated canons, based on his observations and at the requests of others, he himself established laws and formulated rules, and called on other bishops to similar activities. His liturgy, his prayers, and his regulations concerning prayer and worship in the monastic rules remain a monument to his concern for the improvement of worship. Vasily often acted as an intercessor before the secular authorities for the poor, unfairly accused, and oppressed. For the clergy, he asked for exemption from taxes and a special church court. His messages are numerous, in which he is the intercessor of the weak, the defender not only of individuals, but also of cities and villages - either he asks the master to forgive his slave, or he convinces the pagan to reconcile with his son who converted to Christianity. Especially St. Vasily discovered jealousy in the charity organization. He used all his personal funds and all the income of his Church for the benefit of the poor, so that he himself was perhaps the poorest of the inhabitants of Caesarea. In another district of his metropolis, he established almshouses; in Caesarea he built a huge charitable institution, which included: a hotel, a hospice, an almshouse, a hospital - it represented a whole new city. But due to the circumstances of the time, the main task of St. Basil was the defense of the Orthodox faith and the restoration of church peace and unity. In the Eastern Church, during the reign of Valens (364–378), external dominance belonged to the Arians, who, on the main point of the Arian disputes - questions about the deity of the Son of God - split into several parties. In general, this question was resolved by some in the sense of His consubstantiality with the Father, by others - in the sense of complete similarity in everything, by others - in the sense of only likeness to the Father and, finally, even complete dissimilarity. At the same time, disputes about the Holy Spirit began to arise, and not only the Arians, but some of those who Orthodoxy taught about the Son of God treated with extreme fear the decisive formulation of the doctrine of the deity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, and not moderately zealous defenders of consubstantiality, like Marcellus and Photinus, gave real grounds to suspect Sabellianism behind consubstantiality, or, like Apollinaris of Laodicea, began to spread incorrect views about the incarnation of God the Word. Further, many Orthodox bishops, not only the original defenders of Athanasius and his teachings, but often their deputies 1210, who turned out to be Arians only in words and not in reality, were expelled, and their churches remained under the control of the presbyters alone, being at the same time subject to persecution by the ruling Arians party. Many stood in complete bewilderment between Arianism and Orthodoxy, horrified by the thought that the Son is not like the Father, and fearing monarchism in the doctrine of consubstantiality, and sometimes simply not being able to understand a whole series of symbols, each more ambiguous than the other, compiled under Constantine in order to unite all the opponents of Athanasius - such, of course, could not enjoy the trust of either the Orthodox or the Arians. Finally, there were those who, guided by more personal interests, curried favor with the Arians and were ready, in the event of a decisive victory, to persecute the Orthodox, but for the time being did not want to break the alliance with the Orthodox; It was almost impossible to find out their actual views. With such a confusion of dogmatic views and party interests, with mutual fears and suspicions of all kinds, there was too little communication between the eastern bishops. Councils of Orthodox bishops were not allowed, and it was difficult for them to sort out mutual relations and determine the actual number of supporters of the Nicene Confession. This general sad situation was intensified and aggravated by the Antiochian schism. In Antioch, in addition to the Arian Euzoius, there were two Orthodox bishops: Meletius, installed by the Arians in 360 and deposed by them when it was discovered that he was Orthodox, and Paulinus, who in the rank of presbyter all the time after Eustathius was a representative of the strict defenders of consubstantiality in Antioch; in 362 he [was] made bishop of Antioch by Lucifer of Calaris. The hasty and thoughtless course of action of Lucifer, who was guided in his relations with Meletius by his personal view - not accepted at the time by the Council of Alexandria, and later recognized as directly schismatic, on the need to depose every bishop for having entered into communion with the Arians - led to a sad division in Antioch. This schism at this time had serious consequences, among other things, because it supported distrust of the East in the West: the Eastern Orthodox bishops recognized Meletius as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, being confident in his Orthodoxy and condemning the installation of Paulinus during his lifetime; Westerners, inclined to consider the entire East Arian, supported Peacock. St. Athanasius of Alexandria entered into church communion with him as a constant defender of the Nicene doctrine, although he did not agree with the opinion of Lucifer and recognized Meletius as Orthodox, and was in communion with the eastern bishops who recognized Meletius. Under such conditions of church life, in order to maintain and, in the future, strengthen Orthodoxy in the East, it was necessary, first of all, to clarify the actual state of affairs, to dispel the general mistrust of Eastern bishops towards each other, to create the ground for mutual communication and unity of the undoubtedly Orthodox. St. took upon himself this task. Basil, at the same time revealing great tact and the greatest condescension towards those who erred through ignorance, so as not to alienate anyone from the union with the Church, if possible, and at the same time, with the greatest courage, defending the true teaching from attacks on its purity by heretics. For this purpose, he entered into relations with many prominent bishops of that time: St. Athanasius of Alexandria, his successor Peter, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Ascholius of Thessaloniki, Ambrose of Milan, Damasus of Rome and others, encouraged everyone to a common unanimous defense of the faith, stopped discord between bishops, organized, as far as circumstances permitted, meetings of bishops, whom he knew as Orthodox, tried to eliminate misunderstandings between them. In order to more accurately achieve the restoration of unity between the bishops in the East, St. Vasily decided to turn to the West for help, which at that time was free from Arian oppression and whose Orthodoxy in the eyes of the East was beyond doubt. With the help of St. Athanasius Basil entered into relations with the Western bishops and the Roman bishop Damasus. Both in writing and through special ambassadors, he asked them to pay attention to the state of church affairs in the East, to become familiar with them through proxies, in order to renounce unfair suspicions regarding persons who were actually Orthodox; he depicted in vivid colors the external and internal disasters of the Church, begged for assistance in convening a council against the Arians and, in general, to help restore peace in the East; finally, he urged him to intercede with Valentinian so that he would restrain his co-ruler from persecuting the Orthodox. But in the West they were poorly informed about the church affairs of Syria and Asia Minor and the passionate appeals of St. Vasily responded with cold indifference and even arrogance. In St. After all this, Vasily was left only with a bitter feeling of regret about useless requests. It is in vain, he said, to ask for help from arrogant people. “If God has mercy on us, why do we need outside help? If His anger continues, what benefit will the arrogance of the West bring us? They do not know the truth, and they do not want to find out, but only by their example they sanctify lies [(Epist. 239, ad Euseb. Samosat., cap. 2)]. The difficulties were further aggravated by the fact that the question of the Holy Spirit was added to the previous dogmatic disputes. Even in the books “Against Eunomius” St. Basil resolutely defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the unity of His nature with the Father and the Son. In his sermons, he limited himself to only asserting that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, that He is essentially holy and cannot be separated from the Father and the Son, but not only did not apply the term ομοούσιος to Him, but even avoided clearly calling Him God. This caution was caused by purely practical considerations: openly calling the Holy Spirit God would have been a welcome excuse for the Arians to expel the Holy Spirit. Basil and seize the See of Caesarea, and for those still wavering on this issue - another reason to fear rapprochement with the Orthodox. But some of the zealots of Orthodoxy, especially among the Caesarea monks, were tempted by this behavior of Basil and interpreted it as a betrayal of the faith, so Gregory the Theologian wrote to the monks in his defense, and even found it necessary to support him and St. Athanasius (in the letters “To John and Antiochus” and “To Palladius”), who expressed confidence that Basil does this, being weak for the weak, “that he may gain the weak.” On the other hand, when St. Basil wanted to introduce the confession of the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son into divine services and began to conclude the praise of God and the Father in two ways in his prayers, then with the words: “with the Son and with the Holy Spirit” (μτά του Υίου συν τω ΐΐνεύματι τω άγίω), then with the words: “through the Son in the Holy Spirit” (δια του Υίου έν τω άγίω Πνύματι), then some rebelled against him, accusing him of using unusual and mutually contradictory formulas [(De Spiritu Sancto 1.3)]. To put an end to doubts regarding the teachings of St. Basil about the Holy Spirit and in general clarification of Orthodox teaching on this issue, Amphilochius of Iconium asked to reveal the meaning of the expressions under discussion. In response to this request, St. Vasily wrote the book “On the Holy Spirit.” St. caused a lot of trouble. Basil and his relationship to Eustathius of Sebastia. Vasily was carried away by his asceticism, and a close friendship was established between them. Eustathius' dogmatic views were not stable, and for the sake of personal gain, he deceived the Orthodox and Arians, trying to be in communication with everyone. When Eustathius clearly leaned towards the Arians, he brought upon Vasily, who remained in communication with him, suspicion of the purity of his Orthodoxy. Basil managed to obtain from Eustathius satisfactory explanations and the signature of the Nicene Confession with explanations compiled by St. Basil together with Theodotus of Nikopol. But Eustathius soon openly opposed Vasily and before the Orthodox explained his action with impossible 1211 slander against Vasily, accusing him of communicating with Apollinaris, and of tritheism, of pride and seekerism, of church disorders. St. Basil had to eliminate the accusations, and explain his former closeness with Eustathius, and take care of maintaining the Orthodox in Sebaste. On the other hand, among the adherents of consubstantiality, who were tempted by the long-term relationship of St. Basil with the Arian Eustathius, there was Atharvius of Neocaesarea, an undoubted adherent of the Sabellian heresy, who incited the inhabitants of his homeland - the Neocaesarians - against Basil, accusing him of inclination towards Arianism for communicating with Eustathius, as well as of innovations - for changes in church singing and in monastic rules, and so armed them against Basil that when he visited his brother, monk Peter, near Neocaesarea, a formal disturbance occurred in the city. To restore church peace in Pontus, St. Basil called on Atarvius in writing to correct himself, convinced the neo-Caesarean clergy to counteract the spread of Sabellianism among them, explained to them and the people the insignificance of the reasons for which Atarvius armed them against him; finally, he personally visited Pontus, achieved complete unification of the bishops there, but could not reconcile the neo-Caesarians with himself. Basil's firmness in the fight against Arianism, shown by him even in the rank of presbyter, could not help but attract the attention of Valens, who was merciless in his desire to bring triumph to Arianism. Many bishops had already yielded to the emperor's insistence or were removed from their sees. Valens tried to force submission from St. Vasily, but he courageously repelled Valens’ attempts to persuade him to Arianism. In 372, Emperor Valens, who established Arianism in other provinces of Asia Minor, came to Cappadocia and sent to St. Basil, the praetorian prefect Modest, a man unscrupulous regarding the means of pleasing the king. Theological reasoning, promises, and, finally, threats were used, but without any success. For scholarly disputes, St. Vasily was too insightful theologian and skillful dialectician, promises did not deceive the ascetic who had renounced everything, nobles in matters of faith had no authority for him at all, and all the threats that Modest could indicate - confiscation, exile, torture - Vasily found simply inapplicable to a beggar, exhausted by labor and illness, a bishop. Having imagined himself omnipotent, the prefect was amazed at his powerlessness before the Christian bishop. The same firmness of St. Vasily showed up in the face of Valens himself, observing, however, respect for the emperor, and with his behavior he made such an impression on Valens that the latter left St. Basil is at peace, although the enemies of the Caesarea saint strenuously sought his exile. However, St. Vasily, as tireless and the most prominent after St. Afanasy, the defender of Orthodoxy, throughout his life remained the subject of hatred and all sorts of intrigues of the Arians, and only the love of the inhabitants saved him from violence on their part, sometimes forcing the persecutors themselves to seek his own salvation from the rage of the people. Among the constant dangers of St. Vasily supported the Orthodox, deprived of their shepherds, affirmed their faith and patience, called for courage, and aroused hopes for a better future. In connection with this line of activity, St. Vasily contains a large number of his letters to churches, bishops, clergy, and individuals. The circumstances of church life were too unfavorable and difficult, and the time of St. Vasily’s life was too short for him to fully achieve the results of his labors favorable to the Church: they were revealed only after his death. But he did see signs that better days were approaching for the Orthodox Church. Valens was killed in 378; in the last months of his life, persecution of the Orthodox decreased, and the law of his successor Gratian established religious freedom. In Constantinople, the Orthodox, suppressed for 30 years, turned to Gregory the Theologian by the end of 378, calling him to the capital of the empire; a favorable answer to their request was given to them in agreement with St. Vasily 1212. This was his last thing and his last joy. A harsh lifestyle, excessive continuous work, constant grief and the serious illnesses caused by all this prematurely exhausted his naturally fragile body. He died on January 1, 379 at the age of only 49 years. He was mourned by the entire population of Caesarea, without distinction of creeds or religions. St. Basil is revered in the Orthodox Church as one of the three ecumenical great teachers (οικουμενικοί μεγάλοι διδάσκαλοι). He is great as a bishop, orator, theologian and ascetic, great for his tireless activities for the benefit of the Orthodox faith, great for his dedication and strength of character. As a man of word and deed, he was rightly called great by his contemporaries. Creations of St. Basil the Great 1213 St. Basil the Great, as a cursory sketch of his life shows, was a man of primarily practical activity. Therefore, most of his literary works are conversations; another significant part is letters. The natural aspiration of his spirit was directed, apparently, to questions of Christian morality, to what could have practical application. But according to the circumstances of his church activities, St. Vasily often had to defend Orthodox teaching against heretics or the purity of his faith against slanderers. Hence, not only in many conversations and letters of St. Vasily, to a greater or lesser extent, turns out to be a dogmatic-polemical element, but he also owns entire dogmatic-polemical works, in which he shows himself to be a deep metaphysician and theologian. Apparently, all the works that were written by St. have not reached us. Basil: Cassiodorus, for example, reports that he wrote a commentary on almost all of Holy Scripture. On the other hand, between the works assimilated by St. Vasily, some are disputed in their authenticity with greater or lesser grounds. We will focus on the analysis of only those of them whose affiliation is St. Vasily is beyond doubt. The best edition of the works of St. Vasily belongs to the Maurinians - Garnier and Maran (1721-1730, Paris; 2nd ed. in 1839-1842), - their publication is now the basis for literary-historical and textual-critical works, which actually concern only individual issues. The Russian translation was published by the Moscow Theological Academy. The surviving works of St. Basil's works are divided into five groups in content and form: dogmatic and polemical works, exegetical, ascetic, conversations and letters. Dogmatic-polemical creations. 1) The most important dogmatic and polemical work of St. Basil - "Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius" Εύνομίου) 1214 . The content of this work is determined by the dogmatic provisions of Eunomius, revealed by him in his “Apology”; from this work by Eunomius of St. Vasily cites passages and writes a refutation of them. Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus, was a representative of that strict Arianism that arose in the 50s. IV century, to which Arius himself seemed insufficiently consistent. The founder and first leader of this new Arianism (Anomie) was Aetius. His only gifted student was Eunomius the Cappadocian, who presented in his works a detailed and systematic disclosure of the theological principles of Aetius. Possessing a strictly logical mind, he sharply criticized the Nicene doctrine of consubstantiality, and the influence of his views was so strong that such authoritative church leaders and writers as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia had to come out to fight him. In the system of Eunomius, which was distinguished by strictly logical consistency and consistency, Christianity lost its religious character and turned into a logical scheme of abstract concepts, into pure rationalism; the content of the Revealed Teaching was sacrificed to dialectic, so that, according to the fair remark of Theodoret (Haeret. fab. comp. IV, 3), for Eunomius θεολογία turned into τχνολογίαν; Aetius and Eunomius argued that with the help of the dialectical method, a person can know the very essence of the Divine as God Himself knows it. Having set himself the task of accurately determining the essence of the Father, Eunomius found that such an essence is the “unbornness” of the Father or His absolute originality. The characteristic and central thesis of Eunomius’ theology is the statement: “ungeneracy is the very essence of the Divinity.” Ungeneracy, as an exclusively Divine predicate, is incommunicable to other entities; since the essence of the Son is “begotten,” then He cannot be from the essence of the Father, but from those who do not exist; not consubstantial with the Father - because this would introduce division into the essence of God, absolutely simple, and not co-essential - because birth cannot be similar to ungeneration. He is the begetter and the creation. The divine will or energy, before all centuries, was moved in an exceptional way for the creation and birth of the Logos. It was created directly by the energy of the Almighty and, like the most perfect work of an artist, is an imprint of the entire power of the Father, His deeds, thoughts and desires. Not being equal to the Father either in essence, or in dignity, or in glory, the Son, however, infinitely rises above creatures and is even called by Eunomius the true God, Lord and King of glory, as the Son of God and God. The Holy Spirit is the third in order and dignity, therefore, the third in essence, the creation of the Son, different in essence from Him - since the work of the first creation must be different from the work of God Himself, but also different from other creatures - like the first work of the Son. Eunomius, who had gained the favor of the Arian Eudoxius (bishop of Antioch, and from 360 of Constantinople), became bishop of Cyzicus in 360, but since his teaching caused church unrest, the following year, at the insistence of more confident Arians, he was deposed by Constantius and exiled. On this occasion, Eunomius set out his teaching in writing and called his book “Apology” 1215; in it (“Apology” preserved: PG 30. Col. 836–868) he clearly expressed the essence of his teaching that the Son is a creature, although elevated above other creatures, and is unlike the Father in essence and in every respect. This work was highly valued by many Arians and the rigor of the development of the system and dialectical and syllogistic subtleties aroused surprise in many. Therefore St. Basil the Great, at the request of the monks, undertook in 363–364. a written refutation of it. The work “Against Eunomius” consists of five books, but only the first three indisputably belong to St. Basil, and the fourth and fifth in their construction, presentation and language are significantly inferior to the original works of St. Basil, in some opinions and interpretations, they diverge to the point of contradiction from his original works and represent not so much a harmonious work specifically against Eunomius, as a collection of evidence in general against the Arian false teachings regarding the Holy Trinity. There was an attempt to assimilate these books to Apollinaris of Laodicea, but recently the view has become established in science that they belonged to Didymus of Alexandria 1216. The first book is busy exposing the sophisms that Eunomius wove around the term “unborn.” St. Basil refutes the main position of Eunomius, that the essence of the Divinity is ungeneracy. Based on general usage and Holy Scripture, St. Vasily explains that the essence of things is comprehended by the human mind in parts, and not perceived directly, and is expressed by several different names, each of which defines only one attribute. The names assigned to God have the same meaning - both positive: holy, good, etc., and negative: unborn, immortal, invisible, etc. Only from all of them taken together does it seem like an image of God, very pale and weak compared to reality, but still sufficient for our imperfect mind. Therefore, the term “unborn” alone cannot be a perfect and complete definition of the being of God: one can say that the being of God is unborn, but it cannot be argued that unbornness is the being of God. The term “unborn” only indicates the origin or mode of being of something, but does not define the nature or being. Finally, St. Basil speaks of the communicability of the Divine nature through birth and the equality of the Father and the Son. Against the paradoxical assertion of Eunomius that he comprehended the very essence of God, St. Basil says that the human mind testifies only to the existence of God, and does not determine what God is, and the Holy Scripture certifies that the being of God is incomprehensible to the human mind and, in general, to any creature. In the second book of St. Basil proves that the Son is truly and from eternity born, since there is no time in God. God has in himself a patronymic 1217 co-prostrated with His eternity; therefore the Son, who exists from eternity and always exists, did not begin to be at any time, but when the Father, then also the Son. The Son is not a creature or creation, but as begotten of the Father, He is of one essence with Him and equal in dignity with Him. In the third book, the deity of the Holy Spirit is briefly and accurately proven and the assertion of Eunomius is refuted that He, being third in dignity and order, is also third in nature. The fourth book first gives an abbreviated repetition of the evidence against Eunomius set forth in the first and second books, and then explains the passages of Holy Scripture which, apparently, can serve as evidence against the deity of the Son and which were actually cited by the Arians. The fifth book speaks in detail about the deity of the Holy Spirit, His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son and explains the passages of Holy Scripture related here. 2) “On the Holy Spirit” (Περί του άγιου Πνεύματος), in 30 chapters 1218. The work was written at the request of a friend of St. Basil, Bishop of Iconia Amphilochius, around 375 regarding the changes made by St. Vasily in the final doxology. Then they usually ended the prayers and hymns with a doxology “to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.” This formula was accepted by both the Arians and the Doukhobors, [since] it allowed for the possibility of explaining it in the sense of their teaching about the created subordination of the Son and the Spirit, and the heretics referred to it in support of their opinion. To make such references impossible, St. Vasily began to preferentially use the doxology “to the Father with the Son and [with] the Holy Spirit.” Rumors began about this, and St. Vasily was accused of innovation. Amphilochius asked St. Vasily to justify the change he introduced. In response to this request, St. Basil compiled the aforementioned dogmatic-polemical work, which aims to prove that the Son and the Holy Spirit have equal honor with the Father, since They are of the same nature with Him. St. Vasily first points out that it is indeed necessary to discover the hidden meaning in every utterance and in every syllable, but that the heretics direct their sophistic reasoning about syllables and prepositions to confirm their false teaching about the difference in essence of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The subtle distinction of the prepositions “with”, “through”, “in” was borrowed by heretics from external wisdom, and in the Holy Scriptures the use of these prepositions is not strictly maintained, and they are applied to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that confirmation for Arian views cannot be found in the previous doxology. Moving on to defending his own formula of doxology, St. Basil first speaks of the glorification of the Son. The heretics argued that since the Son is not together with the Father, but is necessarily after the Father, therefore, below the Father, then the glory of the Father is given “through” Him, and not together “with” Him, insofar as the first expression denotes a service relationship, and the last - equality. St. Basil asks on what basis do heretics say that the Son is after the Father, and proves that the Son cannot be inferior either in time, or in rank, or in dignity. Therefore, both formulas of doxology can be accepted and known in the Church, with the only difference being that “when we take into account the greatness of the nature of the Only Begotten and the excellence of His dignity, then we testify that He has glory “with the Father”; and when we imagine that He gives us blessings and brings us ourselves to God and makes Him His own, then we confess that this grace is accomplished “by Him” 1219 and “in Him.” Therefore, the saying “with Him” is characteristic of those who glorify, and the saying “To Him” is especially fitting for those who give thanks” (7.16). Further St. Basil speaks of the glorification of the Holy Spirit and, first of all, proposes to explore the ideas common to all Christians about the Holy Spirit, borrowed from the Holy Scriptures and from the unwritten tradition of the fathers, namely, about His greatness and dignity, about His actions in the world, especially the impact on the soul. The heretics’ assertion that the Holy Spirit should not be placed along with the Father and the Son, because He is both by nature alien to Them and inferior in dignity to Them, St. Basil refutes by pointing to the commandment of the Lord about baptism “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” and the confession pronounced before baptism, which heretics now renounce - “whoever rejects the Spirit, for that faith in the Father and the Son will turn into vanity, and he cannot have this faith if the Spirit is not present” (11.27). References to baptism only into the Lord, into Moses, and baptism into water cannot serve as an objection to the conclusions drawn. In connection with this, St. Vasily speaks in detail about the Old Testament prototypes, about the actions of baptism and finds out that the combination of the name of St. The Spirit with the Father and the Son in the sacrament of baptism, where the life-giving power dominates, elevating our nature from a state of destruction to immortality, establishes such a unity that cannot be thought of as accidental, either existing or ceasing, but necessarily presupposes the consubstantiality of the united Persons. This unconditionally indivisible unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is obvious from the unity of Their actions in creation, where the Father is the original Cause, the Son is the creative Cause and the Holy Spirit is the perfect Cause: “Imagine the Three - the commanding Lord, the creating Word and the affirming Spirit” (16.38). One Principle [of beings], creating through the Son and working in the Spirit. They are united in the economy of human salvation, in the distribution of spiritual gifts and in the future judgment. But the most important proof that the Spirit is united with the Father and the Son is what has been said that He has the same relationship with God as the spirit in him has with everyone (1 Cor. 2:11: “Who knows the message from man...”, etc.). The term “counting” - ύποφιθμησις (as opposed to “counting” - συνοφίθμησις) invented by heretics to designate the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son is absurd for this purpose, since it defines the relationship of the individual to the species or the species to the genus and introduces the idea that the one in God, a being is not something real, but only mentally imaginable. The Orthodox, although they confess three Hypostases, do not thereby destroy Their real unity in essence and do not allow the Son to be called the second God, and the Holy Spirit the third, which is implied by the term ύπαρίθμησις: “In this way the Hypostases are confessed, and the pious dogma [of unity of command] 1220 does not fall.” (18.47) . After this St. Basil decisively establishes the position that the Holy Spirit is entitled to be glorified in exactly the same way as the Father and the Son, and proves this on the basis of the identity of the names adopted by the Holy Scriptures of the Holy Spirit. Spirit, with the names of the Father and the Son, the identity of the Divine properties: incomprehensibility for humans, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc., as well as on the basis of complete communication with the Father and the Son both in action and in essence. Opponents of St. Basil argued that Scripture nowhere taught about the glorification of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, but carefully avoided the expression: “with the Spirit,” and always preferred the expression: glorify “in the Spirit.” St. Basil objects that the second form of doxology is used in the Holy Scriptures in such a way that it glorifies the Holy Spirit no less than the first, and in no way expresses His official position. But the second formula in its entirety is not found in Holy Scripture; and if it is borrowed from custom, then the Orthodox, finding both sayings in use among the faithful, use both, being confident that both are equally given glory to the Spirit. But since the opponents are not actually arguing about the word, but have made it an expression of an incorrect thought not contained in the Holy Scriptures, then we should prefer the preposition “with”, which gives a very clear concept of consubstantiality - such a formula eliminates both Sabellianism and Arianism. Having raised the question of where the preposition “with” came from, what power it has and to what extent he agrees with Tradition, St. Basil responds to him with an enthusiastic defense of the meaning of Tradition in the famous passage (cap. 27), beginning with the words: “Of the dogmas and sermons observed in the Church, some we have in the teaching set forth in Scripture, while others, which have come down to us from the Apostolic Tradition, we have accepted in secret. But both of them have the same power for piety...” To the objection (of the Arian Eudoxius) that doxology “with the Spirit” is not attested and not set forth in Holy Scripture, St. Vasily replies: “I consider it an apostolic rule to adhere to traditions not set forth in Scripture” (29.71). One of such traditions is the doxology under consideration, in confirmation of which St. Vasily refers to the bishop from whom he himself received baptism, and gives examples of the use of this formula by Sts. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Gregory the Wonderworker, [Dionysius of Alexandria] 1221, Origen, Martyr Athenogenes 1222, Firmilian 1223 and Meletius 1224. In the final chapter of St. Basil picturesquely depicts the sad state of the Church, like a ship subjected to a terrible storm; it is the result of disrespect for paternal rules, the insidious machinations of heretics, self-interest and rivalry of the clergy, which is worse than open war. Exegetical works. Cassiodorus (De institutione divinarum litterarum, Praef. [4]) says that St. Basil interpreted all Holy Scripture 1225. But now the interpretations of his conversation “On the Sixth Day” and on some psalms are known as undoubtedly authentic. 1) “Nine Discourses on the Sixth Day” (Oμιλίαι εἰς τὴν Εξαήμερον) 1226 were pronounced by St. Basil, when he was still a presbyter (hence, until 370), during the first week of Great Lent, in the church, before listeners of a mixed composition, but mainly from the common people. St. Basil conducted conversations on some days twice. Their subject was the account of the book of Genesis about the creation of the world in six days (Genesis 1: 1–26). The conversations stop on the fifth day of creation, and in the ninth conversation of St. Basil only points out the participation of all the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the creation of man, and an explanation of what the image of God consists of and how man can participate in His likeness is promised in another discussion. This intention was probably not fulfilled, and the well-known three conversations - two about the creation of man 1227 and the third about paradise 1228, sometimes appended to the “Sex Day” as its continuation, are not authentic. Later, Gregory of Nyssa supplemented the “Six Days” of St. Basil with his work “On the Structure of Man,” thereby confirming that St. Vasily did not finish talking about the creation of man; St. Ambrose of Milan also knew only nine discourses of Basil the Great. In the conversations of St. Basil’s goal is to depict the creative Divine power, harmonious order and beauty in the world and to show that the teachings of philosophers [and] Gnostics about peacemaking are unreasonable fabrications and that, on the contrary, the Mosaic narrative alone contains Divine truth, consistent with reason and scientific data. In accordance with the didactic-polemical purpose of his work, he is guided almost exclusively by the literal meaning of Holy Scripture, eliminating allegorism in interpretations and even in passing rebels against its abuse (Homil. in Hexaemeron II, 5; III, 9; IX, 1). He carefully determines the meaning of the sayings being interpreted, explores, using [scientific] data, the properties and laws of nature and artistically describes them. Along the way, he brings to the subject of his speech the excellent lessons of popular philosophy, when he contrasts the immutability of the Divine word with the contradictory systems of philosophers, which mutually destroy each other (Homil. in Hexaemeron I), attacks the sophists who recognize the eternity of matter, and the heretical Gnostics or Manichaeans, personifying the evil principle in order to oppose it to God (Homil. in Hexaemeron II), depicts the absurdities and dangers of astrology and defends the freedom and moral responsibility of man against it (Homil. in Hexaemeron VI), based on observations of animals, he affirms the expediency in the structure of the world and the action of Providence in it (Homil. in Hexaemeron VII-IX), in the infallibility of their instinct shows the image of natural consciousness (Homil. in Hexaemeron IX). Pursuing the goals of edification, St. Vasily teaches us to learn from nature the Creator, His goodness and wisdom, and constantly offers moral instructions, bringing together the phenomena and laws of nature with human properties. The authenticity of the conversations “On the Sixth Day” is beyond any doubt: Gregory the Theologian already calls them at the head of the works of St. Basil (Orat. XLIII, 67.1), and throughout the entire period they were highly valued not only in the East, but also in the West. 2) “Discourses on Psalms” (Όμιλίαι ίίς ψαλμούς) 1229 were delivered by St. Vasily, probably still in the rank of presbyter. Thirteen are recognized as authentic: psalms 1, 7, 14, 28, 29, 32, 33, 44, 45, 48, 59, 61 and 114. These conversations probably represent only part of his commentary on the psalms; there are fragments of his interpretations on other psalms, if the fragments published by Cardinal Pitra 1230 are authentic; in addition, in the conversation on Psalm 1 only the first two verses are explained, and in Psalm 14 only the last verses are explained, but in both conversations the interpretation of the remaining verses is also indicated; Finally, the conversation on Psalm 1 is preceded by a general preface, treating in general the merits of the psalms, which apparently suggests an intention to systematically explain the entire Psalter. In the surviving conversations of St. Vasily comments on the text of the psalms verse by verse. Here he is not limited to establishing the literal meaning and indicating the moral application, but also gives room to an allegorical and representative interpretation. In general, the conversations are of a popular nature and are not so much aimed at interpretation as at the moral application of the biblical text. Researchers note that in some cases (for example, in Homil. super Ps. 14) interpretations of St. Basil completely coincides with the interpretations of the psalms of Eusebius of Caesarea: this is partly explained by the fact that both used the comments of Origen; however, in cases where such coincidences turn the conversation into a compilation from Eusebius, there are serious reasons to doubt its attribution to St. Vasily; On this basis, by the way, the conversations on Psalms 37, 132 and the second conversations on Psalms 14 and 28 are considered inauthentic. 3) “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (Ερμηνεία εις τον προφήτην Ήσαΐαν) 1231 – a detailed and publicly accessible explanation of the first 16 chapters of the book of the prophet. Isaiah. The author follows for the most part the literal meaning of the text and then gives a moral application of the prophet's words. The style of this work is significantly inferior in treatment to other works of St. Vasily. Quite a large number of passages are literally borrowed from Eusebius’s interpretation of the book of the prophet. Isaiah, even more borrowings from Origen. Evidence that this interpretation belongs to St. Vasily begin only in the 7th century. (Maxim the Confessor). Jerome in De viris illustribus 116 does not name him among the works of St. Vasily. All this taken together is a strong obstacle to the assimilation of the “Commentary on the Prophet.” Isaiah" St. Vasily. Defenders of its authenticity, based on the postscript in some manuscripts, that this interpretation was published only after the death of St. Basil by some presbyter, explain its features in comparison with other creations of St. Basil like this: St. Vasily began to prepare an interpretation of the book of the prophet. Isaiah according to the guidance of ancient interpreters, especially Origen, but then had no time to either finish or process what was written. But even if we deny that this commentary belongs to St. Vasily considers it beyond doubt that it was written in the second half of the 4th century. and perhaps a Cappadocian. Ascetic creations. Together with Gregory the Theologian, as the latter certifies, St. Basil already in 358–359. in Pontic solitude on Iris, he compiled written rules and canons for monastics. Gregory the Theologian also reports (Orat. XLIII, 34.2; 62.3) about the written laws of St. Basil for monks and about the women's monasteries established by him with written charters. The set of ascetic works attributed to St. Vasily, embraces the following works: - firstly, 'Ασκητικά', which includes: 1) “The purpose of asceticism” - as if a general preface to the instructions on Christian life; 2) “A word of asceticism and an exhortation to renounce the world and about spiritual perfection”; 3) “A Word on Asceticism”; – secondly, Ηθικά: 4) “About the judgment of God”; 5) “About faith”; 6) “Moral rules”; 7) “Rules stated at length”; 8) “Rules, briefly stated”; 9) “Ascetic statutes”; 10) “Rules on punishments.” – “Ascetic Destiny” ([Ασκητική] Προδιατύπωσις) 1232 – an admonition to those seeking Christian perfection to look at themselves as spiritual warriors of Christ, obliged to conduct spiritual warfare with all care and fulfill their service in order to achieve victory and eternal glory. – “The ascetic word (Λόγος ασκητικός) and exhortation to renounce the world” 1233 – contains a call to renunciation of the world and moral perfection. The author compares worldly life with monastic life and gives preference to the latter, without condemning the former, but pointing out that unconditional obedience to the Gospel is necessary in it, gives instructions regarding various pious exercises and describes the degrees of Christian perfection that are achieved only by great labor and constant struggle with sinful aspirations. – “The word on asceticism, how a monk should be decorated” (Λόγος περί ασκήσεως, πώς δει κοσμεΐσθαι τον μοναχό ν) 1234 – in brief provisions gives excellent instructions for the entire behavior of a monk and for spiritual life in general, so that it meets the requirements of ascetic perfection in all respects. - “Preface on the Judgment of God” (Προοίμιον περί κρίματος Θεοῦ) 1235 The author says that during his travels he observed endless bickering and discord in the Church; and, what is saddest of all, the primates themselves disagree in beliefs and opinions, allow things contrary to the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ, mercilessly tear the Church apart, mercilessly disturb His flock. Having thought about the reason for such a sad state, he found that such disagreement and strife between members of the Church occur as a result of apostasy from God, when everyone deviates from the teachings of the Lord, arbitrarily chooses theoretical and moral rules for himself and wants not to obey the Lord, but rather to dominate Him. After exhortations to maintain unanimity, a union of peace, and strength in spirit, the author recalls the manifestations of Divine judgment in the Old and New Testaments and points out the need for everyone to know the law of God, so that everyone can obey it, with all diligence pleasing God and avoiding everything that is displeasing to Him. In view of the above, St. Vasily considered it appropriate and at the same time necessary to first expound the sound faith and pious teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to this add moral rules. - Exposition of the sound faith of St. Vasily gives in the essay “On Faith” (Περί πίστεως) 1236. He says that he will expound only what is taught by the inspired Scripture, beingware of those names and sayings that are not literally found in the divine Scripture, although they preserve the thought contained in the Scripture. Then the teaching of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is presented in a condensed form, with an admonition to teachers to be devoted to this faith and to beware of heretics. In conclusion, St. Vasily recalls his promise to set out the moral teaching, which he now intends to fulfill, collecting in the form of brief rules what is prohibited or approved in the New Testament, indicating the very places of Holy Scripture, so that the reader can find evidence in the Bible for each rule. – This characteristic is met by the compositions of St. Basil “Moral Rules” (Τά ήθικά) 1237, numbering 80, each further divided into chapters; the rules are truly set out in the words of Holy Scripture and determine all Christian life and activity, both in general and in prison, [and] especially in different states (preachers of the Gospel, primates, [persons] living in marriage, widows, slaves and masters, children and parents, virgins, warriors, sovereigns and subjects). – “Rules Explained in Extensive Way” (Οροι κατά πλάτος) 1238, in questions and answers, consist, in fact, of 55 separate rules, presented in the form of questions from monks and answers from saints. Vasily, or, better to say, his concisely stated reasoning regarding the most important issues of religious life. As can be seen from the preface, during the composition of this work, St. Vasily was in desert solitude, surrounded by people who assumed the same goal of a pious life and expressed a desire to learn what was necessary for salvation. From the answers of St. Vasily compiled, as it were, a complete collection of the laws of monastic life, or a doctrine of the highest moral perfection, but without a strict plan. – “Rules briefly stated” (Οροι κατά έπιτομήν) 1239, numbering 313 – also in questions and answers, contain almost the same thoughts as those revealed in the lengthy rules, with the difference that the lengthy rules set out the basic principles of spiritual life, and the short ones – more special, detailed ones instructions. All these works are undoubtedly recognized as the authentic creations of St. Basil 1240. The remaining ascetic works known with his name: 1) two words “On the exploits of monks” 1241, setting out the most important duties of monastic life and admonitions for their fulfillment; 2) “Ascetic Rules” (Άσκητικαί διατάξεις) 1242, consisting of a preface and 34 chapters and setting out in simple speech the rules of monastic life, mainly for hermits; and 3) Έιτιτίμια 1243 - rules defining punishments for violation of monastic duties by monks (60 rules) and nuns (19 rules) - should be considered either doubtful (like the two words “On Monastic Deeds”, due to the lack of evidence in favor of their authenticity), or certainly spurious (like two other works expressing views that disagree with the teachings of St. Vasily in his original works) 1244. Ascetic works of St. Basil provide evidence of the form of monastic life that spread in this era in Cappadocia and throughout Asia Minor, and in turn had a strong influence on the development of monasticism in the East: little by little they became the generally accepted rule of monastic life. St. Basil does not recommend the solitary life of anchorites, which he even considers dangerous; he does not seek to reproduce those huge monastic colonies that he observed in Egypt - he prefers monasteries with a small number of inhabitants, so that everyone can know their boss and be known to him. He considers manual labor obligatory, but it must be interrupted for general prayer at certain hours. St. Basil gave instructions full of wisdom and knowledge of life on those cases, frequent in ancient society, when married people insisted on being admitted to the monastery, when slaves sought refuge in them, when parents brought their children to them. Despite its purpose for monastics, the ascetic instructions of St. Basil and for all Christians can serve as a guide to moral improvement and a truly saving life. Liturgical works of St. Vasily. The general tradition of the Christian East testifies that St. Basil composed the order of the liturgy of 1245, that is, he organized in writing and brought into a uniform, stable form the liturgy that had been preserved in the Churches from apostolic times. This is evidenced by a number of testimonies, starting with St. Gregory the Theologian, who among the works of St. Basil mentions εύχών διατάξεις, εύκοσμίαι του βήματος [orders of prayers, decoration of the altar 1246 (Orat. XLIII, 34.2)], and St. Proclus of Constantinople, who reports a reduction in the duration of the service [liturgy] of St. Basil and then John Chrysostom, until the Councils of Trullo and the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Text of the Liturgy of St. Basil has been attested since the beginning of the 6th century, and its lists agree with each other in essentials, which proves its origin from the same original. But over the course of centuries, many changes in details undoubtedly occurred in it, so that in the latest scientific publications its oldest and most recent texts are compared. In addition, St. Basil introduced in his district the custom, apparently borrowed from Antioch, of singing psalms in two choirs, which, however, was not agreed upon, for example, in Neocaesarea, citing the fact that such an order did not exist under St. Gregory the Wonderworker (for details, see the letter of St. Basil to the neo-Caesarean clergy - Epist. 207). Conversations. St. Basil the Great belongs to the outstanding preachers of Christian antiquity. His eloquence is characterized by oriental charm and youthful enthusiasm. “Whoever wants to be a perfect orator,” says Photius (Biblioth. 141), “does not need either Plato or Demosthenes if he chooses Basil as a model. His language is rich and beautiful, his evidence is strong and convincing" 1247. Conversations of St. Vasily is considered one of the best works of preaching literature. In the publications of the Mavrinians, 24 conversations were recognized as more or less authenticated and 8 as forged; however, this conclusion cannot be considered final, and an accurate study is necessary here: for example, the XVII conversation, on St. Martyr Barlaam is probably not genuine, and two of the “false” conversations (“On the Nativity of Christ” 1248 and against those who accused St. Basil of tritheism 1249) are defended by new researchers. According to their content, these conversations can be divided into three groups: dogmatic, moralizing and laudatory. a) Dogmatic conversations include the conversation “On Faith” (Homil. XV) 1250, in which St. Basil speaks about the nature of the Divinity and proves the Divine dignity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The conversation at the beginning of the Gospel of John [(Homil. XVI)] 1251 explains the first two verses, revealing in detail on the basis of them and proving the Orthodox teaching about the true deity of the Son and His relationship to the Father. In the conversation “Against the Sabellians, Arius and [Anomians] 1252” [(Homil. XXIV)] 1253, the errors of these heretics are refuted, an accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith is opposed to them and, at the request of the listeners, the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit is especially defended by the authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition. A special conversation [(Homil. IX)] 1254 is devoted to proving that God is not the author of evil in the world; in it St. Vasily reveals the inconsistency of the usual identification of any external misfortune with evil and explains for what reasons God sends or allows such misfortunes to a person - for the good of himself and his neighbors, and indicates the source of evil in the true sense of the word - in human sin, in the abuse of free will. Dogmatic conversations also include the conversation “At the beginning of the book of Proverbs” [(Homil. XII)] 1255, in which its first five verses are explained. b) Conversations of a moralizing nature make up the majority of all conversations of St. Vasily. Some of them are directed against the vices that dominated contemporary society. Thus, four conversations were delivered in denunciation of the stinginess and greed of the rich, who not only did not help the poor, but also took advantage of public disasters in order to make as much money as possible from the sale of basic necessities. St. Basil, with all the power of his eloquence, proved the duty of charity for a Christian, the vanity of wealth and all earthly pleasures, the inconsistency of explanations by which people justify their stinginess, etc. One of these conversations [(Homil. VIII)] 1256, delivered during famine and drought, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian [(Orat. XLIII, 35.3)], produced a miracle: she prompted the rich to give their supplies to feed the poor. Conversation “Against the Angry” [(Homil. X)] 1257 explains how many great troubles and evils anger causes, how unfair and petty the reasons that arouse anger in people are often, how a person can overcome unjust anger in himself, and, however, St. Vasily does not unconditionally prohibit all anger, but recognizes the possibility of just anger. In the conversation “On Envy” [(Homil. XI)] 1258, the speaker depicts the harm of this passion, the most destructive of all that are reborn in human souls, and offers advice on how to heal it. In a special conversation [(Homil. XIV)] 1259 St. Vasily very energetically rebels against drunkenness, pointing out the sad consequences of this vice for the soul and body and convincing those who succumbed to it to repent. Another part of the moral discourses is devoted to exhortations to virtue and pious exercises. In one conversation [(Homil. XX)] 1260 St. Vasily dwells on the virtue of humility and points out in it the basis of all other virtues, gives examples of imitation of humility in Christ and in the saints, and teaches in what ways a person can acquire this virtue. In two conversations [(Homil. I; II)] 1261, delivered on the last Sunday before Pentecost, St. Vasily speaks about fasting, urging not only to observe the fast established by the Church and carry it out in a manner pleasing to God, but also to prepare for it gradually in advance, and not to indulge in satiety and immoderate joy lately before it. In conversation on the words of Deuteronomy, “take heed to yourself” (Deut. 15:9) [(Homil. III)] 1262 St. Vasily speaks about the need for a person to constantly be vigilant regarding impure thoughts, about the benefits of careful self-study, and about the need to always remember one’s responsibilities. In the conversation “On Thanksgiving” [(Homil. IV)] 1263 instructions are given on how to achieve such a state in order to fulfill the instruction of the apostle: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything” (1 Thess. 5: 16-18). The same theme is revealed in the first half of the conversation in memory of the martyr Julitta [(Homil. V)] 1264. In the conversation “On Baptism” [(Homil. XIII)] 1265, those who delay accepting baptism under various pretexts are denounced. St. Basil points out the true reason for the slowness in the desire to live freely and not constrain oneself in life by the vows of baptism, denounces the unreasonableness and sinfulness of such a course of action, depicts the disastrous consequences of such a postponement of baptism and convinces one to proceed to baptism, to enter into the book of the Church in order to be rewritten in the book above. The well-known conversation “To young men on how to benefit from pagan writings” (Homil. XXII) 1266 can also be attributed to this category of moralizing conversations. In it St. Basil the Great proves that the Greek pagan classics have not an absolute, but only a relative, propaedeutic significance, since they help the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, make the spirit capable of understanding heavenly truths, and guide in virtue by teaching and examples. St. Basil, on the one hand, defends the permissibility of Christians to study classical literature and at the same time warns against excessive enthusiasm and unconditional trust in it. The issue is considered not from a scientific or aesthetic point of view, but exclusively from an ethical point of view. In the introduction, the speaker says that the real purpose of man is eternal life, for which earthly life serves only as a preparation. The Holy Scriptures, which instruct through mysterious teachings, lead to this life. But while young men, due to their age, cannot comprehend their meaning, they can exercise their spiritual eye on other works that are not alien to the truth, such as shadows and mirrors, just as Moses went through the Egyptian sciences, and Daniel the Chaldean ones. “Having devoted ourselves to the preliminary study of these external writers, we will then begin to listen to the sacred and mysterious lessons and, as if accustomed to looking at the sun in the water, we will finally turn our gaze to the light itself” [(cap. 2)]. The reading of these works should, therefore, not be an end in itself, but only a means of learning virtue from their teaching and examples. Young men, like bees, should assimilate from them only what is necessary, related to the truth, and ignore everything else. Then he gives examples of instructive instructions and virtuous actions from classical literature - poetic, historical, oratorical works, and again convinces not to take everything from them, but only what is useful. c) Laudatory words of St. There are five preserved Basil: in memory of the martyr Julitta [(Homil. V)], the martyr Gordius [(Homil. XVIII)] 1267, for the forty martyrs [(Homil. XIX)] 1268, on the day of St. Martyr Mamant [(Homil. XXIII)] 1269, whose shepherd's occupations gave reason to talk about the good shepherds of the church and about mercenaries, and in memory of the martyr Varlaam [(Homil. XVII)] 1270. The latter is the best in its artistry, but it belongs to St. Vasily is not indisputable; perhaps its author was St. John Chrysostom. Conversations of St. Basil in memory of the martyrs aroused the admiration of St. Gregory the Theologian (Orat. XLIII, 67.3). Letters. 1271 The Benedictines published 365 letters of St. Basil or his correspondents and divided them into three classes: 1–46 letters written before the bishopric, 47–291 letters dating back to the time of the bishopric of St. Vasily, and, finally, those for which there is no dating data. This chronological distribution of letters is recognized as thorough even today, after former doubts and new research. Few changes have been made on the issue of the authenticity of the letters: only a few of those recognized by the Mavrinians as genuine are rejected, while some of the dubious ones find defenders. But in general, a critical study of the letters of St. Vasily is not finished yet. We can say for now that letter 16 - “against Eunomius” - is in fact not a letter, but an excerpt from the work of Gregory of Nyssa “Against Eunomius” (Contra Eunomium X [, 1 / III, 8.2–4] 1272); 50 and 81 letters - to Bishop Innocent 1273, perhaps written by John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent I. Correspondence between St. Basil and Livanius (Epist. 335–359) is recognized as fraudulent, although there are defenders of authenticity. Correspondence with Emperor Julian is forged. The correspondence between Basil and Apollinaris (Epist. 361–364) gives rise to ongoing disputes, however, so far most researchers recognize it as authentic. Letter 189 very likely belongs to Gregory of Nyssa. 1274 Letters from St. Basil's works are distinguished by outstanding literary merits and are of great importance: directed to many people of different positions, they reflect the life history of Basil the Great himself and his time, and provide church historians with rich and valuable material, which has not yet been completely exhausted. They reflect in colorful images the multifaceted activities and exceptional virtues of the mind and heart of St. Basil, his constant concern for the good of all Churches, deep sorrow for the many and such great disasters that befell the Church in his time, zeal for the true faith, striving for peace and harmony, love and benevolence towards everyone, especially towards those in need, prudence in the conduct of affairs, calmness of spirit in the face of the most severe and unfair insults and restraint in relation to rivals and enemies. Like a shepherd, he gives advice in times of need and doubt; as a theologian he takes an active part in dogmatic disputes; as a guardian of the faith, he insists on observing the Nicene Creed and recognizing the deity of the St. Spirit; as the guardian of church discipline, he strives to eliminate disorder in the life of the clergy and to establish church legislation; finally, as a church politician, with the support of St. Athanasius, is concerned about revitalizing relations with the Western Church in the interests of supporting Orthodoxy in the eastern half of the empire. According to the content of the letter from St. Basil can be divided into the following groups: a) letters of historical content, b) dogmatic, c) moralizing, d) relating to church discipline, e) offering consolation and encouragement, f) intercessions for various persons and g) letters of a personal nature. a) Historical letters depict with vivid features the state of the Churches - Eastern and Western. St. Basil mourns the disasters of the Church, asks for advice in difficult cases or gives it himself, calms discord, affirms harmony everywhere, stands guard over the true faith, speaks about the heresies of his time and their main representatives, and in connection with this reports information about his own affairs, defends himself from slander and intrigue, etc. b) In the dogmatic epistles of St. Basil is fighting the Sabellians, Eunomians, Apollinarians and Doukhobors and reveals the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the consubstantiality and equivalence of the Divine Persons, and explains the mystery of the incarnation of God the Word. Between these messages, especially noteworthy is the letter to brother Gregory of Nyssa [(Epist. 38 1275)], in which St. Vasily precisely establishes the difference between the concepts of ούσία and ύпόστασις. Some of the letters of this kind are true treatises 1276. In all the letters of St. Vasily insists on strict adherence to the traditions of the church faith. c) Moral and edifying messages give the most varied and excellent instructions concerning all aspects of life. Written for specific, specific reasons, these messages are distinguished by their vitality and warmth. Letters of ascetic content mostly concern monastic life and contain instructions regarding desert solitude, ascetic deeds, monastic duties, etc. d) Among the epistles relating to church discipline, in the first place should be named three canonical epistles (188, 199 and 217) to Amphilochius of Iconium, written around 375, in which instructions are given on the discipline and government of the Church - from them, together with some other epistles, 92 rules were already compiled early on, which were included in the collections of patristic canons of 1277. In other letters of St. Vasily explains church rules and types of church punishments for various crimes. e) In some letters of St. Vasily consoles those who have fallen into despair and encourages them with hope for God's help. He addressed letters of this kind to the Churches deprived of their shepherds by heretics, and to bishops and monks, and to private individuals in the trials that befell [them]. f) Many letters were written to St. Vasily to various kinds of authorities with requests for people who sought his help. These letters clearly show what authority St. enjoyed. Vasily had people of various positions and with what readiness he hurried to help everyone who needed his intercession or intercession. g) Letters written by St. Vasily on personal matters are important for his personal characteristics, his personal relationship to everyday life. 1278 Teachings of Basil the Great on the Holy Trinity St. Basil the Great in one of his epistles (Epist. 8 1279) writes: “We must confess God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, as the words of God taught and those who understood them sublimely; and let it be said to those who reproach us for tritheism that we confess one God not in number, but in nature” [(cap. 2)]. This condensed confession expresses the essence of the teachings of St. Basil about the Holy Trinity, and the peculiarity in the formulation and resolution of the triadological question in comparison with previous theologians, and above all with St. Athanasius of Alexandria. St. Basil, like St. Athanasius, had to fight mainly against Arianism, albeit in new phases of its development, and therefore, naturally, his theological teaching has as its primary subject the disclosure and clarification of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The mystery of the Trinity is the mystery of one God in three Persons, one nature in three Hypostases, truly distinct. The mystery is the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, for us to understand this unity in this multiplicity or this multiplicity in this unity. It is inevitable that if the unity of essence is first assumed, then it is difficult to explain the trinity of Persons, and it seems that the trinity is sacrificed in favor of unity, and, on the contrary, if the trinity is first assumed, then it is difficult to explain the unity of the essence, and, in turn, it seems that it is sacrificed in favor of the trinity. In the first case, they seem to be inclined towards Sabellianism, in the second - towards tritheism. If St. Athanasius, against the Arians, concentrated all the power of evidence on the affirmation of the unity of the Divine being, then St. Basil, together with other Cappadocians, takes the existence of Hypostases in God as a starting point and directs his thought mainly to drawing a line between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Therefore St. Athanasius was often accused of Sabellianism, and St. Vasily - in tritheism. A new formulation of the triadological question also required new terminology in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The central point of this work in establishing the appropriate terminology is the distinction between the concepts of ουσία and ύπόστασις, which was started by St. Vasily. St. Athanasius and the fathers of the Council of Nicaea did not believe there was a difference between them. But the question was not about terms, but about eliminating the ambiguity and misunderstandings that resulted from the relationship of meaning between ούσία and ύπόστασις: St. Basil says that some of those who used these words without distinction argued that both the essence is one, and the hypostasis is one, and, on the contrary, those who recognize three Hypostases think that the division of the essence into an equal number should be allowed (Epist. 38 [, cap. 1]). St. Basil made the question of ούσία and ύπόστασις the subject of special discussion in a letter to his brother Gregory of Nyssa (Epist. 38). Ούσία and ύπόστασις, according to St. Vasily, differ from each other as the general and the particular - κοινόν and ίδιον. Names are of two kinds - some denote a general nature, for example, “man”, others have a particular meaning, which means not the generality of nature, but the outline of an object according to its distinctive feature, for example, “Paul” and “Timothy”. Consequently, ούσία is the totality of common characteristics (το κοινόν) in individuals of the same species, which they all possess equally, which is why they are all designated by one name, and none is singled out in particular; in terms of essence, Paul, Silouan and Timothy are one and the same, since no one will see in Paul a different essence than in Silouan and Timothy, and therefore things brought under one concept of essence are consubstantial with each other. The word “man,” by the uncertainty of its meaning, evokes some kind of extensive thought in the mind, so that although such a name reveals the nature of the object, it does not yet designate a real thing that actually exists and has its own distinctive name. But if we add characteristic individual characteristics to κ ούσία, we get a hypostasis. ““Hypostasis,” says St. Basil, “is [not an indefinite concept of essence, which does not stop at anything based on the community of the signified, but] 1280 such a concept that depicts and outlines the general and indefinite in any object with visible distinctive properties” [(cap. 3)]. St. Basil calls these distinctive properties ιδιότητας, Thus, hypostasis is a specific individual that exists. separately (καθ' εκαστον), which contains and possesses ούσία, but is opposed to it as the particular to the general: “Essence and hypostasis,” writes St. Vasily, - have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual, for example, between a living being and a certain person” (Epist. 236[, cap. 6]); “Essence has the same relation to hypostasis as the general has to the particular” (Epist. 214[, cap. 4]). The essence of God for human nature is unthinkable and completely ineffable. There is not a single name that, having declared the entire nature of God, would be sufficient to fully express it. But many and different names, taken in each one’s own meaning, constitute a concept that is, of course, dark and very meager in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Of the names attached to God, some show what is in God, and others, on the contrary, what is not in Him. In these two ways - by denying what is not and confessing what is, a kind of impression of God is formed in us (Adv. Eunomium I [, 10]). Least of all can άγέννητος be considered the predicate that designates the Divine Being: άγέννητος means the same as έξ ούδνός [from no one] - it indicates only ανορχον της ζωής [beginninglessness of life], without saying anything about φύσις. The concept of unbornness appears to us when we study not what God is, but rather when we study how He is: our mind, seeking about God, “who is above all,” whether He has any cause higher than Himself, and then, being unable to come up with any, called the originlessness of God’s life unbornness. St. Basil agrees to say that the essence of God is ungenerate, but he would not say that ungeneracy is the essence of God (Adv. Eunomium I[, 15]). The distinctive properties of the Divine Hypostases, that which gives them a special image, St. Basil the Great formulates this way: The Father is a certain Power that exists unbornly and without beginning, and She is the Cause of the Cause of all things. He alone has that predominant sign of His hypostasis, that He is the Father and His existence is not due to any reason. Everything came into being through the Son; He alone shone forth from the unborn Light. The distinctive sign of the hypostatic property of the Spirit is that He is known through the Son and with the Son and has existence from the Father, proceeding from the Father (Epist. 38[, cap. 4]). In the epistles to Terentius Comitus and Amphilochius (Epist. 214[, cap. 4]; Epist. 236[, cap. 6]) the properties of the Hypostases are defined as “patronymic”, “sonship” and “sanctifying power”. It should be noted that St. Vasily, quite accurately and definitely naming the distinctive features of the Father and the Son: “unbornness” and “birth” (άγννησία – γέννησις, τό άγέννητον – τό γννητόν), or “patronymic” and “sonship” (Πατήρ and Υιός, πατρότης and υίότης: Adv. Eunomium I, 5; II, 28), at the same time does not find such a term that would clearly designate the image or method of origin or being (τρόπος ύπάρξως) St. Spirit: he did not find it in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, he says: “It is natural for a pious mind to be afraid to say about the Holy Spirit, which is silent in the Holy Scriptures, but to believe that experimental knowledge of Him [and accurate comprehension is provided to us in the coming age, when, having ceased to see the truth in the mirror and fortune-telling, we will be worthy to contemplate it face to face" (Adv. Eunomium III [, 7]). St. Basil is not ashamed to admit ignorance of the Holy Spirit (ibidem). He is from God, not like everything else from God, but as coming from God, coming not through birth, like the Son, but as the Spirit of the mouth of God; but the image of the procession remains unexplained (De Spiritu Sancto 18.46; cf. Homil. XXIV 1281). Accordingly, in the Trinitarian formula of St. Basil, we do not find γνώρισμα [distinctive feature] of the Holy Spirit. But this ignorance of the τρόπος ύπάρξως of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit. Basil was only a “theological defect” and did not prevent him from “unconditionally rendering the praise attested in Scripture to the Holy Spirit” [(Adv. Eunomium III, 6)] and confessing Him as God, consubstantial and equal in honor with the Father and the Son. But if ούσία and ύπόστασις differ from each other only as τό κοινόν and τό ίδιον, then does it not follow from this that the general - ούσία - does not have its own separate existence and is realized only in the particular, that the essence has a unity represented by only mentally, as a set of essential characteristics of individuals, in this case – hypostases? St. Basil strongly objects to this: “I don’t believe,” he says, “that they (the pneumatomachs) would reach such stupidity and begin to assert that the God of all, like some general concept represented only in the mind, did not have any independent existence” 1282 (De Spiritu Sancto 17.41). Between the Hypostases, considered in relation to the essence, there is no gap, there is nothing interstitial or independent between them and different from God’s nature so that this nature could be separated from itself by the insertion of an extraneous person, or the emptiness of some unfilled space, which would produce breaks in the unity of God’s essence with itself, dividing the continuous with empty intervals (Epist. 38 [, cap. 4]). The essence of God cannot be equated with the essence of man and essence in general: while in the comprehended world the essence manifests itself in separate species and is, as it were, fragmented between them, in the Divine it at every moment and at the same time belongs to all Hypostases and is not only logically comprehended, but the real basis of Their existence. On the other hand, St. Vasily also rejects the idea that ούσία represents the highest principle from which the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) receive existence: in relation to God the Father and God the Son, no essence is seen that would be more primary and higher than Both, because to think and to say this is above all wickedness. For what could be more primal than the Unborn? Such blasphemy would destroy faith in the Father and the Son, because those who came from one are already brothers among themselves (Epist. 52[, cap. 1]; cf. Homil. XXIV 1283). Contemporaries accused St. Basil, like other Cappadocians, is in tritheism (cf. Epist. 189 [, cap. 2]). St. Basil reveals the doctrine that each of the three Persons represents an absolute unity, a whole in itself, and therefore cannot be added to one sum with the Other, and that what unites Them into unity - θίότης [deity, divinity] - is identical in all. “Or almost inexpressible in silence,” writes St. Vasily, - or piously count the sacred. There is one God and Father, and one Only Begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. We proclaim each of the Hypostases separately; but when it becomes necessary to count, then we will not allow ignorant calculation to lead us to the concept of polytheism. We do not count through addition, incrementing from one to many and saying: one, two, three, or: first, second, third. “I am” God “first, and I am unto this” (Isa. 44:6). We have never heard of the second God even until now. In worshiping God from God, we confess the distinction of the Hypostases, and remain under unity of command, without cutting theology into fragmented multitudes, because in God the Father and in God the Only Begotten we contemplate one, as it were, image, imprinted in the immutability of the Divinity. For the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, because the Son is the same as the Father is, and the Father is the same as the Son, and in this they are one. Why, according to the distinctive property of the Persons, is one and one, and according to the community of nature, Both are one... But the Holy Spirit is also one, and He is proclaimed separately; through the one Son He is united with the one Father and with Himself completes the honored [and blessed] 1284 Trinity... As there is one Father and one Son, so there is one Holy Spirit... Thus the Hypostases are confessed, and the pious dogma of unity of command does not fall.” Those who allow calculation, saying: first, second and third, introduce into Christian theology the polytheism of the Hellenic error (De Spiritu Sancto 18.44–45, 47). The unity of the Divine is established primarily on the unity of the Divine being in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. “Although two in number (Father and Son), they are not separate in nature... There is one God, He is also the Father, one God and the Son. And not two Gods, because the Son has identity with the Father. For I do not contemplate another divinity in the Father, but another in the Son, not another nature – the Father’s, but another – the Son’s. Therefore, in order for the peculiarity of the Persons to become clear to you, consider especially the Father and especially the Son, but in order not to fall into polytheism, confess a single essence in both. So Sabellius falls, and Anomeus is crushed" (Homil. XXIV 1285). “Whatever you ever imagine about the being of the Father... imagine the same about the Son, and likewise the same about the Holy Spirit. The concept of the uncreated and incomprehensible is one and the same in the reasoning of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." “As for infinity, incomprehensibility, uncreatedness, inextensibility by place and everything like this, there is no difference in the life-giving nature, I mean the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but one sees in Them some kind of continuous and indissoluble communication... It is impossible to mentally imagine any section or division [(διοαρσιν)], so that either the Son is imagined without the Father, or the Spirit is separated from the Son, but on the contrary, we find between Them some kind of ineffable and inconceivable communication and division [(διάκρισις)] 1286; neither the difference of Hypostases dissolves the continuity of nature, nor the community of essence merges the distinctive features” (Epist. 38 [, cap. 3; 4]; cf. Epist. 210). St. Basil asks not to be surprised if he says that the same thing is united and divided, and if he imagines mentally, as if in fortune-telling, some new and extraordinary both a united division and a divided unity. “You will accept my word,” he says, “as a likeness and shadow of the truth, and not as the truth itself 1287, for it is impossible for what is represented in similarities to be in all respects similar to what it is taken to represent” (Epist. 38[, cap. 5]). Another basis for affirming the unity of the Divine is the unity of command - μοναρχία - of the Father. Like St. Athanasius, St. Basil confesses that the Father is the Beginning and Cause of the Son and the Spirit, but the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one and the same, and the Divinity is one (Epist. 210[, cap. 4]). The Father, who has a perfect and in no way poor existence, is the root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit (Homil. XXIV 1288). The existence of three Hypostases does not introduce any division into the Holy Trinity, since the Son and the Spirit are raised to one Beginning and one Author of Their existence. Recognizing the unity of the Divine essence, St. Basil definitely states that he also accepts ομοούσιος, explaining that consubstantial means that in essence God is consubstantial with God in essence 1289 (Epist. 8[, cap. 3]). From this, as a direct conclusion, it follows that the Son is the only begotten Son of God, the radiance of the glory of the Father, His living Image (Homil. in Hexaemeron IX[, 6]), consubstantial with the Father (Homil. XXIV 1290), always perfect, wise without teaching, God’s Power (De Spiritu Sancto 8.20); He is before the ages, always exists and never began to be (Adv. Eunomium II[, 11 sqq.]). The Son has glory in common with the Father (De Spiritu Sancto 8.17); everything that the Father has belongs to the Son; He has perfect power, and His will is inseparable from the Father (De Spiritu Sancto 8.19–20), united and inseparable from it; Having no difference in essence with the Father, He has no difference in power. The Spirit is numbered in the blessed and Holy Trinity, participates in the divinity (Adv. Eunomium III [, 2; 5]), united with the Father and the Son in everything, in glory and eternity, in power and kingdom, in dominion and divinity (Epist. 105), in everything inseparable and inseparable from the Father [and the Son] 1291 (De Spiritu Sancto 16 .37 ). That content of the concept ομοούσιος, which St. Vasily connects with him in his works, indisputably shows that in relation to the doctrine of consubstantiality, he was a genuine Nicene, a successor of St. Afanasia. Whenever he speaks of the trinity of Persons, he expresses a clear warning against doubting the unity, and specifically the numerical unity of the Divine essence (Adv. Eunomium II; De Spiritu Sancto 18; Homil. XXIV). Therefore, in full agreement with this, he wrote to St. Epiphanius “We cannot add anything, even the briefest, to the Nicene Confession of Faith, except glorification of the Holy Spirit, because our fathers mentioned this member briefly for the reason that the question did not yet arise” (Epist. 258[, cap. 2]). Moreover, St. Basil expresses the requirement that one must adhere not only to the sayings that were proposed by the fathers in Nicaea, but also to “the meaning that, according to common understanding, is expressed by these sayings” (Epist. 125[, cap. 1]). The essence of the teachings of Basil the Great can be expressed in the following words of his in his letter to Amphilochius: “We confess one essence in the Divinity and do not define the concepts of being differently, but we confess the hypostasis in particular, so that our thoughts about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unified and clear. For if we do not represent the distinctive characteristics of each Person, namely: patronymic, sonship and shrine [(άγιασμόν)], we confess God under the general concept of essence, then it is impossible for us to sensibly expound the teachings of faith. Therefore, adding the distinctive to the general, one must confess faith as follows: the deity is general, the patronymic is special; combining this, we must say: “I believe in God the Father.” And again we must act in a similar way when confessing the Son, combining the particular with the general, and saying: “I believe in God the Son.” And in a similar way, about the Holy Spirit, combining a sentence according to the same pattern, one should say: “I also believe in God 1292 the Holy Spirit,” in order to completely maintain unity by confessing the Divinity, and to confess the distinctiveness of Persons by distinguishing the properties assigned to Each Person” (Epist. 236[, cap. 6]). This formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity means that the essence of God and its distinctive properties belong equally to all three Hypostases: Father, Son and Spirit - its manifestation in Persons, of which Each possesses the fullness of the absolute essence and is in inseparable unity with it. The difference between the Hypostases lies in their internal relationship, since the Father is not born from anyone and does not come from anyone, the Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit comes from Him. As possessing all the fullness of the Divine essence and all its inherent properties, Each Hypostasis is God, and since She possesses this essence not in Itself, taken separately, but in continuous connection and in an invariable relationship with the other two Hypostases, then all three Hypostases are one God. In this precise definition of the relationship between the essence and the Hypostases in God is the important merit of St. Basil, along with other Cappadocian fathers. St. Gregory the Theologian 1293 In the Cappadocian constellation, each of the stars included in it shines with its own special brilliance, its own special beauty, and has its own individuality. And St. Gregory the Theologian, "spiritual brother" of St. Basil the Great, both in his personal character and in his theology, represents such features in comparison with the Caesarea saint that leave a special imprint on his spiritual image. His whole life is characterized by a kind of instability, an oscillation between “escape” and “return”, flight to the mountains and return to social activities. He strives with all the strength of his soul for a calm, contemplative life in hermitic solitude; at the same time, the consciousness that “each of us received being not for himself alone, but for all who have the same nature with him and were created by the same hand [(παρά του αύτοϋ)] and for the same purposes” (Orat. XXV, 4), and he, following the conviction of his friends and his own sense of duty, the consciousness that he may not be the last figure in the ranks of the defenders of Orthodoxy, takes an active part in practical life, in church and theological movements and disputes of his time. St. Gregory the Theologian was not an administrator and a man of practical activity; he was not such a great bishop, organizer and ruler of the Church as St. Vasily; but he possessed, from the point of view of his contemporaries, great oratory and owed his outstanding successes mainly to his fascinating eloquence. He himself highly valued this gift in himself and took special care to develop it in himself and was truly one of the outstanding Christian speakers. He had a power of imagination that seemed to penetrate to all heights and depths; his thought was sublime and powerful; his speech breathed with the flame of feelings. He mastered with perfect skill the weapon of Hellenic rhetoric, tested for centuries; in his speeches one is struck by the play of images and expressions, often irony and sarcasm, but softened by love, the purity and precision of expressions, the inimitable choice of words. The artificiality of speech often observed in his words, the abundance of embellishment, and the not always natural elevation of tone are a consequence of the influence of the tastes of the time on him and his adaptation to them. His oratory and even poetic inspiration of St. Gregory devoted primarily to the defense of faith and the Church. Among his contemporaries, he was the most famous champion of the doctrine of the triune God and the God-man. In his teaching, he always acts as a representative and defender of the church faith, faithful to the fathers, so that he praises himself for always firmly preserving, without any changes or adaptations to circumstances, the teaching that he drew from the Holy Scriptures and received from the saints. fathers (Orat. XXXIII, 15). And very early the teaching of St. Gregory was recognized in some way as a norm of faith in both the East and the West. Already Rufinus of Aquileia to his translation of some speeches of St. Gregory writes that disagreement with St. Gregory in faith is a clear sign of deviation from the right faith 1294. The Fourth Ecumenical Council officially named it o θεολόγος. Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and other dogmatists not only cite his sayings with special love in support of Orthodox teaching, but also comment that none of the Church Fathers was awarded such an honor. St. Gregory the Theologian is recognized by the Eastern Church as one of the three “universal great teachers.” A short sketch of the life of St. Gregory the Theologian Father St. Gregory the Theologian - also Gregory - was a bishop in Nazianza (or Diocaesarea, now Nenizi), in southwestern Cappadocia. He is known not only as the father of his famous son. Occupying the highest government positions, Gregory the Elder, even before the adoption of Christianity, belonged to the adherents of monotheistic moralism; he was a member of the sect of the Ipsistarians, or Ipsistians (Orat. XVIII, [5-]6). He owes his conversion to Christianity to the influence of his wife Nonna, who came from a Christian family (Orat. XVIII, 8–12). When the bishops went to the Council of Nicea, Gregory was among the catechumens, and was then baptized by the Bishop of Nazianza. After some time - in 328 or 329 - he was elected bishop of Nazianza and served in this service for 45 years, until his death in the winter of 373-374. Like Abraham and Sarah, with whom Gregory the Theologian often compares his parents (Orat. II, 103; Orat. VIII, 4; Orat. XVIII, 41; [De vita sua, lin. 53; Epigrammata VIII, 52; Carmina de se ipso 1, PG 37. Col. 1003 ] 1295 ), Gregory the Elder and Nonna waited a long time for offspring. Probably Gregory the Theologian was the first-born; Besides him, Gregory and Nonna had a daughter, Gorgonia, and a son, Caesarius. Gregory was born in 325–329 in the village of Arians, which is 2 1/2 hours from Nazians, south towards Tianami. Gregory's mother, like Anna, the mother of Samuel, begged him from God ([Epigrammata VIII, 27; Carmina de se ipso 1, PG 37. Col. 1001–1002]) and even before his birth made a vow to dedicate him to God, and from childhood she raised him in accordance with this vow. The influence of the environment of the parental home was very strong, as St. repeatedly speaks of. Gregory; here he already became acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, a list of which was given to him by his mother. For scientific education, his insignificant town, which was Nazianz, could hardly supply what was necessary for the young man. Gregory received his higher literary and rhetorical education together with his brother Caesarea in Caesarea Cappadocia under Carterius; here he met Basil the Great, with whom he was later closely associated both in life and in theology. Having mastered all the knowledge that his homeland could give, Gregory undertook educational travels: initially to Palestine, of the “blooming schools” of which Caesarea was important to him, where he acquired a thorough knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and studied oratory from the famous rhetorician Thespesius; then he visited Alexandria, where his brother Caesarius studied; Bishop of Alexandria was St. Athanasius, but then he was in exile. From there Gregory moved to Athens, having been exposed to extreme danger on the way during a storm at sea. Some of the biographers suggest that it was at this time on the ship that he and some of his companions were baptized. There is no doubt that he was not baptized as a child, although he was dedicated to God by a pious mother; however, he was baptized not during his trip to Athens, but several years later, upon his return to Nazianza. He arrived in Athens after 350 and remained here for several years. Gregory speaks repeatedly about this time in “golden Athens” as his own time of formation. Here he formed a lifelong friendship with Vasily, who arrived in Athens a little later than Gregory and left a little earlier. They studied rhetoric under the guidance of the famous Imerius and Proeresius. Their occupations, their way of life, their goals were the same; Their jealousy was also the same: they knew only two ways - to the church and to school. Gregory enjoyed collecting the flowers of worldly wisdom, listened to the rhetoricians with enthusiasm, but at the same time did not forget his vow to the Lord, which he renewed and strengthened during the mortal danger at sea. At the same time (355), Julian, the future emperor, was studying in Athens; meeting him even then gave Gregory a premonition that he would cause a lot of harm to the empire. Around 357, Gregory, soon after Basil, left Athens. At this time he was "almost thirty years old" 1296. He went to Constantinople, where he unexpectedly met his brother Caesarea, who had meanwhile become a famous doctor and in a short time prepared the ground for a brilliant career in the capital (Orat. VII, 8). Gregory managed to convince him to go with him to his homeland. Caesarius did not remain there long, and all Gregory’s efforts to direct [him] to the path of asceticism were unsuccessful: he returned to the capital and took a prominent position at court, and, to the chagrin of his parents and brother, remained there even under Julian, but in the end he preferred the emperor’s disfavor to renouncing Christianity and retired to his homeland; after the death of Julian, he returned to the court again, under Valens he became an official in the financial department in Bithynia and died soon after he escaped mortal danger from the earthquake in Nicaea, which occurred on October 11, 368 (Orat. VII, 9-15; [Epigrammata VIII, 94]); he was baptized, but did not have time to follow the admonitions of Gregory (Epist. 20 [20 1297) and Basil (Basil. Caesar., Epist. 26) to withdraw from the world. Gregory decided immediately - upon returning from Athens - to begin implementing his plan for a hermit's life. It was probably at this time that he was baptized. But the desire for ascetic deeds collided with love for his already elderly parents, and Gregory sought to combine the attraction to the hermit with responsibilities to his parents. While St. Basil served as a teacher in Caesarea and then traveled to Palestine and Egypt to study monasticism. Gregory lived either in Nazianza or on the family estate in Arianza and was partly engaged in purely worldly affairs in managing the estate, and partly indulged in a contemplative life. When Basil returned from his trip, Gregory went to his friend in Pontic solitude on the Iris River (in 358 or 359). Gregory subsequently recalls with delight about this life together with Vasily and with other brothers, about psalmody, vigils and prayers, about studying the Holy Scriptures, carrying firewood, cutting stones, planting and watering (Epist. [6] 5). The compilation of the Philocalia from the works of Origen by Basil and Gregory is usually attributed to this time. Few events from the life of St. Gregory in the next five years, about which information has been preserved, cannot be accurately determined by their chronological sequence. Probably, around 362, at the request of the Nazian flock, Gregory was ordained by his father as a presbyter against his will; Not daring to resist the direct order of his father, Gregory, however, was extremely saddened by such “tyranny” 1298 and soon went to Pontus to Vasily to calmly consider his situation. The feeling of filial obedience overpowered, and Gregory returned to Nazianz to help his father in the administration of the diocese, and here he uttered his first word, “On Easter.” His removal gave rise to various rumors: they talked about fear of the Arians and Julian, about pride, as if Gregory considered the presbytery low for himself and wanted the episcopate. In view of this, Gregory was forced to defend himself in a special speech, in which he explained the height and importance of the priesthood, on the one hand, and the deep consciousness of his unworthiness and unpreparedness for such service, on the other. In 363 and 364 There were unfortunate divisions in Nazianza. Gregory the Elder, perhaps not without the knowledge and consent of his son, like Diania of Caesarea, signed the Omiusian formula of faith developed in Constantinople, and thereby aroused against himself some monks, zealots of the Nicene confession; they stopped communicating with him and carried away a significant part of his flock with them. Gregory the Theologian managed to restore peace by convincing his father to publicly confess the Orthodox teaching of the faith and thus prove to the dissatisfied that “ink has not stained the soul” [(Orat. XVIII, 18)]. Around this time, Vasily had to exchange his hermitage for the priesthood. Gregory consoled him and encouraged him to new works for the benefit of the Church. When did St. Basil had disagreements with the Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius, then Gregory first encouraged him to go with him to Pontus, and then, when Eusebius, due to the onslaught of the Arians, felt the need for an experienced assistant, he convinced him to reconcile with Basil, rejecting the invitation made to him to move to Caesarea, and, for his part, encouraged Basil to reconcile and return to Caesarea - maybe Perhaps Gregory personally brought Basil to Caesarea (cf. Epist. [19] 15). At this time, he was beset by family grief - his brother Caesarius and sister Gorgonia died; at their burial he uttered two eloquent words. In 370, Gregory, together with his father, supported with all his influence the election of Basil as Archbishop of Caesarea, although he was not personally in Caesarea; then he rejected the invitation of Basil, who wanted to have him as his closest assistant, but took part in the reconciliation of Basil with the Cappadocian bishops who were dissatisfied with his election. The division of Cappadocia into two civil provinces, partly directed by Valens against St. Basil and his enormous influence, and the subsequent struggle of St. Basil and Anthimus of Tian, ​​because of their metropolitan rights, served as the reason for such trouble for St. Gregory, whom he could not remember without bitterness until the end of his life. To strengthen his position and to actually prove his power within the Second Cappadocia, Basil decided to found a new see and install his friend Gregory as bishop of Sasim, located between Nazianzus and Tianami, in the area claimed by Anthimus. St. Gregory describes Sasima as follows: “On the high road running through Cappadocia, there is a place where travelers usually stop, from which one road is divided into three, the place is waterless, does not grow even blades of grass, devoid of all amenities, the village is terribly boring and cramped; there is always dust, the sound of carts, tears, sobs, tax collectors, instruments of torture, chains, and the inhabitants are strangers and vagabonds” ([De vita sua, lin. 439–445]). Gregory rebelled against the wishes of St. Vasily. But, probably, soon after Easter 372, Basil in Nazianzu consecrated Gregory as Bishop of Sasim. Gregory had no intention of being drawn into the struggle between Vasily and Anfim over the city that had become his inheritance. Having bowed his neck, he did not bow in spirit ([De vita sua, lin. 487–488]). And so Gregory is a fugitive again, again taking refuge in the mountains, indulging in his beloved way of life, but with a keen sense of insult inflicted on him by a friend. He never entered into the management of the Sassim Church. His father’s admonitions did not persuade him to do this, and he just could not resist his strong request to be his assistant in Nazianza; but he agreed to this too on the condition that he would not be considered the bishop of Nazianza and would not be his father’s successor. During the administration of the Nazianz Church of St. Gregory participated in the reconciliation of Vasily and Anthimus, defended St. Basil from accusations of caution in the teaching about the Holy Spirit, reconciled the inhabitants of Nazianz with the civil authorities, worked to ease taxes, and took care of the charity of the poor. In 373–374, Gregory's father died at the age of about a hundred years; His mother soon followed him. St. Gregory now considered himself free and, after neighboring bishops refused to elect a new bishop in Nazianza, at the end of 375 he went to Seleucia in Isauria, where he devoted himself to a contemplative life. Here he, being ill himself, received news of the death of St. Vasily, which made an extremely depressing impression on him: he now felt his complete loneliness. In addition, the state of church affairs caused him extreme confusion: “A church without shepherds,” he writes to Eudoxius the rhetorician 1299 (Epist. [80] 71 [, cap. 2]) in connection with the news of the death of Basil, “the good perishes, the evil is outward; you have to sail at night - there are no guiding lights shining anywhere, Christ is sleeping.” In the first months of 379, the Orthodox inhabitants of Constantinople turned to St. Gregory with an urgent call for help. The capital of the empire was actually in the hands of the Arians for about thirty years after the death of Bishop Paul, and now the Arian Dimophilus stood at the head of the Church of Constantinople. There were very few Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, a remnant of the flock without a shepherd, without unity, without order, without a single church for open worship... With the accession of Emperor Theodosius to the throne on January 19, 379, hopes for a better future opened up. Gregory once again, although not without hesitation, left solitude and arrived in Constantinople. The few remaining Orthodox Christians began to gather in a private house for prayer; this church soon received the name “Anastasia”, because here, through the works of St. Gregory resurrected Orthodoxy, which had been almost suppressed in Constantinople under the pressure of heretics. The famous preacher came to the capital as a homely old man, poor, emaciated, sickly, half-blind, almost hairless; the more striking was the inspired, eloquent and powerful effect of his words. St. Gregory, with a very limited number of listeners, began to defend and reveal the Orthodox teaching about the triune God; but soon the rumor about the holiness, learning and eloquence of the new preacher began to attract a huge number of not only Orthodox, but also heretics and pagans. The Arians were annoyed; but their almost daily attacks on him and his church only increased the orator’s jealousy and multiplied the number of his followers. In addition to the fight against heretics, it is also necessary to note here the characteristic case of that time with the Cynic philosopher from Alexandria Maximus, who caused St. Gregory is in a lot of trouble. A man with a dark past, Maxim managed to achieve the complete trust of St. Gregory - the latter even dedicated a special word of praise to him. Meanwhile, Maxim, not without the assistance of the Alexandrian Archbishop Peter, who sought to establish his influence in Constantinople, began to seek consecration as Bishop of Constantinople. During Gregory's illness, the Egyptian bishops who were in the capital at night began the consecration of Maxim in the church, but, driven out of there by the clergy and people, they completed it in a private house. Gregory was so struck by this treachery that he decided to leave the capital, and only the insistence of the Orthodox people, who pointed out that with his removal the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity would again fall, forced him to abandon this intention. Emperor Theodosius took the side of St. Gregory. Maxim fled from Constantinople. On November 24, 380, the emperor arrived in Constantinople and immediately demanded that Bishop Dimophilus sign the Nicene Symbol - he refused and was expelled from Constantinople. On November 26, the churches in the city were taken away from the Arians, and on the 27th the emperor personally introduced St. Gregory under military guard to the Church of the Apostles. The Orthodox people unanimously demanded recognition of Gregory as Archbishop of Constantinople. St. Gregory refused this, but the people forcibly forced him to take the place of archbishop in the church. Now Gregory actually became the Archbishop of Constantinople; it was officially approved at the See of Constantinople only in May 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council, which at the same time recognized the consecration of Maximus as illegal and invalid in 1300. But after that he remained at the department for only a few days. The division between East and West, which so upset Basil the Great, continued, and St. Gregory, for his part, harbored hopes for the restoration of peace. The reason for this soon presented itself: during the meetings of the council, the Antiochian bishop Meletius, recognized by the Easterners, died. The question arose about electing his successor. St. Gregory proposed, in the interests of the church world, to recognize him as the successor of Paulinus, recognized by the West. This proposal was met unfavorably by the council, since its implementation was seen as an insult to the memory of Meletius and a humiliation of the East. Flavian was installed as Meletius' successor. The continuation of the schism in Antioch greatly upset St. Gregory, and he did not participate in the cathedral’s activities for some time. Soon the Egyptian bishops arrived at the council, who, being dissatisfied with the condemnation of Maximus, opposed the approval of St. Gregory by the Archbishop of Constantinople, pointing out the violation of the rule of the Council of Nicea, which forbade bishops to move from one see to another 1301. St. Gregory decided to resign from the title of archbishop of the capital and asked the fathers of the cathedral to tame the storm that was not stirred up in the Church by him, to throw him, like Jonah, into the sea. In a brilliant speech to the cathedral and people, St. Gregory depicted the sad state of the Constantinople Church at the time of his arrival in Constantinople, in comparison with the improvement in which he leaves it, outlined his doctrine of the Holy Trinity, called on the bishops to peace and harmony, asked to choose a more worthy successor, and in conclusion expressed his final greetings to the church of Anastasia, his cathedral, the city, the clergy and all the people. The fathers of the cathedral did not object to the wishes of St. Gregory; The emperor also agreed. Even before the end of the council meetings (July 9, 381), probably in June, St. Gregory left Constantinople and retired to Nazians, hoping to find peace in Arian solitude. But even here, at first, new worries awaited him: the Church in Nazianza remained without a bishop since the death of Gregory the Elder; and meanwhile she was in danger from Apollinarianism. Therefore, he was forced to temporarily take care of her. When his health forced him to retire to Arians or other places, he ruled the Nazianese flock through the presbyter Clidonius, to whom he wrote letters to refute the false teachings of the Apollinarians. In 382, ​​Emperor Theodosius invited St. Gregory to a council in Constantinople, but he refused. In 383, he insisted on the consecration of a permanent bishop in Nazians in the person of his relative and friend Eulalius. Looking back at the life of St. Gregory, it is not difficult to see that from the day when he was forced to accept ordination as a presbyter until the time when he returned from Constantinople to end his life in solitude and obscurity, he constantly found himself, regardless of his own initiative, in situations that were least suited to his disposition and temperament and were completely unsuitable for giving him the opportunity to display the most remarkable and attractive qualities of the mind and heart. Loving and gentle by nature, highly sensitive in temperament, simple and modest, lively and cheerful in mood, but prone to despondency and irritability, extremely susceptible to all sorts of impressions, easily becoming very excited, but also easily calmed down, timid and not possessing a sufficient degree of determination - these are the main traits of his character in their motley combination. However, he showed amazing energy, courage and perseverance in carrying out the great and difficult task for which he was called to Constantinople. Here it was as if the spirit of his friend Vasily entered into him, his firmness and fearlessness, his determination and perseverance. However, when the hottest period of the struggle passed and St. Gregory was left to reap the fruits of his labors that he deserved; he again shirked public activities. The last six years of his life, St. Gregory spent his time in his native Arianza, on his small estate, which he left for himself from the rich inheritance he received, indulging in exploits, contemplation and literary works. Here he was visited by friends, and sometimes by strangers, attracted to his solitude by the holiness and learning of St. Gregory; Here he rested peacefully. The exact date of his death is unknown. But Jerome (De vir. ill. [117]) in 392 speaks of him as having died three years ago - therefore, in 389 or 390. Literary activity of St. Gregory the Theologian Creations of St. Gregory the Theologian falls into three groups: words, letters and poems. Words 1302 St. Gregory, 45 are currently known. For the most part, they represent actually spoken words, recorded by cursive writers (and then corrected by St. Gregory); only the words against Julian (IV and V), one might think, were never uttered, but the word (I), in which St. Gregory's justification for his removal to Pontus upon his ordination as a presbyter was probably pronounced in an abbreviated form, so that its external text represents an expanded revision. Most of the words refer to the short-term activities of the saint. Gregory in Constantinople. It seems that soon after the death of St. Gregory, his words were collected by one of the admirers of the famous speaker. The entire collection of words of St. Gregory, both from internal and external data, should generally be considered sufficiently authenticated 1303. In terms of their content, most of the words are of a dogmatic nature. Among them, the first place in importance is occupied by “Five Words on Theology” - Λόγοι θεολογικοί (XXVII–XXXI), which represent a complete circle of conversations in defense of the church teaching about the Holy Trinity against the Eunomians and Macedonians. They were probably pronounced in 380 in Constantinople and, preferably before his other works, gave him the title of “Theologian.” The first of these words constitutes an introduction to the others and explains who can theologize, before whom, when, to what extent and about what; The main requirement both from those who want to talk about God and from listeners is moral improvement, purity of soul and body, freedom from vices and passions. In the second word of St. Gregory speaks about the existence of God, His being and properties, as far as they can be comprehended by the powers of the human mind. The third and fourth words prove the consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, especially the deity of the Son, refuting the biblical passages and objections cited by Eunomius. The fifth depicts the Face and Divine Dignity of the Holy Spirit. In close connection with the words “On Theology” in their content are words XXXII and XX. In the first of them - “On maintaining good order in conversation” - St. Gregory proves that not everyone and not at all times should do theology, and in the second - “On the Dogma of the Holy Trinity” - he especially condemns those who begin to theologize without studying the Holy Scriptures, without taking care of their moral purity - and sets out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against Sabellius and Arius. Both words together arm themselves against the passion of the inhabitants of Constantinople for theological disputes. Some words for the holidays are also distinguished by their richness of dogmatic content. Of these, the following have survived: “For the Nativity of Christ” (Εις w Θεοφάνια – XXXVIII) and two “For Epiphany” (Εις then ayia Φώτα – XXXIX and XL); pronounced on December 25, 379 and January 6 and 7, 380; the first of these words was the first on the feast of the Nativity of Christ in Constantinople {and in the East in general}. Then: two words “For Easter” (I and XLV), the word (XLIV) “For the new week (Fomina), for spring and the memory of the martyr Mamant”; “On Pentecost” (XLI) - proves the divinity of the Holy Spirit by His actions throughout the universe. A special group consists of words of praise: “On the day of the Maccabean martyrs” (XVI), “In memory of St. Cyprian" (XXIV), "In memory of Athanasius of Alexandria" (XXI), Basil the Great (XLIII) 1304 - important for the biography of St. Basil the Great and Gregory, “In praise of Iron the philosopher, who returned from exile” (XXV), by which Maximus Cynic actually means (cf. Hieron., De vir. ill. 117). The funerary words are similar in nature to the laudatory words: “To the Father” (XVIII), “Brother Caesarea” (VII) and “Sister Gorgonia” (VIII). The direct opposite of the Easter words are the two words “Against Julian” (IV and V) 1305, written after the death of the Apostate (June 26, 363). In them St. Gregory gave vent to feelings of anger and was extremely unrestrained in expressing indignation and condemnation of the enemy of Christianity. St. Gregory was especially outraged by Julian's attempt to prohibit Christians from studying classical literature. A whole third of the words of St. Gregory was caused by various circumstances in his personal life: his ordination as a presbyter and then as a bishop, his participation in the administration of the Nazianzi Church, the ordination of Eulalia as Bishop of Doara and the Constantinople relations of St. Gregory. Among them, the “Apologetic Word” (Orat. II), spoken by St. Gregory upon his return from Pontus - against the accusations that caused his removal to Pontus after his ordination as a presbyter. Gregory speaks in detail about the impulses to escape and return. The flight was caused by a love of hermitic solitude and, mainly, by the consciousness of the height of the priesthood, the severity of the responsibilities and dangers associated with it, especially at that time, and a sense of one’s own unworthiness. He was prompted to return by: love for his fellow citizens, concern for his elderly parents and fear of losing their blessing, memory of the fate of the prophet Jonah, who tried to flee from the Lord, submission to the will of God. This word is one of the best and most meaningful works of St. Gregory. It paints with bright and living features the sublime ideal of a shepherd. The Word served as a model and source for the six books of John Chrysostom “On the Priesthood.” In general, words on occasions from the personal life of St. Gregory make the strongest impression with the sincerity and warmth of tone and the direct expression of the author’s inner experiences. Only one word (XXXVII), spoken in Constantinople (in 380), represents an explanation of the biblical text (Matthew 19: 1–12) regarding divorce and the reasons for it, marriage and virginity. The explanation of moral Christian teaching is devoted to the word “On love for the poor” (XIV), spoken in Caesarea, three words “On peace” (VI, XXII, XXIII), a word on the occasion of the 1306 hailstorm in Nazianza [(XVII)], indicating the cause of the disaster in sins and calling for heartfelt contrition and repentance, correction of life and prayer for mercy. The language and style of words of St. Gregory is distinguished by a certain excitement and boldness of tone, a love of short sentences, and the abundant use of artificial figures of speech. The essence of the rhetoric of St. Gregory defines 1307 as “moderate Asianism”, the distinctive feature of which – in contrast to the so-called “Atticism” – is the resolution of the period into possibly small, dissected sentences (κώλα or κόμματα). For example, we can point to the beginning of the word “On the Nativity of Christ” (XXXVIII): “Christ is born: glorify! Christ from heaven: come out to the meeting! Christ on earth: ascend! Sing to the Lord, all the earth! And I will say to both together: let the heavens rejoice, and the earth rejoice for the sake of the Heavenly and then the Earthly! Christ in the flesh: rejoice with trembling and joy—with trembling because of sin, with joy because of hope. Christ from the Virgin: keep your virginity, wives, so that you may become mothers of Christ!” etc. In his words, Gregory obeys the instructions of the ancient Greek teachers regarding certain types of speech, in particular words of praise. His word “To Brother Caesarea” in its construction and division reflects the rules established by Menander in the second half of the 3rd century. for λόγος έπιτάφιος [funeral word]. St. uses it very widely. Gregory, in his laudatory words, uses the artistic method of comparisons in which the hero of the speech is compared with recognized values ​​of antiquity in such a way that this makes his significance even more elevated. In the homily dedicated to Basil (XLIII), St. Gregory first casually mentions Pelops, Kekrops, Alcmaeon, Ajax, Herakles, Orestes and Pylades, and then the following biblical figures are brought in for comparison: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, the youths in the furnace of fire, Jonah, Daniel, Maccabees, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, sons of Zebedee, Stephen. From all these comparisons, St. Vasily emerges either as a winner or as a worthy imitator. Letters 1308 to St. Gregory has recently been numbered at 245. Most of them belong to the last 6–7 years of the life of St. Gregory; they relate to the events of the private life of the author himself, his friends and relatives, and the historical significance and interest of the letters of St. Vasily, they have no idea. Only very few deal with contemporary dogmatic questions; These are, first of all, two letters to the presbyter Clidonius (Epist. 101; 102), who ruled the Nazianzi Church for some time, written in 382 and directed against Apollinarianism - in them St. Gregory reveals the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God. In a letter to Nektarios, successor of St. Gregory at the see of Constantinople (Epist. 202), probably written in 387, St. Gregory draws Nectarius's attention to the revival of heresy, especially Apollinarianism, refutes heretical errors and points out the need for both ecclesiastical excommunication of those who share these opinions, and civil measures against the free dissemination of their teachings by them. Dogmatic character and a letter to the monk Evagrius [(Epist. 243)] 1309, in which its author tries, with the help of analogies, to explain the possibility of representing the Divine being as one, simple, indivisible, with the trinity of Persons in God. But in manuscripts it is attributed either to Gregory the Theologian, then to Gregory of Nyssa, or to Gregory the Wonderworker (in the Syriac translation with the inscription: “To Philagry on consubstantiality”); Based on this, and also due to the difference in style compared to other letters of St. Gregory, doubts are expressed about his identity as St. Gregory the Theologian. St. Gregory himself compiled a collection of a significant part of his letters at the request of his young relative Nikovul (cf. Epist. [53] 52; [52] 121) and in a letter to him he set out the theory of epistolography: the letter should be short (as necessary), clear (approaching a colloquial syllable), pleasant (not without decoration, not without art, not devoid of thoughts, proverbs, sayings, witticisms, intricate expressions, but without excess), natural [(Epist. 51/19)]. There is no doubt that Gregory himself followed these requirements, and his letters are distinguished by clarity and richness of thoughts and, apparently, carefully processed. He especially successfully fulfilled the requirement of brevity: “Write a few syllables, but contain a lot in a few syllables” (Epist. [54/] 18). This laconic brevity of the letters was already noted by Basil the Great (Basil. Caesar., Epist. 19) as a distinctive feature of the letters of St. Gregory. And the poems of 1310 were written by St. Gregory mostly in the quiet of solitude in Arianza in 383–389. In the poem “About His Poems” by St. Gregory writes that “measured speech” is a new way of speech for him, and this shows that poetic works in his literary activity are generally later in comparison with other types of literary works. According to the explanation of St. Gregory in the same poem, he turned to “measured speech”, firstly, for the purpose of self-education, in order to write, and, taking care of the measure, write a little; secondly, to give young men and everyone interested in verbal art a kind of pleasant medicine - attraction in persuasion to something useful; thirdly, so that strangers do not have an advantage over Christians in speech; fourthly, exhausted by illness, the poet himself found joy in poetry [(Carmina de se ipso 39, PG 37. Col. 1329–1333)]. In the first letter to Clidonius, he points out another incentive for this: the Apollinarians write extensive books, new psalters and pleasant verses. “And we,” says St. Gregory, “let us begin to sing psalms, write a lot and compose poems” [(Epist. 101, cap. 73)]. And indeed, St. Gregory wrote many poems of different lengths and sizes: hexameters, pentameters, trimeters, etc. According to their content, the poems fall into three groups: dogmatic, moral-ascetic and historical. In dogmatic poems, the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the works of God in the creation of the world and the providence of it are sung, the doctrine of angels, the Fall, the law of Moses, the history of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the incarnation of the Savior, His miracles and parables are expounded, and the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures are listed 1311. Already in most of these poems didactic tendencies are pursued. But a particularly moralizing element dominates in moral and ascetic poems, through which the poet seeks to arouse love for virtues and aversion to vice and offers in them rules of life, both general - for all people, and private - for family members, for monks, virgins, depicts the vanity of human life, the impermanence of everything earthly, and especially glorifies virginity. In the historical poems of St. Gregory tells the circumstances of his own life and vividly characterizes his contemporaries and the general course of events, talks about his hermit life, the struggle against temptations, turns to God with prayers or lamentations about the disasters befalling him. In these poems the personality of the poet comes through noticeably, and since he mostly complains about something, the general tone of most historical poems is elegiac. The most extensive of the historical poems (1949 poems) “About his life,” which presents a description of the poet’s life from his birth to his removal from Constantinople, has the value of a biographical source. St. Gregory composed a large number (129) of epitaphs in 1312 in honor of his deceased parents, brother, sister, himself, Basil the Great, his mother and sister Macrina, Theosevia (wife of Gregory of Nyssa) and other close persons. A significant part of the epitaphs are admonitions to virgins about abstinence or pictures of death and burial. Poems by St. Gregory indisputably testify to the poetic mood and significant poetic talent of their author. But in this regard, the works of St. Gregory vary greatly in their merits. Didactic poems often represent nothing more than verified 1313 prose: they are pale, drawn out and inferior in strength and pleasantness to many of the author’s prose works. It is enough to remember that there are poems against Eunomius and Apollinaris or about the scope of the biblical canon. Smaller elegiac and satirical poems and brief moral maxims are more successful; Especially elegiac poems are imbued with poetic inspiration, tender and sincere feeling. In general, when assessing the merits of St. Gregory, it is necessary to keep in mind that they were written in old age and mostly in moments of rest from everyday worries and worries. The tragedy “The Suffering Christ” 1314, although inscribed with the name of St. Gregory the Theologian, however, compiled at a much later time, probably in the 11th or 12th century. 1315 Theology of St. Gregory 1316 St. Gregory the Theologian did not give a systematic presentation of the entire Christian teaching in any of his works. He touched on many issues only casually in his preaching activities. But he revealed “theology” in the narrowest sense of the word, that is, the doctrine of God, one in essence and trinity in Persons, as well as Christology in a deliberate manner and in this regard reached such a height that he was rightly called a great church theologian. On these points of theology of St. Gregory we will stop. St. Gregory the Theologian always saw his theological authority in Basil the Great and, under various circumstances, clearly expressed this; for example, in one letter to Basil the Great (Epist. [58] 41 [, cap. 1]) he writes: “I have long revered you as a leader of life, a teacher of dogmas, and everything that anyone would say that is beautiful, and now I honor you” (cf. Orat. XIII [, 2]; XVIII [, 1–4]). In the same letter he asks St. Basil's advice regarding the doctrine of the Holy Spirit: “You, divine and sacred head, teach me to what extent we should extend in theology about the Spirit, what words to use and what to go to in economia, so that we can have all this ready for our opponents” [(Epist. 58/41, cap. 14)]. Such expressions were not just rhetorical turns: their sincerity is confirmed in the nature of Gregory the Theologian’s relationship with Basil the Great. Gregory the Theologian generally stands on the same theological point of view as St. Vasily; despite this, the theology of St. Gregory clearly differs from the theology of Basil the Great: in temperament, the nature of spiritual gifts, subtle shades; in religiosity [the difference] between both was so significant that it makes itself felt at every step when concretely defining their views. The essence of the teaching of Gregory the Theologian about the Holy Trinity is precisely formulated in the “Homily for Holy Baptism” (Orat. XL), in which he sets out the confession of faith as a “good pledge”, a companion and protector for the whole life of the baptized: “Keep the confession of faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... the one Divinity and the one Power, Which is found in the Three united and embraces the Three separately, without differences in essences or natures, does not increase or decrease through additions and decreases, is everywhere equal, everywhere the same, like the single beauty and greatness of the sky. It is the Three Infinite, an infinite co-naturalness, where Each, intelligible in itself, is God, the Son as the Father, and the Holy Spirit as the Son, with the preservation of personal properties in Each, and the Three, intelligible together, are also God; the first - because of consubstantiality, the last - because of unity of command. Before I have time to think about the One, I am illuminated by the Three. I don’t have time to separate the Three before I ascend to the One. When the One of the Three appears to me, I consider it whole; It fills my vision, and more escapes my sight. I cannot comprehend His greatness in order to add more to what remains. When I unite in the intuition of the Three, I see a single luminary, not being able to divide or measure the united light” [(cap. 41)]. St. Gregory the Theologian, to a greater extent than Basil the Great, strove to develop such formulas of confession in which faith in the Holy Trinity would be expressed accurately and completely. In this regard, what is most noteworthy is his attitude to the question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. St. Basil the Great, fully convinced of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, until the end of his life did not dare to call the Holy Spirit in itself God. St. Gregory not only speaks of the divinity of the Holy Spirit with the same decisiveness as of the divinity of the Son, but tries to express this conviction in appropriate terms. Since 372 he energetically strives to influence others in this sense, especially St. Basil the Great. In Orat. XII he calls the Holy Spirit God and exclaims: “For how long shall we hide the lamp under a bushel and, as it were, deprive others of the perfect Divinity? Time will establish this truth (i.e., the doctrine of the deity of the Holy. Spirit) on the candlestick, may it shine for all Churches and souls, and for the entire fullness of the universe, not offered in a guessing way, not just mentally written, but spoken openly, as the most perfect revelation of theology” [(cap. 6)]. Basil the Great was unable to establish the distinctive sign of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit or determine the image of His origin from the Father. St. Gregory based on John. 15:26 formed the term έκπόρυσις - “procession”, and in it found a complete parallel to the “birth” (γέννησις) of the Son. And in this endeavor, St. Gregory to the formation of a certain term that clearly expresses the image of the origin of the Spirit, one cannot see only the satisfaction, so to speak, of the aesthetic need to give the Trinitarian scheme completeness by introducing this term for the third Person - although, undoubtedly, Gregory the Theologian is more than St. Vasily, reveals a desire for rounded formulas; in this case, a deep inner religious interest prompted him not only to confess, but also to capture in a certain term the equality of St. Spirit with the Son and Father: a person’s hope for God-likeness can only be firmly substantiated if the Power that elevates him to this degree of perfection, Itself possesses Divine dignity in full. Having established a specific term to determine the hypostatic distinction of the Holy Spirit, St. Gregory, in designating the properties and all three Hypostases, gives a formula that is very different from the terminology of St. Vasily. The latter, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, preferred to use the terms πατρότης and υίότης as the distinctive properties of the hypostasis of the Father and the Son. Gregory the Theologian does not use these terms at all 1317, and his entire trinitarian formula took the following form: άγννησία, γέννησις, έκπόρυσις [unbornness, birth, procession]. However, as synonyms for έκπόρυσις St. Gregory also uses the terms: πρόοδος, πρόβλημα, “Εκπφψις [promotion, work, (sending down] 1318. Thus, he writes (Orat. XXV [, 16]): “And the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the common non-beginning being and Divinity... The distinctive property of the Father is unbegottenness, the Son - begottenness, and the Holy Spirit - messengership 1319 ('έκπφψις)'. St. Gregory the Theologian, like St. Vasily, in the doctrine of the One and Trinity God in Persons, it was necessary to reckon with the accusation that his Trinitarian teaching contained tritheism. St. Gregory is in fact even stronger than St. Basil, emphasizes the unity of God: “The Divinity is one in the Three, and the Three are one, in Which is the Divinity, or, more precisely, Which are the Divinity” (Orat. ХХХ1Х [, 11]). He proves unity in the Trinity, on the one hand, on the basis of the identity in the three Persons of the Divine essence - “We worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, dividing personal properties and uniting the Divinity. We do not mix the Three (Hypostases) into one, so as not to fall into the illness of the Sabellians, and we do not divide the One into three (entities), heterogeneous and alien to each other, so as not to reach the Aryan madness” (Orat. XX [, 5]). On the other hand, unity of command (μοναρχία) is achieved by the fact that the Father is the common principle of the Son and the Spirit, the source of Their deity: “It is also necessary to maintain faith in one. God, and to confess three Hypostases, or three Persons, moreover, each with His personal properties. According to my reasoning, faith in one God is observed when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the one Author (but not add them up or confuse them with Him) - attribute them both according to the same (I will call it that) movement and will of the Divine, and by the identity of essence. The faith is also observed in the three Hypostases, when we do not invent any confusion or overlap... Personal properties will also be observed when we represent and call the Father beginningless and the Beginning (the Beginning, as the Author, as the Source, kb, the ever-present Light), and the Son - not at all without beginning, but also the Beginning of all things” (Orat. XX[, 6-7]). St. Gregory often combines both of these points of view: “We have one God, because there is one Divinity. And those who exist from God are raised to the One, although he believes in the Three” (Orat. XXXI [, 14]). But how, in this case, should we look at the names: Father, Son and Holy Spirit? How do the properties of the Hypostases relate to ούσία? St. Gregory explains that “Father is the name of God, not in essence and not in action, but in the relation that the Father has to the Son or the Son to the Father” (Orat. XX1X [, 16]). “The difference... of manifestation or mutual correlation produces a difference in Their names” (Orat. XXXX, 9]). Following the example of church writers of previous times, St. Gregory strives to find suitable analogies to clarify the mutual relationship of the Divine Persons. But “no matter what I considered with myself in my loving mind,” he says, “no matter what I enriched my mind, where I looked for similarities for this, but I did not find anything to which God’s nature could be applied. If some small similarity is found, then much more slips away, leaving me down with what is chosen for comparison” (Orat. XXXX, 31]). St. Gregory goes over ancient comparisons: spring, spring and stream, sun, ray and light, and finds them of little use; he decides better to abandon all images and shadows as deceptive and far from reaching the truth [(Orat. XXXI, 31–33)]. However, St. Gregory often uses a new comparison, which better provides the doctrine of the unity of God: “Mind, Word and Spirit” (Orat. XII[, 1]). When expounding the theology of St. Gregory is usually left in the shadow of his Christology; and yet at this point he introduced especially a lot of new things in comparison with St. Vasily. St. Gregory, both in view of the struggle against Apollinarianism and out of personal inner attraction, in relation to the Person of the historical Christ, revealed a deeply thought-out positive view, which in its design was very valuable for the coming time of Christological disputes. In the word “For Holy Baptism” (Orat. XL) he formulates the doctrine of the incarnation as follows: “Believe that the Son of God is the eternal Word, born of the Father childless and incorporeal, and He was born in the last days for your sake and as the Son of Man, descended from the Virgin Mary, inexpressibly and undefiled (for there is no defilement, where is God and whence is salvation); that He is fully man and at the same time God, for the sake of all suffering man, in order to grant salvation to you all, destroying all condemnation of sin, impassive in Divinity, suffering in perceived humanity; He is as much a man for your sake as you become a god for His sake; that for our iniquities He was led to death, crucified and buried, because He tasted death, and, having risen on the third day, ascended into heaven in order to raise you with Him, cast down, but will again come at His glorious appearance to judge the living and the dead, He will come no longer in the flesh, but not incorporeal, but in the image of a most magnificent body known only to Him, so that He may be visible to those who have perforated Him, and to remain God, not involved in fatness” [(cap. 45)]. These positive thoughts are hidden polemically and in more detail in the first letter to Clidonius. St. Gregory rebels both against those who introduce two Sons - one from God the Father, and the other from the Mother, and against those who do not recognize the fullness of human nature in Christ. Most valuable of all, it can be argued that in Christ there was no human mind (οῦς), since it is the human mind that is the outflow and image of the Divine mind (Νοῦς), the natural connection between Divinity and humanity. In addition, the idea of ​​salvation requires that Christ be a true man and true God: “What is not received is not healed, but what is united with God is saved. if Adam fell with one half, then one half was taken up and saved; and if he fell completely, then he was united with the completely Born and is completely saved” Epist. 101, cap. 32–33)]. “If He is a man with a soul, then, without having a mind, could He be a man?” [(cap. 34)]. Two natures in Jesus Christ were united into one Person: He exhausted what He was, and He took on what He was not, not making a division between the two, but deigning to become One out of the two, because God is both, both received and received, two natures flocked into one, but not the Son of the Son (Orat. XXXVII[, 2]). “In the Savior there is another and another 1320, because the invisible is not identical with the visible and the pre-temporal with that which is under time; but the one and the other have no place in Him... For both are in dissolution - God became man, and man became deified...” (Epist. 101 [, cap. 20–21]). In Christ the Divinity did not act only graciously, as in the prophet, but was essentially linked and is linked. “We do not separate in Him man from divinity, but we teach that One and the same is first not man, but God and the Only Begotten Son, eternal, having neither body nor anything corporeal, but in the end also man, taken for our salvation, subject to suffering in the flesh, impassible in Divinity... so that the whole man who fell under sin would be recreated as a whole man and God. [If] anyone does not recognize Mary as the Mother of God, he is excommunicated from the Divinity” [(cap. 13–16)]. It is clear why the message of St. Gregory the Theologian had such authority at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils: it anticipated the creeds of these councils. St. Gregory of Nyssa 1321 Information about the life of St. Gregory St. Gregory of Nyssa was the brother of St. Basil the Great, somewhat younger than him: he was probably born around 335. He did not receive such a brilliant education as his older brother, and, one might think, limited himself to the schools of his native city, without undertaking an educational journey. The development of his rich talents was strongly influenced by St. Basil the Great. St. Gregory always calls his brother “father and teacher” with a feeling of deep gratitude (De opificio hominis, Praef.; Apol. in Hexaemeron, Praef.; Conclus.). The religious mood developed in him relatively late; at least this fact is known from his youth. On the estate of his mother Emmelia, a feast was planned for the transfer of the relics of forty martyrs. Gregory, who studied in Caesarea, was invited to take part in this family celebration. Gregory was extremely dissatisfied that he had to interrupt his studies, and he indifferently listened to the chants of the divine service, which took place in the garden and lasted all night. Finally, he retired to a secluded part of the garden and went to bed. But here he saw a dream: he dreamed that he wanted to enter the garden, but the luminous warriors did not let him in, and only thanks to the intercession of one of them he was not punished. Perhaps, under the influence of this dream, he soon joined the clergy with the rank of reader. However, his secular career continued to attract him, and he, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian [(Gregor. Nazianz., Epist. 11/16, cap. 4)], preferred to be called a rhetorician than a Christian. This created a temptation - the enemies of the Church turned this fact to their advantage, and friends were extremely upset and persistently exhorted “to come to your senses, to come to your senses, to justify yourself before the faithful, to justify yourself before God, before the altars, before the sacraments from which you have withdrawn” (Gregor. Nazianz., Epist. [11/] 16[, cap. 5]). What St. Gregory of Nyssa was married, as evidenced by the following words in his treatise “On Virginity” (cap. 3): “Now in some way the knowledge of the beauty of virginity is vain and useless for me, like fruit for an ox going to the threshing floor with a muzzle, or like water flowing from the rocks for a thirsty person when it is unattainable for him; Blessed are those who have the power to choose the best and who have not confined themselves, as it were, within walls, having entered into married life, like us, who are, as it were, separated by some abyss from the glory of virginity, to which no one can return who has even once taken a step into worldly life.” His wife was Theosevia; her piety and religious mood glorify St. Gregory the Theologian in a letter to Gregory of Nyssa regarding her death - he calls her “truly sacred” and “the priest’s cohabitant” (Epist. [197/] 182[, cap. 6]). She died shortly after Gregory of Nyssa became bishop. The persistent convictions of friends and relatives, especially sisters Macrina and Gregory the Theologian, persuaded St. Gregory of Nyssa to abandon secular life and retire to monastic solitude on the Iris River. At the end of 371 it was dedicated to St. Basil as bishop of Nissa, an insignificant town of the Cappadocian metropolis, although he himself objected to this. St. Gregory turned out to be very inexperienced in everyday affairs, and his “simplicity” caused a lot of trouble to St. Basil (cf. Basil. Caesar., Epist. 58; 60; 100). At the episcopal see of St. Gregory of Nyssa did not escape the fate almost common to all Orthodox bishops of the East. In the winter of 375, at a council in Ancyra, convened on the initiative of the Arian governor of Pontus, Demosthenes, the Arian bishops accused him of embezzling church money; in addition, the legality of his installation as a bishop was subject to objections. St. Gregory, by order of Demosthenes, was arrested and, accompanied by military guards, was sent to Ancyra; but along the road he managed to escape and fled to a safe place. Thus, his trial did not take place. But a council in Nissa itself, convened in the spring of 376, condemned and deposed him in absentia. Almost three years after this, St. Gregory led a wandering life, supporting Orthodox Christians in different places in their fight against the Arians. After the death of Valens, there was a sharp change in the direction of church policy: the exile was returned to his flock and was greeted with sincere joy. But soon he had to go to Caesarea to say goodbye to his brother Basil and bury him; and on the way back he received news of the illness of his elder sister Macrina, whom he had not seen for a long time. Gregory of Nyssa found her already on her deathbed. Gregory described his last conversation with her, her death and burial in a letter to the monk Olympius 1322 and in the treatise “On the Soul and Resurrection.” In September or October 379, Gregory of Nyssa was present at the Council of Antioch, which discussed mainly questions about Apollinarianism. It seems that on the instructions of this particular council, Gregory visited the Pontic Churches, and under this circumstance, precisely in April 380, he was supposed to lead the election of the metropolitan to the Sebastian see in Lesser Armenia. To his surprise, the choice fell on himself. They paid no attention to his protest. During the “Babylonian captivity” in Sebastia, St. Gregory remained for several months, when he finally freed himself from his bonds and reached his home (Epist. 19; Epist. 22), that is, Nissa. In 381 St. Gregory was present at the Second Ecumenical Council and was one of its most influential figures, so that subsequently the Seventh Ecumenical Council called him “the father of fathers,” and Emperor Theodosius I called him the pillar of universal Orthodoxy and, according to the council’s definition, declared by edict that in Pontus all those who do not have church communion with Helladius, the archbishop of Caesarea, would be recognized as heretics Cappadocia, Otrius Melitinsky in Armenia and Gregory of Nyssa. During his stay in Constantinople, St. Gregory delivered one speech on the occasion of the election of Gregory the Theologian as bishop of the capital, and another on the burial of Meletius of Antioch. Probably, on behalf of the same council, and perhaps even the Council of Antioch in 379, Gregory visited Arabia and Palestine to put church affairs in order and establish Orthodoxy. Gregory took this opportunity to visit the holy places of Palestine; but the more reverently he was ready to treat them, the harder it was for him to see the hostile relations of local Christians both towards each other and towards St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and he complained bitterly that when the whole world was united in the true confession of the Holy Trinity, there were people in Jerusalem who hated their brothers as much as a Christian should hate the devil and sin. As a result, citing his personal observations, Gregory rebels against pilgrimages to the Holy Land because they are not commanded by the Gospel, are associated with moral dangers, especially for virgins, and because in general changing places does not bring God closer to us. Subsequently, Gregory visited Constantinople several more times at councils: in 383 he spoke a word about the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit; in 385 or 386 he delivered speeches over the tomb of the six-year-old daughter of Emperor Theodosius Pulcheria, and then his wife Flacilla 1323. At the same time, he met the famous deaconess and admirer of John Chrysostom - Olympias. In 394, he was again present at the Council of Constantinople, convened to examine the quarrels of the Arabian bishops. After this cathedral the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa is no longer mentioned - he probably died soon after. Literary activity of St. Gregory of Nyssa St. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the most prolific and versatile church writers; but, unfortunately, the text of his works has not yet had a scientific publication. Its first edition in 1615 (by the Jesuit Fronton du Due - Fronto Ducaeus, d. 1624) is, in fact, the last 1324. The preparatory work done by the Maurinians for the new edition was lost during the French Revolution. Min reprinted everything that was published before him, without new scientific processing. The critical editions of Forbesius (1855–1861) and Oehler (1865) stopped at the very beginning. Into Russian the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa were translated at the Moscow Theological Academy (in 8 parts). Exegetical works. From the surviving works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the most significant part in terms of volume consists of exegetical works, although it was not in them that he showed his rich talents. Gregory was a great admirer of Origen and his works, and in exegesis he is strongly influenced by the hermeneutic method of the great Alexandrian teacher. However, in various works of St. Gregory applies this method to varying degrees: in works pursuing educational and dogmatic goals, he usually follows the historical-grammatical method, using the means of scientific exegesis; but in works of edifying and admonishing content, he gives wide scope to artificial allegorism - here he is inclined to look for and find a whole treasury of moral instructions in almost every word of the biblical text, often completely ignoring the literal meaning. He reveals and substantiates his view on this issue in the preface to the “Accurate Exposition of the Song of Songs.” He writes: “Since it seems to some of those belonging to the Church that it is a general rule to adhere to the letter of Holy Scripture 1325, and they do not agree that anything is said in it for our benefit in mysterious and hinting ways, I consider it necessary, first of all, to justify ourselves in this before those who accuse us, and namely, that we do not do anything inappropriate, trying in every possible way to grasp in the divine and inspired Scripture what is useful for us; so if some literal reading, understood in the sense in which it is said, is useful, then we already have what is required ready; If something is said with secrecy, mysteriously, and presumably does not serve any benefit according to the closest understanding, then we will take such sayings, as prescribed by the word that teaches us in parables, in a different [meaning, understanding what was said either as a parable, or as a dark word] 1326, or as a saying of the wise, or as one of the riddles” 1327. “(Apostle Paul) teaches us one type of teaching that must not necessarily stop at the letter, so that at first glance the apparent meaning of what has been said about a virtuous life could harm us in many ways, but, on the contrary, move on to an immaterial and mental view, so that carnal concepts change in meaning and understanding after the carnal meaning of what has been said is shaken off like dust” 1328. “All this... let us be an incentive to use divine sayings and test [them], to be attentive when reading and in every way to investigate whether there is a word somewhere that is above the understanding that appears at first glance, guiding the thought to the Divine and incorporeal” 1329. "Can... to teach the necessity of such a view of sayings in relation to their meaning, rejecting which, as some would like, in my opinion, everyone will act like someone who offers a grain plant as food to a person at a meal, without processing it, without threshing the ear, without separating the grains from the chaff on a winnower, without grinding the grain into flour and without preparing the bread in the proper way for baking bread. Therefore, just as unprocessed growth constitutes the food of animals, and not of people, so it can be said that inspired sayings, not prepared by a more subtle review, constitute the food of foolish people rather than rational people, and not only the sayings of the Old Testament, but even many in the Gospel teaching” 1330. At the head of the exegetical works of St. Gregory of Nyssa has two treatises: “On the Structure of Man” 1331 and “Apology of Shestodnev” 1332. Both of them were probably written in 379 at the request of Gregory’s brother Peter, Bishop of Sebaste, in Armenia. The first, representing an anthropological-dogmatic study of Genesis. 1:26, aims to complement the conversations of St. Basil the Great “On the Sixth Day”, which do not reveal the doctrine of the creation of man. It points to the wisdom of God manifested in the structure of the human body and explains what man was like in the primitive state in paradise, what he is like now after the Fall, and what he will be like after the resurrection. The second treatise aims to eliminate the misunderstanding of certain passages in the conversations of St. Basil the Great “On the Sixth Day”, refute the accusations of incompleteness and contradictions and clarifies some questions omitted by St. Vasily due to their low accessibility to the understanding of his listeners. In these works St. Gregory, like St. Vasily, follows the literal meaning of the text with special attention and in the conclusion of the “Apology of Shestodnev” states that he tried to preserve the literal meaning of what was written and to reconcile the natural view with the letter [(την φυσικήν θωρίαν)]. The essay “On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver” 1333 is distinguished by a different character: St. Gregory seeks to present to his friend Caesarea the life of Moses as an example of a perfect life, and in the history of the Israeli legislator he wants to clearly show the path of the mystical elevation of the spirit to God; For this purpose, he resorts to the most daring and refined allegorical interpretation, bringing together the events from the life of Moses with the most varied circumstances of the life of a Christian and looking for moral rules in the stories about the Red Sea, and about the brass serpent, and about the bunch of grapes brought by the spies from the Promised Land. The work “On the Inscription of Psalms” 1334 sets out to explain the moralizing purpose of the inscription of psalms. It is divided into two parts. In the first part (cap. 1–9) St. Gregory proves that all the psalms in the Psalter are arranged not in chronological, but in systematic order, so that their consistent reading raises a person to the highest and highest levels of moral perfection; There are five such steps - accordingly, the Psalter is divided into five sections: the first (Psalms 1-40) - an appeal to virtue, the second (Psalms 41-71) - joy about it, the third (Psalms 72-88) - contemplation of heavenly things, the fourth (Psalms 89-105) - contempt for everything earthly and the fifth (Psalms 106-150) - unity with God. In the second part (cap. 10–25) an explanation is given of the inscriptions of the psalms according to the text of LXX, in the sense that each of them certainly leads a person to something morally good. And here the goal set by the author could only be achieved with the help of allegory. A supplement to this work is the “Conversation on the sixth Psalm” 1335. Eight discourses entitled “An Accurate Interpretation of Ecclesiastes Solomon” 1336 (Eccl. 1-3:13) reveal the idea that this truly sublime and inspired book, containing in itself the entire moral teaching of Holy Scripture, distracts the mind from the sensual and gives it peace in the renunciation of everything that seems great and glorious in this transitory world. Fifteen conversations “On the Book of Song of Songs” 1337 (Song. 1–6: 9) were delivered during the service and recorded by zealous listeners; these recordings were used by St. Gregory during the final editing of the commentary. The written presentation of the conversations is dedicated to St. Olympics. The main idea of ​​the commentary is that in this book, under the image of the relationship between the bride and groom, the union of the human soul with God is depicted; in accordance with this, the entire content of the book is given a mysterious meaning: the groom is Christ, the dove is the Church, the descent of the groom into the garden is the sacrament of the incarnation, the kiss is the closest union of Christ with the soul, etc. In a short discussion “On the Ventriloquist” 1338 (1 Samuel 28:12 ff.) it is proven that the sorceress of Endor saw not Samuel, but a demon who took the form of a prophet and thereby deceived both her and Samuel. From the New Testament of St. Gregory explained the Beatitudes in eight conversations, and the Lord's Prayer in five conversations. The Discourses “On the Beatitudes” 1339, which very persistently and skillfully revealed the moral meaning of the commandments, were very highly valued by Christians. The first conversation “On the Lord's Prayer” 1340 speaks generally about the dignity and benefits of prayer as a heavenly gift and the best means for protection from evil and for improvement in virtue. The third conversation at the end contains an important dogmatic-historical presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is omitted in some manuscripts. But the authenticity of this statement of faith is not generally accepted. Dogmatic creations. Among the dogmatic works of St. Gregory of Nyssa must first of all be called the “Great Catechetical Discourse” 1341, which represents the theological and philosophical justification and defense of the main tenets of Christianity against pagans, Jews and heretics. St. Gregory wants to show Christian teachers his teaching, taking into account the point of view of his enemies and therefore basing his argument on what the enemies themselves must recognize as true. In relation to this principle, Gregory himself stands either on a purely philosophical or on a biblical-theological basis. In the first part (cap. 1–8), the author proves the truth of the existence of God, His unity and trinity of Persons, the doctrine of His creation of angels and man, the origin and essence of evil. The second part (cap. 9–32) explains the doctrine of the redemption of people by the Son of God made man, while discussing the questions of why God did not save people by His omnipotence alone and why the redemption took place so late. Third part (cap. 33–40) speaks about man’s assimilation of the grace of redemption through baptism and the Eucharist, about the essence of these sacraments, their necessity and actions. The twelve books of “Refutations of Eunomius” 1342 represent not only the most extensive of all the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also one of the most important polemical works against the Arians. It was written for the following reason: Eunomius, regarding his removal from the Cyzicus see, wrote a short work - “Apology”. St. against him Basil the Great in 363–365 published his “Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius” in three books. Shortly before the death of St. Basil in 379 Eunomius published a more extensive work, in no less than three books, under the title “Apology upon Apology.” St. Basil the Great did not have time to respond to this new speech of Eunomius. At the request of his brother Peter, Bishop of Sebastia, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote his “Refutation of Eunomius,” in which he examines Eunomius’ answer and defends the personality of St. Vasily and most carefully substantiates the doctrine of the deity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. The work is divided into twelve or rather thirteen books, since the twelfth book is divided into two parts and in some manuscripts the second part is considered the thirteenth book. But this division into books and their order are not currently considered indisputable, because they do not seem to correspond to the consistent development of thoughts in the individual parts. First of all, the second book is singled out, which is considered as an independent work and contains detailed criticism of the statement of faith presented by Eunomius in 383 to the emperor Theodosius. The remaining twelve books are a complete work, and in the following order: the first book, directed against the first book of Eunomius, then the second part of the twelfth book, written in refutation of the second book of Eunomius, and, finally, the rest of the work, starting from the third book and ending with the first part of the twelfth, directed against the third book of Eunomius. The last ten books originally constituted one book, divided into ten sections (τόμοι) 1343. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote two works against Apollinaris of Laodicea: “Refutation of the Opinions of Apollinaris” (or “Antirritik”) 1344 and “Against Apollinaris to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria” 1345. The first was written in response to Apollinaris’ work “Proof of the Divine Incarnation in the Likeness of Man” 1346 and mainly refutes two of Apollinaris’s propositions: that the body of Christ descended from heaven and that the place of the rational soul (νους) in Christ was occupied by the Word of God. The second short work serves as a complement to the first; its author asks Theophilus to give a detailed refutation of Apollinaris, and he himself limits himself to an objection to the reproach of the Apollinarians that the Orthodox teach about two Sons: one by nature, and the other by adoption, who came later. The Antirritik should be recognized as one of the most significant anti-Apollinarian works. It was written by Gregory in the last years of his life. The following works are devoted to the clarification and defense of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: 1) “To Aulavius ​​that there are not three Gods” 1347, proving that the recognition of the trinity of Persons does not destroy the unity of God; 2) “To the Hellenes on the basis of general concepts” 1348, revealing the same truth on the basis of generally accepted principles of reason; 3) “To Simplicius on Faith” 1349, written in defense of the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit; 4) to Eustathius of Sebaste “On the Holy Trinity and that the Holy Spirit is God” 1350. This work is identical with the letter of St. Basil the Great “To Eustathius, the first physician” (Epist. 189), but in the latter the original text is significantly shortened. The lengthy edition must be recognized as original, and the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa, apparently proven; 5) “The Word about the Holy Spirit against the Macedonian Doukhobors” 1351; 6) “The Word against Arius and Sabellius” 1352, defending the Divine dignity and personal existence of the Son, has recently been strongly suspected of actually belonging to St. Gregory of Nyssa, since, in addition to some deviation from the original works of St. Gregory in certain dogmatic provisions, it contains in the very first lines an indication of Achilles, who can only be the Achilles who, together with Arius, was excommunicated by Alexander of Alexandria. But by the time of St.’s literary activity. Gregory of Nyssa, this Achilles was forgotten, which is why the composition of this word should be attributed to the initial period of the struggle against Arianism; finally, the whole tone of speech and the nature of the evidence convince of the same thing. However, this word has not been proven to belong to Didim. Of particular interest for the eschatology of St. Gregory has his dialogue with Macrina “On the Soul and Resurrection” 1353. St. Gregory visited Macrina at the end of 379 in the monastery, on the family estate on the Iris River in Pontus. Finding her close to death, St. Gregory began to complain bitterly, remembering the recent loss of Vasily, and this gave rise to a conversation about the soul, death, immortality, the afterlife, resurrection and the final general restoration. The dialogue was written shortly after Macrina's death in imitation of Plato's Phaedo, to which it is inferior in artistry and beauty of presentation, but far surpasses it in depth and boldness of thoughts. Since the “teacher” in the dialogue is Macrina, the work is sometimes inscribed Τά Μακρίνια. The treatise “Against the Doctrine of Fate” 1354 defends human free will against the fatalism of astrologers and represents a reproduction of the author’s conversation with a pagan philosopher in Constantinople, who responded to the call to Christianity by pointing out the unconditional predestination of everything in the world and the influence of the stars on the fate of man. “On Babies Prematurely Abducted by Death” 1355 offers the prefect of Cappadocia Hierius an explanation of the question of why God allows the premature death of children, pointing to God’s foreknowledge of what a child can become in his subsequent life. Another question - why God allows evil people to live in this case - is resolved in the sense that the Creator of everything with wisdom knows how to do something good through evil and manifests His justice on the evil. Moral and ascetic works. To the moral and ascetic works of St. Gregory of Nyssa has the following small arguments: 1) “To Armonius, about what the name and title “Christian” means” 1356, convincing Armonius of the need to bear the name of Christ and imitate Him with one’s life. 2) “On perfection and what a Christian should be, to the monk Olympius” 1357 - explains the essence of Christian perfection, its types and means to assimilate it. 3) “On the purpose of life according to God and on true asceticism” 1358 - reveals the same questions as applied specifically to monastics. 4) “To those who are burdened by church punishments” 1359 – against those who were offended by St. Gregory for his censures of their behavior and against disrespect for church measures of correction. But the best in this group of works by St. Gregory must admit: 5) “On Virginity” 1360, written by him around 370, while living in solitude, with the goal, as he himself says in the preface, to arouse the desire for a virtuous life in the readers of this book. St. Gregory understands virginity as complete renunciation from everything earthly, material and a constant intense striving for the moral perfection possible for a person, the final goal of which is the contemplation of God in communion with Him. Celibate life, the advantages of which the author also speaks of, without the humiliation of marriage, blessed by God Himself, is only one of the important means for acquiring this angelic, Divine virtue, the lawgiver of which is Christ Himself, and the role model for virgins is the Mother of God. Sermons. Sermons of St. Gregory of Nyssa is divided in content into dogmatic, moralizing and laudatory. Of the dogmatic words, the most famous subsequently was the “Sermon on the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and the Praise of Righteous Abraham” 1361, directed against the Anomians and pronounced, probably in 383 in Constantinople. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is the main subject of the content of another dogmatic word, inscribed “On his ordination” in 1362 and also pronounced in Constantinople, perhaps at the council of 394 - its inscription is mysterious. More sermons of a moralizing nature: this includes the words “Against usurers” 1363, “On the love of poverty and charity” 1364, “Against those who delay baptism” 1365, “To those who mourn those who have passed away from this present life into the eternal” 1366, a word on 1 Cor. 6:18 – “Against Fornicators” 1367. Several words are dedicated to the glorification of holidays: “On the day of lights” or “On Epiphany” 1368, three words “On Easter” (the first 1369, the third 1370 and the fourth 1371; the second 1372 is undoubtedly inauthentic and was attributed to the 5th century Jerusalem presbyter Hesychius, the fifth 1373 is also very doubtful), “On the Ascension” 1374 and “On Pentecost” 1375, “On the Nativity” 1376 (authenticity disputed). Finally, a number of words are spoken in honor of the saints: two words for the day of the first martyr Stephen 1377, three words for the forty martyrs of Sebaste 1378, one for the martyr Theodore Tyrone 1379, then words in praise of Basil the Great 1380, Ephraim the Syrian 1381 (the authenticity is highly disputed) and Meletius of Antioch 1382, and tombstones – Pulcheria 1383 and Flaquille 1384. In external form, biographies of St. also belong to laudatory speeches. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea 1385, and sister Macrina 1386. In the last word of St. Gregory depicts the pious life of his sister, the circumstances of her death and modern funeral rites. St. Gregory enjoyed fame in his time as a church speaker; This is already indicated by the fact that during his visits to the capital he delivered speeches on ceremonial occasions and even tombstones over the persons of the reigning house. However, as an orator he ranks lower than Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian: he is inferior to the first in strength and thoroughness, and to the second in liveliness, mobility and colorfulness of the image. His oratory reveals not so much natural talent as skill as a result of study and exercise. As you know, he was preparing for the rhetorical field and was interested in it for some time; hence the influence on him of the theories of secular rhetoric and the literary taste of his contemporaries, artificiality, stilted speech, a tendency to exaggeration, etc. Letters 1387. Letters to St. There are only 26 1388 of Gregory of Nyssa, but one of them - “To Evagrius the monk on the Divinity” 1389 - does not belong to him. Of the remaining 25, the best known are: the canonical letter to Litoius of Melitino 1390, which defines the conditions for return to church communion and establishes penances for various grave sins (falling from the faith, sorcery, murder, robbery, grave robbery, etc.). St. Gregory elevates all sins to the basic forces or abilities of the soul - rational, lustful and irritable - and determines their severity by the significance in the spiritual life of a person of one or another ability damaged by sin. The letter “To those who undertake a journey to Jerusalem” (2nd) vividly depicts the abuses that were then common when traveling to holy places, sharply condemns them and persistently warns not to assimilate special moral value to these journeys. In a letter to Eustathia, Ambrose and Vasilisa [(Epist. 3)], St. Gregory expresses his feelings of reverence for the shrines he visited, bitterly mourns the church disorders in Palestine, explains the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God and convinces us to firmly adhere to the faithful faith. Of the remaining letters, some have a dogmatic interest, representing Gregory’s defense of his Orthodoxy (Epist. 5) or the disclosure of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (Epist. 24 - “To the heretic Heraklian”), the veneration of Sts. martyrs (Epist. 25), others - moral and canonical, indicating the qualities that are desirable to be seen in a candidate for bishopric (Epist. 17) and the rules of life obligatory for him (Epist. 21). Most of the letters were written by St. Gregory to people close to him, concerns the events and experiences of the author himself and is important for getting to know his personal life. The dogmatic teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa 1391 St. Gregory of Nyssa, about whose simplicity and inexperience in church affairs St. complained. Vasily did not have the data for practical activities; but the more he felt an inclination towards scientific works. He was a philosopher and theologian who successfully sought to penetrate the truths of faith, dismember them and systematically process them. In his ability to speculate, he surpasses Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, but at the same time, together with Basil the Great, he displays a keen interest in the scientific study of nature: physical, physiological, and medical explanations in his works are quite numerous. He was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas. Theologically, St. Gregory was under the significant influence of St. Basil, whom he always speaks of in a tone of the greatest respect, calls him not only his teacher, but places him next to the “ancient saints” 1392, considers his creations inspired by God, second in dignity only to the canonical Scriptures 1393. But the high respect for his brother did not suppress the saint. Gregory, and he even the main points of the theology of St. Vasily develops completely independently. Even having set as his task to supplement the “Six Days” of St. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa introduces into his explanations such metaphysical ideas that St. Vasily could not recognize them as his own. Origen had a much greater influence on St. Gregory of Nyssa than on St. Basil and Gregory the Theologian. He not only determined his general religious direction and basic theological views, but aroused his thought to speculation; from him St. Gregory inherited both the general spirit and character of his system, as well as the particulars, which he more or less reworked in the spirit of church teaching. St. Gregory of Nyssa reveals a rather sharp deviation from St. Basil the Great on such a matter of fundamental importance as the positive authority of Holy Scripture. In polemics, he even reveals rigor in using the evidence of Holy Scripture and reproaches Eunomius and Apollinaris for drawing their teachings not from Holy Scripture. But in fact, he himself opens a wide way for a free attitude to his authority, protecting the rights of allegorical interpretation. He further weakens the dignity of positive authority by giving the importance of philosophy in relation to Revelation: for him the results of philosophy are valuable not only in the field of apologetics, but are of immediate importance for the Christian faith. Full conviction of the truth of a dogma can only appear when it becomes actually accessible to human imagination; and this can only be achieved with the help of philosophy. However, in theory, Gregory firmly stands on the fact that philosophy cannot independently give decisions about the truth and untruth of a position and that no philosophical opinion can be accepted that contradicts church dogma. No question attracts the attention of St. so much. Gregory of Nyssa, as a question about human knowledge of God, its possibility and necessity, its properties, origin and growth. This question is considered by him in connection with criticism of the teaching of Eunomius about the possibility of understanding the essence of God; but even in his exegetical and ascetic works, he speaks with extreme persistence about the mysterious ascent of the human soul to the contemplation of God. Eunomius in his answer to St. Basil the Great declared a claim to perfect knowledge of the being of God: whoever does not comprehend God does not know Him at all; and whoever knows Him through logical thinking knows Him as perfectly as God Himself knows Himself. Those do not deserve the name of Christians who declare the Divine nature unknowable ([Eunomius apud] Gregor. Nyss., Contra Eunomium XI[, 4 / III, 9.54]). St. Gregory of Nyssa objects that anyone who would like to comprehend the essence of God is insane. The essence of God is incomprehensible, because only like can recognize what is like itself, and man can never become completely like God, nor escape the limitations of his nature. Man is not so great that he can make his cognitive ability similar to the Lord; and the object of knowledge is not so small that it can be embraced by the reasonable conclusions of human limitations (Contra Eunomium XII b [/ II, 1.93–94]). Even pure spirits cannot comprehend God, because all created natures are limited, and uncreated entities have no boundaries: the measure of the latter is infinity (Contra Eunomium XII b [/ II, 1.69–70]). This infinity can only be embraced by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Further, every being can remain in existence only as long as it remains itself. Fire cannot exist by turning into water; vision, hearing, smell perceive reality in a way characteristic of each of these senses; Likewise, a person cannot get out of himself, but no matter what he looks at, he sees, in essence, only himself, although he thinks that he sees something higher than himself. Looking at everything through the medium of his corporeality, a person cannot imagine God otherwise than as a Being who is characterized by a certain spatiality and temporality. Therefore, all human concepts about God touch only the footstool of His feet and do not so much lead to the goal of knowledge of God as hinder it. But just as the contemplation of God in the afterlife represents the highest degree of bliss, so here on earth, the clearest possible knowledge of the Divine should constitute the highest goal of our aspirations. When God created man in His image, He thereby gave him kinship with His own nature and made him capable of knowledge of God. Incomprehensible in essence, God can be known by the manifestations of His activity, since His properties were reflected in the world He created: wisdom, goodness, omnipotence, holiness, justice. There are several paths to relative knowledge of God. “The nature of God,” writes St. Gregory of Nyssa, - in itself, in its essence, above all comprehending thinking, as inaccessible to fortune-telling thoughts and not close to them; and no power has yet been discovered in people to comprehend the incomprehensible, and no means have been invented to understand the inexplicable... But being such by nature, He who is above all nature, This invisible and indescribable, in another respect is visible and comprehended. There are many ways of such understanding. For even by the wisdom visible in the universe one can divinely discern Him who created all things in wisdom. Just as in human works, in some way the mind perceives the creator of the exhibited creation, who put art into his work, but it is not the nature of the artist that is seen, but only the artistic knowledge that the artist put into the work; so we, looking at the beauty in creation, imprint in ourselves the concept not of essence, but of the wisdom of the wise One who created everything. If we talk about the reason for our life, namely, that God began to create man not out of necessity, but out of good will, we again say that in this way we saw God, having comprehended goodness, and not essence. Likewise, everything else that leads us to the concept of the better and more sublime, like this we call the understanding of God, because every sublime thought represents God to our vision” (Orat. de beatitudinibus VI 1394). This path of knowledge of God is completely natural for the human soul, and under certain conditions it is certainly directed along it: “The human soul is within the boundaries of two natures [(δύο φύσεων οΰσα μεθόριος)], of which one is incorporeal, spiritual and pure, and the other is bodily, material and unreasonable. How soon, having freed himself from attachment to the rough and earthly life, due to virtue, turns his gaze to what is akin to it and the Divine, he does not stop in exploring and searching for the beginning of beings, that is, what is the source of their beauty, where does the strength flow from, what exudes from itself the wisdom that is revealed in the essence; setting in motion all the forces of reason and all the mental ability of research, with inquisitiveness he strives to comprehend what he is looking for, setting for himself as the limit of comprehension only the effectiveness [(ένέργααν)] of God, even extending to us, which we feel in our lives. And just as the air transmitted by the earth to the water does not stop [at the bottom of the lake, but the resulting bubble strives] 1395 upward to its own kindred, and then stops moving upward when it reaches the very surface of the water and mixes with the surrounding air, so something similar happens with the soul, which explores the divine, when from below it extends to the knowledge of the highest, and, having comprehended the wonders of His activity, cannot go further in its curiosity, but he marvels and reveres Him whose existence is known only because He acts [(δι' ών evepyei)]” (Homil. in Canticum canticorumXI 1396). Another way of knowing God is to turn inward, to your soul. “All of you, O people, in whom there is any desire to look at the true good, when you hear that God’s splendor is above the heavens and the glory of God is indescribable, and the beauty is unspeakable, and nature is inconceivable, do not fall into hopelessness, as if it is impossible to see what you want. For you have within you the measure of comprehension of God, Who created you in this way, immediately realizing such goodness in nature, because in your composition He imprinted the likeness of the blessings of His own nature, as if He had imprinted carved images on wax. But vice, having washed away the god-like features, rendered the good, covered with vile veils, useless. Therefore, if by a zealous life you again wash away the impurity that has settled on your heart, then God-like beauty will shine in you. As happens with iron, when rust is removed from it with a grindstone; Having recently been black, in the presence of the sun it casts some rays from itself [and emits a shine] 1397, so the inner man, whom the Lord calls the heart, when the rust of impurity that appeared on his image from bad love is cleansed, will again take on the likeness of the prototype and will be good, because what is like good is, without a doubt, good. Therefore, whoever sees himself sees in himself what he desires, and thus the pure in heart becomes blessed, because, looking at his own purity, he sees the prototype in this image. For just as those who see the sun in a mirror, although they do not look at the sky itself, nevertheless see the sun in the radiance of the mirror no less than those who look at the very circle of the sun; So you too, says the Lord, although you do not have the strength to see the light, if you return to that grace of the image that was communicated to you at the beginning, then you have within yourself what you are looking for. For purity, dispassion, alienation from all evil is Divinity. Therefore, if this is in you, then, without a doubt, God is in you, when your thought is pure from all vice, free from passions and far from any defilement, you are blessed in your keenness of vision, because, having purified yourself, you have seen what is invisible to those who have not been purified and, having removed the material darkness from the eyes of your soul, in the pure sky of your heart you clearly see a blissful sight. What exactly? Purity, holiness, simplicity [and all such luminous reflections] 1398 of God’s nature, in which we see God” (Orat. de beatitudinibus VI 1399). But St. Gregory of Nyssa does not dwell on this, because “the greatness of God’s nature is not limited to any limit, and no measure of knowledge serves as such a limit in the understanding of what is sought, beyond which the lover of the lofty should stop in striving “to the front,” but on the contrary, the mind, ascending to the heavenly with the highest understanding, is in such a state that any perfection of knowledge achievable by human nature becomes the beginning of the desire for higher knowledge” (Homil. in Canticum canticorum VI 1400). A soul that has entered into union with God does not have satiety in pleasure - the more abundantly it is filled with pleasure, the stronger the desires act in it (Homil. in Canticum canticorum I 1401). Having reached the height of perfection, she learns that she is as far from Him as those who did not begin [(Homil. in Canticum canticorum VI 1402)]. Extending more and more into the heavenly, as much as is accessible to human nature, and leaving everything below, the soul enters the sanctuary of the knowledge of God, from everywhere being enveloped in Divine darkness, in which, since everything visible and comprehensible is left outside, only the invisible and incomprehensible remains for the soul’s vision, and in this darkness is God (Homil. in Canticum canticorum XI 1403). This long process of ascent through the stages of knowledge of God ends in ecstasy, which is compared to intoxication or frenzy of the mind. It comes suddenly and unexpectedly for a person. Thought detaches itself from sensory views and rational concepts; the change of feelings and thoughts stops for a while, and his soul comes into contact with eternity. But even in ecstasy a person does not recognize the essence of God. “The mind, stretching further, always delving into the understanding of what is truly comprehensible with greater and more perfect attentiveness, the closer it comes to contemplation, the more it perceives the incontemplation of the Divine nature. For having left everything visible, not only what the senses perceive, but also what the mind seems to see, it incessantly moves towards something more internal, until through the inquisitiveness of the mind it penetrates into the invisible and incomprehensible and there it sees God. For this is the true knowledge of what we are looking for: this is our knowledge that we do not know, because what we are looking for is above all knowledge, as if covered in a kind of darkness from everywhere by incomprehensibility. Therefore, the exalted John, who was in this luminous darkness, says: “God is not seen anywhere” (John 1:18), decisively asserting with these words that not only people, but also any rational nature is inaccessible to the knowledge of God’s essence” (De vita Mosis [2.162–163]). In the doctrine of the Holy Trinity before St. Gregory of Nyssa, as before Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, was faced with the question of how to reconcile the doctrine of the trinity of Persons in God with the unity of being. Avlavius ​​turned to St. Gregory with such bewilderment: it is necessary to agree to one of the opposites - either to assert that there are three Gods (which is impermissible), or not to attribute deity to the Son and the Holy Spirit (which is wicked and absurd). Peter, James and John, although their humanity is one, are called three people, and there is nothing absurd in calling those united by nature, if there are many of them, in the plural by the name of their nature. If this is allowed here and no one forbids calling two two, and if there are more than two, then three, then why in the mysterious dogmas, confessing three Hypostases and not noticing any difference in their nature, we allow a contradiction to the confession, affirming that the deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, and forbidding calling Them three Gods. St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes the objections raised, first of all, by pointing out the incorrectness of the usual usage of words, due to which they say: “three people.” The word “man” is a designation of “common nature”, essence, and not the personal characteristics of each individual; but “nature is one, united with itself and exactly an indivisible unit, not increased by addition and not diminished by subtraction, but just as there is one, so, although it appears in multitude, it remains indivisible, indivisible, whole, not allocated to its participants in a special part for each... Therefore, a person in the most precise sense can be called actually one, although there are many belonging to the same nature” [(Ad Ablabium 1404 )]. Since in nature there is no diminution or increase, depending on whether it belongs to many or to few, and as a result it is not subject to counting - because only that which can quantitatively increase is counted, then the incorrect usage of words should be eliminated and “the name of nature should not be extended to the multitude.” But since “the correction of custom is inconvenient,” jo should not transfer this error to the doctrine of God: “In the discussion of the natural nature, we will not err so much, not opposing the prevailing custom, since here there is no harm from the erroneous use of names; but the different use of names in the Divine dogma is not so safe, because here even what is unimportant is already important” [(ibidem 1405)]. On the other hand, Aulavius's objection is refuted by examining the name "God" itself. The nature of God is unnameable and inexpressible, and every name of God does not designate the Divine nature, [but] shows only something related to nature. And the name “God” does not designate the essence of God, but only activity, namely, inspecting and observing, so to speak, visual (θετική), with which God observes and has supervision over everything: from sight (έκ τής θέας) the Divinity (ή θίότης) is named, and the Spectator [(θωρόν)] both by custom and by the teaching of the Scriptures is called God (o Θός). And since this activity belongs not to one of the Persons confessed in the Holy Trinity, but to all three Persons, there is no reason to deprive any of the Persons of the Holy Trinity of the name “God”. St. Gregory foresees the objection that this argument seems to speak against him, since usually the plural is used about people engaged in the same activity: rhetoricians, geometers, farmers, shoemakers, etc. Therefore, it would seem that three Gods should be named, mentally represented in the same activity. To this St. Gregory answers in this way: among people, during the same occupations, the activity of each is separate, and each acts on his own. “We learned the wrong thing about the Divine nature; namely, it is not that the Father on his own creates something that the Son does not touch, or that the Son again produces something separately, without the Spirit; but that every action that extends from the Divine to creation and is named according to the many different concepts about Him, comes from the Father, extends through the Son and is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the name of action is not divided into many active ones, since there is no special care for anything acquired by everyone. But whatever happens, whether it concerns the industry about us, or the economy and composition of the universe, everything is produced by the Three; however, there are not three works" 1406. “The Holy Trinity does not bring into action any activity separately according to the number of Hypostases; on the contrary, there is one movement and order of good will, passing from the Father through the Son [to the Spirit]" 1407. Therefore, it is impossible to call three Gods collectively and inseparably through each other, bringing into action supervising power and activity on us and on all creatures. Since “there is one law of supervising and visual power in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the Father, as from a certain source, emanating, brought into action by the Son and accomplishing grace by the power of the Spirit, then not a single action differs according to the Hypostases, as if each were performed separately and separately, without detection in action and others; on the contrary, all providence, all care and vigilance over the universe, in relation to the sensory creature and the premium nature, and protecting nature, and correcting sins, and teaching correctness, is unique, and not threefold; although it is accomplished by the Holy Trinity, it is not divided into three parts according to the number of Persons contemplated by faith, so that each of the actions, considered in itself, was either one Father, or a special Only Begotten, or a separate Holy Spirit” [(ibidem 1408)]. In the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and in the Trinitarian terminology of St. Gregory of Nyssa stands on a common ground with Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian and defines the relationship between the concepts ούσία and ύпόστασις in the same way as St. Vasily in a famous letter to him. But in determining the properties of the Hypostases of St. Gregory also avoids St. Vasily, and from Gregory the Theologian. St. Gregory of Nyssa does not use the formula of St. at all. Vasily "patronymic" and "sonship"; He does not show any inclination towards the created St. Gregory the Theologian terminology “birth” and “origin”. He, in agreement with other Cappadocians, defines the property of the Father as “unborn.” The property of the Son is “only begotten”, τό μονογενές: He is the Only Begotten, oh μονογενής. This St. Gregory of Nyssa wants to emphasize that He is the only one who came from the Father through birth, that in the Divinity there is only one Son; therefore, in this case, the assertion of the pneumatomachians that with the recognition of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, the Son and the Spirit would be brothers, completely falls apart. The distinctive property of the Spirit is that He does not receive being “only begotten” from the Father, and that He appeared through the Son. This origin through the Son is the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit. “Confessing the indifference of nature, we do not deny the difference between being a cause and coming from a cause: we understand that this is the only difference between one and the other, precisely because, as we believe, one Person is the cause, and the other is from the cause. And in the fact that from the cause, we again imagine (to ourselves) another difference, for one is directly from the first, the other is from the first through the mediation of what is directly from Him, which is why the only-begotten undoubtedly remains with the Son, and the Spirit also undoubtedly belongs to being from the Father, because the mediation of the Son and Him preserves the only-begotten, and does not remove the Spirit from natural rapprochement with the Father. When we say: “cause” and “existence from cause,” we do not mean nature by these names... but we show the difference in the way of being [(kash το πώς αναι)]” (Ad Ablabium 1409). Thus, the Father is the cause, and the Son and the Spirit are from the cause, but the Son is immediately, and the Spirit is through the mediation of the Son; this, according to St. Gregory, and the only begottenness of the Son is preserved, and the Spirit does not move away from being close to the Father by nature. It should be noted that “through the Son” in St. Gregory has a completely different meaning than the Western Filioque: according to St. Gregory, the Father and the Son together are not the cause of the Spirit, but only the Father is the own cause of the Spirit; The Son is only, as it were, a medium through which the power of the Father is transmitted to the Holy Spirit. In the Christology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, like St. Gregory the Theologian, defends the basic position that the Word, consubstantial with the Father, assumed full human nature. The evidence of this is thoroughly revealed in his works against Apollinaris and in its essence boils down to the soteriological postulate: what is not perceived is not saved; therefore Christ also had a human mind (νους). Lately the question has arisen as to how St. Gregory thought of humanity in Christ: as an individual or as a realistically represented generic concept. There is no doubt that St. Gregory of Nyssa has several places in which he apparently says that Christ assumed human nature and therefore all humanity is directly deified in His Person; therefore, humanity is presented as a unit that Christ assumed and redeemed entirely. However, even if Plato’s ideas had an influence on St. Gregory, then in this regard he does not rely on them, but on his own view of the order in the creation of man. He writes (De opificio hominis 16): “The Word of God, saying: “God made man,” by the vagueness of its expression, refers to all humanity; for the name “Adam” is not now given to the creation, as history later says; on the contrary, the name of the created man is given not as any one, but as a general genus. Therefore, by the general name of nature we are led to the assumption that all humanity is embraced by Divine foreknowledge and power in the first dispensation.” Thus, in the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God, that connection is established that makes it possible for humanity to appear as a single whole. But the humanity of Christ is always described by St. Gregory as concrete and individual, as a separate person who is compared with other people. Interesting features are presented by the eschatological teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa. In this regard, he reveals a rather strong dependence on the Alexandrian teacher, eliminating, however, or softening some of the premises of his eschatology in accordance with the requirements of church teaching. Origen, as we know, considered the resurrection of the material body impossible and argued that the known ei δ ος, that individual form by which each person differs from another, will be restored. St. Gregory of Nyssa preserves the doctrine of ίΐδος'β, but based on it the possibility of the resurrection of the material body. “Since the soul,” he says (De opificio hominis 27), “was disposed to a kind of natural friendship and love towards its cohabitant - the body, then some kind of friendly connection and acquaintance is stored [secretly] 1410 in the soul as a result of merging with what is inherent, as if from some signs imposed by nature, by which an unfused sociability remains in it, distinguishing its property. Therefore, when the soul again attracts to itself what is akin to itself and what actually belongs to it, then what, tell me, difficulty will prevent the Divine power from bringing about the union of what is akin, by some inexplicable attraction of nature hastening towards its property? That in the soul even after detachment from the body some signs of their union remain, this is indicated by the conversation in hell, from which it is clear that the rich man recognized Lazarus by some bodily sign. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent with reason to believe that there will be a separation of the resurrected bodies from the general composition to their own. This must be affirmed especially in view of the fact that we do not consist entirely of the current and the transformative; on the contrary, one thing in us represents something constant, while the other is subject to change. The body is subject to change with increase and decrease. But with any change, the “distinctive appearance” remains immutable in itself, without losing once and for all the signs placed on it by nature. Since the distinctive appearance, like the imprint of a seal, remains in the soul, it necessarily knows what the seal depicted these features and, during the renewal, again takes it upon itself, as consistent with the features of the distinctive appearance. Mercury, spilled on any sloping and dusty place, divided into small balls, scatters on the ground, without mixing with anything that comes across it; if the scattered mercury is collected in one place, then it again merges with the homogeneous, without taking in anything extraneous. The same should be imagined about the human body: as soon as the Divine command is followed for the corresponding parts to unite, then no difficulty will present itself for the renewed nature. Thus, on the day of resurrection, the soul will again recognize the constituent parts of its material body, which once gave the individual imprint of the elöog'y, and, with the assistance of Divine omnipotence, will again unite with itself the former composition of the material body. In his teaching about the final destinies of the world and man, St. Gregory of Nyssa is a faithful follower of Origen, and former attempts to prove the agreement of St. Gregory with church teaching on this point (the assumption of corruption of the text of his works) must be considered unfounded: St. Gregory of Nyssa undoubtedly teaches that the world process will end with the restoration of everything to the purity of the primitive state (apokatastasis). No matter how strong the conviction of St. Gregory that it depends on the free will of everyone whether he turns to God or not, but his faith in the victorious power of good turns out to be even stronger. He returns to revealing his thoughts on this issue quite often. Thus, in the “Big Catechetical Address” he writes: “If the soul remains unhealed (in the present life), then healing is reserved for it in the future life” (cap. 8). “It is impossible for a person without rebirth in the baptismal bath to achieve [resurrection] 1411, meaning not just the rebirth and transformation of our nature... but restoration to a state of bliss, divine and far from all sorrows. For not everything that comes back into existence by resurrection enters into the same life; but the great environment 1412 between those who have been purified and those who need purification. For those who in this life were preceded by cleansing in the bath of baptism, there will be an outcome to their kindred; and dispassion is acquired by the pure; but that in dispassion there is bliss - this is certain. In whom the passions have become coarsened and no cleansing of defilement has been carried out, either by mysterious water, or by invoking Divine power, or by correction through repentance, then, by all necessity, must be in a decent state. Like counterfeit gold, it is fitting for them to be crucified, so that after the admixture of vice has been destroyed, their nature will subsequently remain pure before God for many centuries. Therefore, since there is [a certain] purifying power in fire and water, those who are washed from the filth of evil by the mysterious water have no need for any other kind of cleansing, and those who are not sanctified 1413 by this cleansing are necessarily cleansed by fire” (cap. 35). “When, after a long time, the evil that is now mixed with them and akin to them is removed from nature, since the restoration of those who are now in evil to their original state is completed, thanksgiving will be unanimously given to all creation and to all who suffered torment during the purification, and even those who did not need to begin the purification” (cap. 26). In the work “On the Soul and Resurrection” by St. Gregory writes: “God has one goal - when people, one after the other, have already completed the fullness of our nature, some soon after this life will find themselves clean from vice, others at the appropriate times after this will experience the healing of fire, others will find themselves not having known from experience in this life either good or evil - to provide everyone with the communion of the blessings existing in Him, which, as Scripture says, is not known to God.” sees, nor hears, and which are not accessible to thoughts (1 Cor. 2:9)... The difference between a virtuous or vicious life after this will most appear in the fact that sooner or later a person will partake of the hoped-for bliss; for the extent of the depravity that has arisen in each person will, of course, correspond to the duration of the healing” 1414. “After the purification and destruction of such passions by fiery healing, the place of each property will be replaced by what is represented by the best: incorruptibility, life, honor, grace, glory, power, and if anything else similar to this we imagine contemplating in God Himself and in His image, i.e. in human nature" 1415. St. Cyril of Jerusalem 1416 Information about the life of St. Cyril of Jerusalem Chronology of the life of St. Cyril of Jerusalem was usually presented in this form: born around 315, around 335 he was made a deacon by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem and ordained a presbyter around 345 by Bishop Maximus; in this rank in 348 he delivered his catechetical teachings. After the death of Maximus in 350 or 351, he took the episcopal see in Jerusalem. But all these chronological calculations were based on the assumption that Bishop Maximus died no earlier than 349, since the return of St. Athanasius of Alexandria from his second exile, and he was met by Bishop Maximus and entered into church communion with him in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, with the opening of the Easter Epistles of St. Athanasius established that he was in Jerusalem, returning from the second exile, in 346; from here it became possible to attribute the death of Maxim and the delivery of St. Cyril as bishop at an earlier time, namely, towards the end of 347 or the beginning of 348. In 348, St. Kirill spoke his censorious words; but then he was already a bishop, since the bishop usually preached, and regarding Cyril there are no indications at all that he, while still in the rank of presbyter, would be entrusted with replacing the bishop in this regard; in the catechetical words, there is no mention of the bishop as a person different from the announcer, and in some cases the preacher quite clearly assumes the highest authority in his Church (for example, Procateches. 4 1417; 15; Cateches. V, 12 1418). In addition, blzh. Jerome in the Chronicle of 1419 dates the death of Maximus to the eleventh year of Constantius, that is, from May 22, 347 to May 348. 1420 For these reasons, the time of birth of St. Cyril is currently pushed back to 313, ordination to the deacon to 333, ordination to the priesthood to 343, and consecration to the bishop to the beginning of 348. 0 birthplace of St. Kirill, his parents, upbringing and methods of education, nothing reliable has survived; however, it can be assumed that he was born in the bowels of the Jerusalem Church, that is, in Jerusalem itself or in its environs. There is no doubt that he spent his youth in the study of the Holy Scriptures, the deep knowledge of which is visible in his public words; His familiarity with church and secular literature is also clear. The Arians, who dominated the East, if not directly contributed to the construction of St. Cyril to the Jerusalem see, assuming in him a like-minded person, as Socrates, Sozomen and Jerome present the matter, then, in any case, they did not show hostility towards him, so that the first years of his episcopate passed peacefully. In 351, “on the holy days of [holy] Pentecost” [(Cyrill. Hierosol., Epist. ad Constantium, cap. 4)], on May 7, at about 9 o’clock in the morning, the great sign of the cross appeared in the sky. The cross, made of light, extended in length from Golgotha ​​to the Mount of Olives and just as wide; its radiance surpassed the light of the sun's rays. The entire population of the city contemplated this vision, which lasted for several hours; The people, overwhelmed with amazement and fear, flocked in droves to the church to give glory to Christ. Many of the Jews and pagans were converted to the Christian faith by this sign. This unusual event of the appearance of the cross is described, in addition to some church historians, by St. himself. Cyril in his “Message to the Pious King Constantius.” Soon, however, the Arians saw that they had been deceived in St. Kirill, and began to fight against him. Hostile actions against St. Cyril was discovered by Metropolitan Akakios of Caesarea in Palestine, an adherent of Arianism. Contrary to the 7th rule of the Council of Nicea, which placed the Jerusalem See above the Caesarea See, Akaki began to humiliate the dignity and honor of the Jerusalem bishop. St. Cyril defended the rights of his see and thereby displeased Akaki. According to Aryan custom, third-party accusations were made, for which the basis was found in the following circumstances. There was a terrible famine in Jerusalem. Whole crowds of people turned to their archpastor for help. St. Cyril distributed all the church money to the needy, but since the need was not satisfied, St. Cyril decided to sell off the most precious church vessels and treasures, [and] distribute the proceeds from the sale to the hungry. Some citizen saw on the actress one of those things that he had donated to the Jerusalem Church, learned from her that she had acquired the thing from a merchant, and the merchant told him that the thing had been sold to St. Kirill. Akaki took advantage of this circumstance and demanded St. Kirill to court, accusing him of embezzlement of church property; when St. Cyril did not obey; Akaki, at a council of bishops under his control, declared him deposed and expelled him from Jerusalem by force. This was in 357. Having protested against the illegal removal, St. Cyril went to Tarsus, where Bishop Silouan and the people received him with deep respect. But Akaki did not calm down and wanted to influence Silouan in the sense that he would deprive St. Kirill Hospitality; for this purpose, he wrote to him that Cyril had been deposed and should not have communication with other bishops. However, Silouan did not heed the insistence of Akaki and granted St. Cyril the right to preach to the Tarsus flock. At the end of 359, the Council of Seleucia, at which the majority were Homiusians, recognized the deposition of St. Cyril invalid and deposed Acacius himself as an Arian; but the decisions of this council, as we know, remained unfulfilled, and its ambassadors in Constantinople were forced to sign the Arian symbol, and then the Omiusians themselves, under various pretexts, were deposed and exiled. That's why St. Cyril, who had returned to Jerusalem, had to leave it again (in 360) and went into exile, having been accused by the Council of Constantinople of opposing the (Arian) Council of Melitene in Armenia and of selling the donations of Constantius himself (in addition to the previous charge). St. Cyril returned to his see already during the reign of Julian (in 362) and here witnessed the failure of Julian’s plan to restore the Jerusalem temple, which he predicted from the very beginning. “Imagining the prediction of the prophet Daniel (9:26), which Christ also confirmed in the Holy Gospel (Matthew 24:2), Cyril [Bishop] of Jerusalem proclaimed to many that now the time was coming when in the (Jewish) church “not one stone will be left upon another” and the Savior’s prediction will be fulfilled” [(Socrat., Hist. eccl. III, 20)]. Annunciation of St. Kirill was completely justified. “In one night, a strong earthquake erupted the stones of the ancient foundations of the (Jewish) church” [(ibidem)]. Gradually, relations with Caesarea were also settled, since in place of the deceased (in 366) Acacius, St. Cyril managed to erect his relative Gelasius. During the reign of the Arian Valens, St. Cyril was again expelled from Jerusalem in 367, this time he was separated from his flock for eleven whole years. Only in 378, after the death of Valens, the Jerusalem shepherd could return to his see and for the last eight years he worked to restore church unity and improve the moral life of the Church, upset by the violent actions of heretics. In 381 St. Kirill attended the Second Ecumenical Council. The following year, another council of Constantinople sent a message to the West, praising the merits of St. Kirill for the Christian faith, in refutation of the doubts that have arisen in the West about his Orthodoxy. St. Cyril died in 386. Literary activity of St. Cyril of Jerusalem As a writer, St. Cyril is known almost exclusively for his 24 words spoken in 348 ([the date] is determined on the basis of the instructions of the XIV word about the time of Easter [cap. 10; cf. IV, 30; XVIII, 7]) in the Church of the Resurrection for those preparing to receive baptism on Easter day and [then for] those who accepted it. The preconciliatory word 1421, which constitutes the preface to the catechumen words, was pronounced on Sunday, 18 catechetical words 1422 - on the weekdays of Lent until Great Saturday inclusive, then baptism was performed on Easter night, and the remaining five words 1423 were pronounced on Easter week. Since the latter provide the newly enlightened (to whom the doctrine of the sacraments was not previously revealed) complete information about baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, which they received on Easter day, they are called “sacramental.” The catechetical words are based on the ancient symbol of the Jerusalem Church; but in its interpretation - in accordance with the goal of acquainting those who are enlightened, first of all, with what they have to experience and accept upon entering the Church - the members of repentance and baptism are revealed before other members of the symbol of faith. Thus, the content of the catechetical and secret words of St. Kirill is presented in the following form. The preparatory word explains to those preparing for baptism the superiority of their new state and the responsibilities associated with it and indicates how they should spend the time before baptism, preparing for a worthy acceptance of it. First of all, what is required of them is a complete, wholehearted and sincere desire, not clouded by any unclean motives, to receive baptism, without which external baptism alone will be not only useless for them, but also downright disastrous. Then they must take the incantations with complete seriousness, listen carefully to the announcements, not missing any of them, and unswervingly follow the path of virtues, practicing in all types of good. The first announcement calls for baptism, indicates its necessity for a person and its beneficial results, and admonishes one to worthily prepare oneself for its acceptance, since God gives abundant grace not indiscriminately, not without attention to the spiritual mood of a person. The second word reveals the need for repentance of sins for those preparing for baptism and their confession for the entire past life. For this purpose, St. Cyril depicts the destruction of sin for man, its origin from man’s abuse of free will and the temptation of the devil, and with examples from Holy Scripture he proves that the means of healing from sins lies in repentance on the part of man and in the infinite goodness of God. This means is baptism, which is spoken of in the third word - in it God forgives the sins of all sinners who repent of them; the speaker glorifies the greatness of the sacrament, proves its necessity for salvation, indicates its visible side - the water washing the body, and the invisible - the grace of the Holy Spirit, cleansing the soul from sinful filth, the miraculous consequences of baptism: remission of sins, even the most serious ones, union with Christ, likeness [to Him], etc. 1424 In the fourth word, the preacher proceeds to communicate the foundations of Christian doctrine, to the presentation and explanation of the symbol. But before a detailed presentation, he considers it necessary to give a brief overview of Christian dogmas, which are subject to further detailed disclosure, and, pointing out the same necessity for the salvation of the right faith and a virtuous life, he concisely sets out the essence of the teaching about God, about Jesus Christ, His incarnation, death on the cross, burial and descent into hell, about His resurrection, ascension into heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father and the Second the coming, about the Holy Spirit, about the nature of man, his soul and body, about the general resurrection and the last Judgment. The presentation of these dogmas is followed by an indication of their sources - the inspired Scripture, the books of which are then listed - the canonical Old Testament 1425 and the New Testament (with the exception of the Apocalypse) 1426. From the V word begins the explanation of the symbol with an explanation of the word “believe”, and St. Kirill proves the power of faith, glorifies its dignity, necessity, saving actions and distinguishes two types of faith: faith as a person’s consent to assimilate the taught truth and faith as a gracious, miraculous power bestowed from God to a truly faithful Christian. Convincing us to accept by faith only the teaching of the Catholic Church, which he now communicates, St. Cyril concludes by giving the text of the Jerusalem symbol for learning by heart 1427, with a warning not to reveal it to anyone other than Christians and not to write it down. The next four vowel words explain the first member of the symbol. First of all, we are talking about the unity of God - against the pagans and some heretics, mainly the Manichaeans, and their teaching, origin and further history are outlined (VI word). In the seventh word the doctrine of God the Father is explained, that He is in the proper and true sense the Father of His Son Jesus Christ due to the eternal and most perfect birth, and that He is called the Father of all people in a completely different sense. VIII Catechetical Word, explaining the word “Almighty,” refutes the pagans, Jews and those heretics who recognized two principles in the world and considered all wealth to be the property of the devil, and reveals the doctrine of Divine Providence, power and dominion, extending to everything in the world. Finally, the doctrine of God as the Creator and Organizer of the entire visible and invisible world is set forth in Word IX; the idea that the world is fully worthy of being a product of Divine wisdom is proven by a concise description of the world and its parts. The second member of the symbol of St. Kirill sets out in two catechetical words – X and XI. In the tenth, he proves the need to believe in the Son of God, indicates the reason why He is called One, and brings from the Old Testament evidence of His existence before the incarnation and of His eternal, true, inherent dominion over everything in the universe. The Lord's two names, "Jesus" and "Christ," are then explained, and His two offices as Savior and eternal High Priest are depicted. The eleventh catechetical word is devoted to the proof that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Son by nature, reveals in detail the incomprehensibility of the birth of the Son, shows that the Son is the true God, so abiding in the Father and One with Him in divinity, kingdom, will, actions, which does not merge with the Father, and is not alien to Him like a creature, but is most perfectly similar to Him in everything 1428 and distinct from creatures; finally, it affirms the eternity of the Son and His birth and teaches that the Son is inseparable from the Father, the Creator and King of everything visible and invisible and of the ages themselves. The next four censorious words speak of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. After explaining the need to confess humanity and divinity in Christ, the truth of the incarnation is defended (in the twelfth word) against the errors of the Jews and heretics, the reasons for the incarnation of the Son of God are outlined and his circumstances are depicted as predicted by the prophets, the place, time and other details of the birth, especially the fact of the birth from the Virgin. In the thirteenth word, the preacher moves on to the suffering, death and burial of Jesus Christ, shows the truth and necessity of these events, speaks in detail about Christ's satisfaction with the righteousness of God for the sin of all people, and describes all the circumstances of the Savior's death on the cross, constantly pointing to the exact fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in them. Word XIV offers detailed teaching about the resurrection of the Lord, His ascension and His sitting at the right hand of the Father. XV speaks of His second coming, the signs preceding and accompanying it, describes the world judgment and affirms the eternity of the Kingdom of Christ. The XVI and XVII catechumens contain a statement of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, His deity and grace-filled activity in the world. The next member of the Jerusalem symbol - about a single baptism of repentance for the remission of sins - is left here without explanation, because its full disclosure is given in the first public words. In the XVIII word the resurrection of the flesh is defended against the objections of pagans, Samaritans and heretics and the properties of resurrected bodies are described. Then we talk about the Catholic Church, its foundation, its signs, its name and dignity, and, finally, about eternal life, which is offered in the Church to all who know the truth and live righteously, and about the many different ways to inherit this life, granted to people in the Church by God according to His infinite goodness. In conclusion, St. Cyril points to the upcoming mystical instructions during Easter week and calls on his listeners to rejoice in the happiness that they will receive in baptism. Five arcane words (according to the total number of XIX–XXIII) are significantly smaller in volume than the previous ones; they explain to the newly enlightened the three sacraments that they previously received: baptism, confirmation and communion. In the first word of St. Cyril reveals the symbolic meaning of those rites that precede baptism and were performed on the eve of the baptistery, namely, the denial of Satan and all his works, pride and service to the devil and union with Christ through a brief confession of faith in the Holy Trinity and in baptism. The second word explains the mysterious meaning and gracious power of the actions performed already at baptism itself: laying off clothing, anointing with consecrated oil, a new confession of faith and threefold immersion. In the third sacramental teaching, the preacher talks about confirmation, which took place immediately after baptism, indicates its beginning in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus Christ at baptism, explains its internal meaning, the external image of its performance and its prototypes in the Old Testament. The last two occult words explain the sacrament of the Eucharist. The fourth word speaks about the essence of this sacrament, its elements and mysterious action, and indicates its Old Testament prototypes. The main purpose of this word is to confirm to the listeners that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are truly transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, although the appearance of the bread and wine remains. The fifth word sets out with the necessary explanations the order of performing the Liturgy of the faithful: washing of hands by the clergyman, kissing peace, “woe we have in our hearts,” prayer of thanksgiving and consecration of gifts, commemoration of the living and dead, the Lord’s Prayer (with an explanation of each of its petitions), “holy to holies,” communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord and thanksgiving. The preacher, when presenting the doctrine of faith in catechetical words on each individual issue, first points out various misconceptions regarding it, contrasts them with church understanding and substantiates them with the necessary arguments, mainly from the Holy Scriptures, and, finally, examines the objections of opponents. Citing passages from Holy Scripture to confirm his dogmatic provisions, St. Cyril, as he himself declares, takes into account only their literal meaning, while he turns to allegorical interpretations, although often, but only to clarify the teaching, and not for proof, fearing to mix any private opinions with the teaching of the Church. With the explanation of dogmatic teaching, the preacher often combines the rules of morality: he instructs to avoid pagan and Jewish superstitions, attending games and shows, communicating in life with heretics, and finally advises diligence in prayer, maintaining the purity of the body, reading useful books, especially the Holy Scriptures, praising a reverent attitude towards the sacraments, maintaining virginity and monastic vows. Catechetical words were spoken by St. Kirill, as noted in many manuscripts, “without preparation” and were recorded by listeners. This, undoubtedly, explains some of the shortcomings of the presentation: some disorder in the arrangement of the material, frequent repetitions, prolixity, incorrect quotations from the Holy Scriptures - obviously, the preacher did not correct the notes before publication. But if you do not attach importance to these shortcomings, then the words of St. Kirill also have significant advantages. These are truly catechetical teachings: the presentation is concise, simple, clear, generally understandable, free from any embellishment, filled with calm dignity, and yet strong and heartfelt. The language is paternal, loving exhortation and warning, completely unartificial, sometimes even incorrect, folk. But under this modest cover hides solid knowledge and pedagogical art. Even difficult dogmatic truths are revealed in accessible positions and are brought closer to the consciousness of the listeners through opposition to errors. Brief examples and comparisons from life and nature, exclamations of horror and surprise, personification and dramatization are capable of capturing the attention of listeners, and indications of the close proximity of sacred places that witnessed the redemptive deeds of the Savior undoubtedly made a strong impression on listeners. As for the authenticity of catechetical teachings, in this regard there is decisive testimony from the blj. Jerome, who writes: extant ejus (i.e. Cyril) κατηχήσεις, quas in adolescentia composuit [his κατηχήσεις (catechumens) that he composed in his youth have been preserved] (De vir. ill. 112). If in some manuscripts the occult words are inscribed with the name of “John, Bishop of Jerusalem,” the successor of St. Cyril, or even “Cyril and John”, then this circumstance cannot be given importance in view of the fact that all catechetical and secret words represent, in fact, one whole, both in content and in language and must be learned by one author; and certificates certifying the identity of St. Cyril, now one or the other, the words are so numerous and authoritative that there can be no doubt about the actual author of all the catechetical and secret words 1429. In addition to catechetical words, with the name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is known for: 1) “Conversation about the paralytic at the font” 1430, representing an explanation of John. 5: 1–16, with some edifying deviations, calling for faith in Christ the Healer, for moral correction of life, teaching to correctly look at the book of Song of Songs as a prophecy about Christ and His sufferings. The conversation contains numerous and obvious parallels with catechetical [words]. St. Cyril even when he was a presbyter: at the conclusion of the conversation, the preacher expresses concern that his word turned out to be too long and, perhaps, interfered with the “fatherly teaching” [(cap. 20)], that is, the instructions of the bishop. Due to the peculiarities of the style, irregularities in the structure of the speech, repetitions and deviations from the main topic of the speech, one can think that this conversation was recorded by the listeners. 2) “Message to the most pious King Constantius about the sign of the Cross made of rays of light appearing in heaven and seen in Jerusalem” 1431. The message was written on the very day of the appearance, in order to announce it to the emperor as soon as possible and to arouse his soul to piety and to the glorification of the “Holy and consubstantial Trinity, our true God” [(cap. 8 1432)]. The expression “consubstantial Trinity” gives reason to suspect the authenticity of the message, since the term “consubstantial” does not appear in catechetical teachings. It has been suggested that the expression indicated represents a later insertion; but the manuscripts, as far as is known, do not show any hesitation in this regard 1433 - it remains to be assumed that St. Cyril subsequently came to terms with this Nicene term. 3) Several small fragments have been preserved in dogmatic florilegia as evidence of two natures in Christ, namely: two excerpts from a conversation about the miracle at a marriage in Cana of Galilee 1434, one sentence from a conversation on John. 16: 28 1435 and from the conversation on John. 17:5 1436. Not authentic: “Conversation on the Presentation of the Lord” 1437 and letters - Cyril to Julius of Rome and Julius to Cyril about the day of the Nativity of Christ 1438, Augustine of Ipponia to Cyril and Cyril to Augustine about the death and miracles of the blessed. Jerome 1439. The “Conversation of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, on the Finding of the Cross,” preserved in Arabic, has not yet been studied. The dogmatic point of view of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the meaning of his creations Catechetical words of St. Cyril are recognized as one of the most precious monuments of Christian antiquity and evidence of the great care and pedagogical wisdom with which the Church sought to transform, in accordance with the Christian ideal, the entire life of the catechumens and to enlighten their minds, darkened by various errors, with the truth of Christ. It is therefore clear that the relatively small range of these catechetical conversations places their author among the great teachers of the Church and the most important witnesses of her teaching. A series of catechumens, inextricably linked with one another and representing a complete guide to the study of Christian doctrine, is the only monument of this kind from such an ancient era; he sets out with the possible clarity, completeness and accuracy the most important dogmas that the Church of that burden accepted as necessary for the salvation of everyone. But the dogmatic position of St. Cyril of Jerusalem in that century when the entire East was engulfed in disputes that arose on the basis of Arianism seems to be uncertain. St. Cyril was initially recognized by the Arians, if not as one of their own, then in any case as not causing danger to their interests, but then he was persecuted precisely by the Arians. However, in his catechetical teachings he does not name the Arians and does not conduct polemics with them. He bases his announcements on the Jerusalem symbol, not the Nicene symbol, and does not use the term ομοούσιος, which was on the banner of the fighters of Orthodoxy, at all. Meanwhile, his teaching about the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is completely Orthodox. This circumstance can be explained without any stretch by the following considerations. There is no doubt that in the ranks of the leaders of the Council of Nicea there were many exponents of that direction, defined in its essential features, which is represented by the theology of St. Irenaeus and Methodius - the latter testified to its vitality just before the beginning of the Arian disputes. It, of course, did not disappear, and the struggle that began forced its representatives to discover their participation in the cycle of Niceno-Arian movements. This was a strictly conservative trend, which did not deny the importance of theological science, but limited its significance, did not allow the philosophical and theological development of its teaching and did not express it in philosophical and theological terms, but considered it necessary to remain with the heritage of the devotee, to profess what antiquity taught in its symbols. Representatives of this type of theological thought made up a significant part of the members of the First Ecumenical Council. They rejected Arianism as a heresy, but were also suspicious of the new terms and concepts that were proposed to be introduced into the presentation of faith, considering this a dangerous innovation, a deviation from ancient opinions. They accepted the Nicene symbol, but after the council they soon found themselves even in the ranks of the anti-Niceans, finding the term ομοούσιος seductive and dangerous: They do not consider the Nicene definition to be the purest expression of faith, corresponding to the true teaching of the Church. The bishops of this theological trend constitute the majority at the Council of Antioch in 341, where, in contrast to the Nicene symbol, they put forward the authority of antiquity, what they first learned to believe - they then become part of the Omiusian party. But all the time, despite the struggle against the Nicene Symbol and its defenders, they stood on the basis of strict church conservatism, which they prove by their unconditional union with the Orthodox by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, when the theological works of the Cappadocian fathers made it clear that “consubstantial” does not include Sabellianism. St. also belonged to this direction. Cyril of Jerusalem: without using the Nicene symbol, without using ομοούσιος and placing the symbol of the Jerusalem Church as the basis for catechetical teachings, he warns listeners that this symbol is not the work of human hands and that every word of it can be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. Concordance with the Holy Scriptures is sufficient. He sharply polemicizes against Sabellius and Marcellus, suspected of Sabellianism. For certain provisions of the teaching, he does not refuse to conduct reasonable proofs, but does not give anything that would resemble a system of teaching, and does not show any desire for it, but only reveals and clarifies the content of the symbol. In his catechetical teachings one cannot find the slightest trace of the influence of any philosophical school - everywhere and in everything he remains a purely church writer, standing on the basis of church Tradition. At the council in Seleucia in 359, he found himself in the ranks of the Omiusians, and at the Second Ecumenical Council he appeared as a purely Orthodox figure. And indeed, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, without using Nicene expressions, depicts the Divine dignity of the Son with such vivid features that there can be no doubt about his right-mindedness. “One must not simply believe in Christ Jesus,” he says (Cateches. XI [, 1]), “and accept this as not one of many who are improperly called Christ; for they were Christs representatively, but this is the true Christ; and He is not a man 1440 who through advancement has reached the priesthood, but from the Father [always] 1441 having priestly dignity.” He is the Son not by appropriation, but the Son by nature, the only begotten Son: “When you hear the name “Son,” do not take what you hear in an improper sense, but understand the real Son, the Son by nature, without beginning, not gradually reaching from slavery to sonship, but the Son from eternity, begotten by an unknown and incomprehensible birth... This one was not other than and became something else. [(έγννήθη)], but out of nothing 1442 the Son of the Father was born, who is above all principality (Eph. 1:21) and ages. Son of the Father, in everything like the One who begot, the Eternal, born of the Eternal [Father], Life from Life, Light from Light, Truth from Truth, Wisdom from Wisdom [(σοφία έκ σοφού)], King from the King, God from God, Power from Power” [(Cateches. XI, 4)]. “The Father begat the Son, not as with people the mind gives birth to the word, because with us [the mind is hypostatic (ένυπόστατος), but] 1443 the word, having been pronounced and spread in the air, disappears; we know that the begotten Christ is not a spoken word, but a hypostatic and living Word, not expressed through the mouth and scattered, but eternal, ineffable and born in hypostasis” [(Cateches. XI, 10)]. Birth is incomprehensible. “We do not promise to say how He (the Father) gave birth, but we only affirm that He gave birth differently 1444. And not only do we not know the birth of the Son from the Father, neither does every created nature” [(Cateches. XI, 11)]. “One who is born knows the one who is born, and one who is born by him knows the one who is born” [(Cateches. XI, 13)]. The Son is the true God, and the distinctive properties of the deity are not interchangeable in the Son: the One who begot is perfect, the One who is born is perfect; and the Begotten is God, and the Begotten is God [(Cateches. XI, 18)]. About the Holy Spirit Kirill speaks out somewhat more vaguely, undoubtedly in full agreement with the contemporary state of the issue. “Let us say only what is written about the Holy Spirit; if something is not written, we will not be curious about it” [(Cateches. XVI, 2)]. “There is only one Holy Spirit, the Comforter, just as God the Father is one and there is no other Father, and just as the Only Begotten Son is God’s Word and He has no brother, so there is only one Holy Spirit and there is no other Spirit equal to Him. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the greatest Power - He is divine and unsearchable” [(Cateches. XVI, 3)]. He is alive, intelligent, sanctifies everything that God does through Christ [(ibidem)]. He is honored with the Father and the Son and is co-accepted during holy baptism in the Holy Trinity [(Cateches. XVI, 4)]. “We do not proclaim three Gods..., on the contrary, by the Holy Spirit through one Son we proclaim one God” [(ibidem)]. As can be seen, these words clearly express the doctrine of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit and His equivalence in the Holy Trinity. But St. Cyril dwells primarily on the activity of the Holy Spirit in people, both in the Old and New Testaments (Cateches. XVI; XVII). However, the catechetical teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem are valuable not so much for their teaching about the Holy Trinity, but for their extremely important testimonies about the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and Eucharist and the rites used in the performance of these sacraments. We will note only the dogmatic side of the teachings of St. Kirill about these sacraments. “Look carefully at this font,” says St. Kirill, - not like simple water, but like spiritual grace given along with water. For just as what is offered on the altar, being simple in nature, is desecrated by the invocation of idols, and vice versa, simple water, when the Holy Spirit, Christ and the Father is called upon it, acquires the power of holiness” (Cateches. III[, 2/3]). “The great work is the upcoming baptism: it is the redemption of the captives, the remission of sins, the death of sin, the restoration of the soul, a bright robe, the holy indestructible seal, the chariot to heaven, heavenly pleasure, the preparation of the Kingdom, the granting of sonship” (Procateches. [16]). “At the same time you both died and were born; and the saving water has become both a coffin and a mother for you” (Mystagog. II [, 4]). Speaking about confirmation, St. Kirill exhorts: “See, don’t think that this is a simple world. Just as the bread of the Eucharist, upon invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer simple bread, but the Body of Christ, so this holy ointment, upon invocation, is not simple or, as others would say, ordinary ointment, but the gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit, made effective by the presence of [His] Divinity 1445. [Your] forehead and other instruments of the senses will be anointed with it. And the body is anointed with the visible world, and the soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit” (Mystagog. III[, 3]). Regarding bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, St. Cyril teaches (Mystagog. IV [, 6; 3]): “Look not simply as bread and wine, because, according to the Master’s saying, they are the Body and Blood of Christ 1446. Although feeling presents you with bread and wine, let faith strengthen you. Do not judge a thing by taste, but by faith make sure that you have been worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.” “Therefore, with all confidence, let us partake of this both as the Body of Christ and as the Blood of Christ, because under the image of [(έν τύπω)] the Body is given to you, and under the image of wine the Blood is given to you, so that, having partaken of the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ, you may become co-corporeal and half-blooded with Christ. This is how we become Christ-bearers, because the Body and Blood of Christ are communicated to our members. Thus, in the words of Blessed Peter, we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).” St. Hippolytus, despite his extensive literary activity, did not influence the subsequent history of theological thought. His dogmatic views reflected the influence of the moment that was soon to be experienced; The exegetical works of Hippolytus were of great importance. But Origen was in the East at that time, and he could not influence Western theology because he wrote in Greek. For the latest literature and editions, see CPGS 2000–2005 (original works, for 2003 and 2005 there is no Russian translation), 2006–2012 (disputed), 2015–2017 (falsified), 2020–2021 (Appendix). Literature in Russian language: [Krasnoselsky A.S.] Brief historical information about Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria // KhCh 22. 1826. pp. 271–281; Lebedev D., priest. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Origen // TKDA. 1915. No. 10/11. pp. 244–273; No. 12. P. 387–414; Gratsiansky M.V., Lukovnikova E.A. Alexander, St. // PE 1. S. 472–473. – Ed. CPG 2002. Rus. transl.: St. Alexander, bishop Alexandrian. Letter about the heresy of Arius and his excommunication from the Church, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople / Trans. A. S. Krasnoselsky // KhCh 22. 1826. P. 282–314. Other translations: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Church history. M., 1993. pp. 26–36 [TLG 4089/3]; Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1996. pp. 18–29. – Ed. CPG 2000. Rus. transl.: St. Alexander, bishop Alexandrian. Letter about the heresy of Arius and his excommunication from the Church to all Bishops of the Universal Church / Trans. A. S. Krasnoselsky // KhCh 22. 1826. P. 315–327. Another translation: Socrates Scholastic. Church history. M., 1996. pp. 10–13 [TLG 2057]. This letter is also found in Ch. 35.1–21 “Messages that the Council of Nicaea...” St. Athanasius of Alexandria (TLG 2035/3), however in Russian. lane (Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 1. M., 1994. pp. 399–444) chapters 33–42 omitted. In 1988, K. Spud expressed the opinion that the encyclical was written by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. – Ed. For example, Spassky. Story. pp. 145–149. For example, Bardenhewer. GakL 3. S. 38. CPG 2001. TLG 2035/3 (cap. 34.1–4). Rus. transl.: St. Alexander, bishop Alexandrian. Deposition of Arius and his followers by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria / Trans. A. S. Krasnoselsky // KhCh 22. 1826. P. 328–329. – Ed. PG 91. Col. 277, 280. – Ed. CPG 2004 and 1093(13). The hypothesis that Alexander of Alexandria used the work of Melito in his sermon was put forward by G. Kruger (1888) and W. Schneemelcher (1957). However, the latest discoveries have shown that not only in the Coptic, but also in the Georgian and Arabic versions there is an inscription with another name (also pseudepigraphic) - Athanasius of Alexandria. In our opinion, it is not possible to insist on the authorship of Alexander. In any case, the homily is a reworking of Melito’s creation, known in many Eastern versions (see SDHA. pp. 593–598). For Russian translations of the Georgian and Syriac versions and Greek reconstructions with an apparatus that takes into account the discrepancies of all witnesses to the text, as well as a comparative table of different versions, see SDHA (Arabic and Armenian fragments are additionally discussed in the article by A. G. Dunaev, published in 2002). Rus. lane The Coptic version was published by D. Bumazhnov. For bibliography, see the section on Meliton. – Ed. CPG 2016. Rus. trans.: Alexander of Alexandria, archbishop. Word of praise //ZhMP. 1979. No. 10. pp. 71–75. – Ed. Lit.: “His hypostasis.” – Ed. On the three types of subordinationism, see, for example: Bolotov. The Teachings of Origen. pp. 43–45. – Ed. See note. 1 and 5 on p. 310. – Ed. For the latest literature and editions of texts, see CPG 2090–2165 (genuine), 2171–2228 (doubtful), 2230–2309 (false works), and also: [Collective of authors] Athanasius I the Great // PE 4. pp. 22–49. Add to Russian literature in PE: Vladimir, archimandrite. (Blagorazumov K I.) St. Athanasius the Great, his life, scientific, literary and polemical activities. Chisinau, 1885; Ternovsky S. A. St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Extracts from bibliographic work // PS. 1885. 4. 1.S. 228–254; Nikanor (Kamensky), bishop. Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop. Alexandrian, and his selected works. St. Petersburg, 1893; 2nd ed. Eagle, 1899 (Church readings. Reading 9). 62 e.; Vladimir, archimandrite (Blagorazumov I.I.) Father of Orthodoxy St. Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. St. Petersburg, 1901; Ponomarev I. From the history of Holy Tradition. The Doctrine of Sacred Tradition during the Ecumenical Councils // PS. 1903. No. 1. P. 1–54; No. 2. P. 233–248 (or in a separate edition: Kazan, 1908; the teaching of St. Athanasius is analyzed mainly); Popov I.V. The religious ideal of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (1904), reprint: Popov. Proceedings. pp. 49–116; Kostrov M. From the works of St. Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria: (Selection of missionary places for polemics with rarkol). St. Petersburg, 1914; Spassky. Story. pp. 175–196 (triadology); Anthropology. pp. 139–144; [Anonymous] [1973.08.07: about the delegation to the celebration by the Patriarchate of Alexandria of the 1600th anniversary of the death of St. Athanasius the Great] // ZhMP. 1973. No. 9. P. 4; Mikhail, bishop Astrakhansky and Enotaevsky. The Truth of the Cross and Resurrection and its reflection in the works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria // ZhMP. 1974. No. 6. P. 53–58, 79; Pimen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Message to the Primate of the Alexandria Church on the occasion of the 1600th anniversary of the death of St. Athanasius the Great // ZhMP. 1974. No. 9. P. 1–2; Canve M. [= Canevet Μ.] Saint Athanasius the Great and the Arian Crisis [Trans. with φρ.] // Symbol 8. 1982. pp. 17–45; Bychkov. Byzantium. pp. 374–378, 440–442 (aesthetics); Schönborn. Icon of Christ. pp. 14–20 (Chapter 1. Trinitarian foundations. § 1. Eternal image. St. Athanasius: The Word as a consubstantial image). Scientific painting of Russian translations of the original (mostly) works of St. Athanasius (indicating TLG, CPG and PG column numbers) see: BV 3.2003. pp. 324–331 (painting), 332, 336–337, 343–344 (tables). Below, for all genuine creations of Athanasius, we indicate the CPG numbers (this is quite enough for orientation in the painting in BV 3 and, if necessary, clarifying the TLG numbers, PG columns and pages of the Russian translation), and for dubia and spuria, which are not described in detail in the BV, we additionally note the TLG number and the available Russian translations. – Ed. There is an obvious error in the text (possibly a missing line or incorrect typing). We are talking about a council that took place in Alexandria at the beginning of 339 (or at the end of 338), the number of bishops at it, as N.I. Sagarda correctly writes below (p. 576), was about a hundred. – Ed. Έν έγκαιιήοις - “for renewal,” i.e., the consecration of the “golden” basilica in Antioch. – Ed. Followers of Lukifer (Lucifer), bishop. Kalarissky. – Ed. Years of life are indicated; three-volume collection of works by St. Athanasius (prepared jointly with J. Loppin, d. 1693) was published by V. Montfaucon in Paris in 1698 - Ed. Mai A. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca. T. 2, 2. Roma, 1844. R. 357–382. [Wed. CPG 2141/9?] – Ed. In fact, the situation with the publication of J.-P. Minya is the opposite of that described by N.I. Sagarda. The PG omits only minor fragments from the catenas published before Ming (CPG 2141/3–5, 8); on the contrary, a number of creations are placed in PG either for the first time according to manuscripts, or according to publications that supplement Montfaucon. – Ed. In addition to clarifying attributions, new discoveries are associated mainly with the publication of eastern versions. – Ed. Apart from a few small Greek fragments, the works of Athanasius, preserved only in Latin, have not been translated. From forged works in Russian. lane included 4 essays, including the IV word against the Arians. For more details, see the tables in BV 3. 2003 (for example, p. 337). See also: Spassky A. A. About the new edition of the works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria in Russian translation // BV. 1901. No. 11. pp. 567–581. – Ed. CPGS 2091. Rus. lane republished: Seth. Athanasius of Alexandria. A Word about the incarnation of God the Word and His coming to us in the flesh // BT 11. 1973[1974]. pp. 129–161. – Ed. Recently it has been proposed that the composition of both works be dated to 335–337, but this view has been controversial (the articles are listed in CPGS 2090). – Ed., Ed. There is an obvious omission in the text of N.I. Sagarda, since Athanasius (1.1–2) speaks of three requests from his correspondent (cf. the next sentence). – Ed. CPG 2126. – Ed. 5 CPGS 2127. – Ed. CPGS 2093 (Words 1-3), 2230 (Words 4). – Ed. Absolutely all scientists now admit that the work does not belong to St. Athanasius and should be classified as spuria. However, the original authorship has not yet been established; the latest literature is listed in CPGS 2230. - Ed. ... Ιδιότητα του Υίοϋ προς τον Πατέρα... το Πιϋμα προς τον Υϊόν. – Ed. Β TLG chapters 8–23 are placed separately under the title In illud: Qui dixerit verbum in filium (TLG 2035/44, CPG 2096). Painting the works of St. Athanasius in the BV erroneously does not indicate for TLG 2035/44 and CPG 2096 the correspondence in the Russian translation - under No. 627 (Bibliographic index to “The Works of the Holy Fathers in the Russian Translation” // BV 3. 2003. P. 332). – Ed., Ed. CPGS 2101. See also New Russian. lane T.V. Popova preface and chapter. 77 // Mem. visa liter. pp. 39–44. From works in Russian. language: Voitenko A. A. “Life of St. Anthony the Great » St. Athanasius of Alexandria and the beginning of Christian monasticism // BB 60 (85). 2001. pp. 83–98. Foreign literature: Bibliography of hesychasm / Ed. ed. S.S. Khoruzhy. M., 2004. Section 4 (compiled by A. G. Dunaev), No. 416–443. – Ed. Obvious line skipping; restored from the Russian translation of the message (St.-Tp. Serg. Lavra, 1903; reprint: M., 1994). – Ed. See also: Metzger. Canon. P. 309. In addition to Russian. lane, indicated in BV 3 under No. 644, see also: Rules of the Holy Fathers. pp. 137–143 (Greek and Church Slavonic texts), 143–145 (ancient interpretations in Russian translation); Rules of the Orthodox Church. pp. 357–362 (Russian translation with commentary). Crete. ed. Greek and glory, texts: Beneshevich. Kormchaya 1. pp. 556–559. – Ed. In Russian translation: “Message to those who strive in monastic life.” CPGS 2108, CPL 117/epist. 6(8). The subversion is genuine, but in many places interpolated by supporters of Lucifer. – Ed., Ed. CPG 2232, CPL 117/epist. 3(5) and 4(6). – Ed. CPGS 2107. In addition to Russian. lane, indicated in BV 3 under No. 645, see also: Rules of the Holy Fathers. pp. 127–132 (Greek and Church Slavonic texts), 132–136 (ancient interpretations in Russian translation); Rules of the Orthodox Church. pp. 363–365 (Russian translation with commentary). Crete. ed. Greek and glory, texts: Beneshevich. Kormchaya 1. pp. 554–555. – Ed. CPG 2103 (Russian translation: Khosroev A.L. Pachomius the Great: From the early history of cenobitic monasticism in Egypt. St. Petersburg; Chisinau; Paris, 2004. P. 284) and 2104 (Russian translation: ibid., pp. 286–288, on the left - translated from Greek, on the right - from Coptic). – Ed. CPG 2164. Addressee: Diodorus of Tyre. The passage is preserved by Facundus of Hermian (IV, 2: PL 67. Col. 612 BC). This essay is in Russian. not fully translated, see excerpts: Dobroklonsky A.P. Work by Fakunda, ep. Germiansky, in defense of three chapters. M., 1880. – Ed. CPGS 2804 (Marcellus of Ancyra). TLG 2041/4. – Ed. Pro defensione trium capitulomm XI, 2 (PL 67. Col. 800–801). – Ed. This refers to the symbol underlying the “Exposition”; In the work itself, the names “Jesus” and “Jesus Christ” appear several times. – Ed. CPGS 2803 (Marcellus of Ancyra). – Ed. Probably, one should read “acknowledged” (previously), in view of what was said above about the “Exposition of the Faith” and below about the “Most Extensive Word.” – Ed. CPL 1673 (PL Supplementum 3. Col. 763 sq.). The text, introduced into scientific circulation in 1905, was unavailable. – Ed. CPGS 2233, CPL 105 (Eusebius of Verkel). PG 26. Col. 1191 sqq. (concludes, part of the treatise), PL 62. Col. 237 sqq. (fully). For more details on authorship, see CPL (bibliography there, see also CPGS for references). – Ed. CPGS 2231. TLG 2035/124 (sp.). The authorship of Athanasius is defended only by a few accounts. – Ed. CPGS 2248. TLG 2035/29 (sp.). See: Kudryavtsev V. Work of St. Athanasius the Great “On Virginity”: Research. and lane // Educational, theological and church-preaching experiences of students of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Vol. 14. Kyiv, 1917. pp. 147–266 (in the translation reproduced by Crete, apparatus of the Greek edition). Reprint. Translation: Our Holy Father John the Faster... Message to the Virgin. St. Athanasius the Great's instructions to the virgin. M., 1996. pp. 73–80. Reprint. lane edited by A. I. Sidorov: Athanasius the Great. About virginity, or about asceticism //AiO. 2000. No. 2 (24). pp. 110–135; About virginity, or About asceticism (The word of salvation to the virgin) // Sidorov A. I. At the origins of the culture of holiness: Monuments of ancient church ascetic and monastic writing. M., 2002. pp. 131–176. In all reissues of V. Kudryavtsev’s translation of Crete, the apparatus has been removed, new discrepancies are not taken into account. – Ed. De virginitate: Eine echte Schrift des Athanasius. Leipzig, 1905 (TU 14, 2 [N.F. 29, 2a. – Ed.]). An as yet unpublished Syriac text “On Virginity” (CPGS 2219) has recently been discovered. D. Brakke, who studied the manuscript, came to the conclusion that both the Syriac and Greek texts were forged. The Georgian translation has not yet been published. The same texts “On Virginity”, which have been preserved in other eastern languages and about which I. Kvasten writes in detail (Patrology. Vol. 3. 1986. pp. 45–47, sections b 1= CPG 2147], c 1= CPG 2145] and d [CPG 2146]), differ from CPG 2248 and are genuine (and, therefore, to one of them we must include the testimony of Jerome, cf.: CPGS 2147). – Ed. The editions of Min and Pitra (and, therefore, the Russian translation) contain mostly inauthentic texts. Partial interpretations of Athanasius were preserved in the catenas, a significant part of them were published for the first time in 1978 and 1989. Detailed indications of the latest editions and status of the issue in CPGS 2140. – Ed. Apparently, we are talking about PG 27. Col. 56–60, CPG 2238 (centon from the works of Eusebius, Hippolytus and other authors). TLG 2035/60 (Sp.). – Ed. CPG 2141 (many more texts of Scripture are taken into account than those listed by N.I. Sagarda). TLG 2035/57, 62, 116. – Ed. CPG 2234. TLG 2035/X06 and 5000/1 (torn. 1.1.7, p. 66). Rus. lane not found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. – Ed. CPGS 2264. TLG 2035/118, 127. – Ed. CPG 2295. CPL 167 (among Ambrose's dubia; ibid literature). Greek, text - translation from Latin, cf. PL 88. Col. 585–586. The Church Slavonic translation is placed in the Orthodox liturgical Psalter. Rus. lane indicated in the painting in BV 3, No. 668. See also: Faminsky K.N. Disputes about the use of the Athanasiev Creed in the worship of the Anglican Church // Kh. 1910. No. 3. P. 401–411. – Ed., Ed. Quicumque – “anyone who...” (wants to be saved). – Ed. CPG 3738 (Apollinaris environment). – Ed. CPGS 5219. TLG 5000/1 (torn. 1.1.5, p. 65, lin. 27). Rus. lane not found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. – Ed. CPGS 3737 (Apollinaris environment). – Ed. The οϊαν ό Υιός ι προς τον Πατέρα (text: TLG 2035/43. Vol. 26, col. 580, lin. 24–26 = PG). – Ed. More precisely: “Son of Man.” – Ed. Stülcken [Α.] Athanasiana. [Leipzig, 1899. (TU 19, 4)] S. 90–106; Hoss K. Studien [über das Schrifttum und die Theologie des Athanasius. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.] S. 76–79. In none of the above N. I. Sagarda places no direct use of the word kvavQp ώπησις, however, it is quite frequent in Athanasius (in the indicated works: De incarnatione Verbi - 10 times, except for the title and two verb forms; Contra Arianos 1 - 3 times; Epist. ad Maximum - none). – Ed. This word is not a quotation. – Ed. Marcellus (Ps.-Athanas.), De incarnatione et contra Arianos 8 (TLG 2041/5. Col. 996, lin. 4–7 = PG 26); cf. Athanas., De incarnatione Verbi 54.3. – Ed. Recent literature and editions: CPG 2544–2564 (authentic), 2570–2572 (dubious and forged works). TLG 2102. There is no Russian literature on Dvdim, with the exception of a special chapter in “Patrology” by Archim. Cyprian (Kern): The Golden Age of Patristic Writing. Paris, 1967 (reprint: M., 1995). pp. 124–133 (unlike earlier patrolologies in Russian, the discoveries of new texts are taken into account whenever possible), the article below by A. A. Spassky and the anthology: Eastern Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 4th Century / Comp. hierome Hilarion (Alfeev). In 3 volumes. T. 2. [M., 1999.] pp. 11–15 (preface), 16–59 (“On the Holy Spirit,” reprinted pre-revolutionary translation). – Ed. Cf. Pallad., Hist. Laus. 4.1 Bartelink; Jerome in De vir. ill. 109 gives inaccurate information that Didymus was 83 years old in 392. – Ed. TLG 2102/9. Sar. 7, sect. 8.13, lin. 11–12. – Ed. Rufin., Apol. in Hieronymum II, 12, PL 21. Col. 594 VS. – Ed. Hieron., Epist. 84, ad Pammachium, cap. 3; cf. Epist. 50, ad Domnionem, cap. 1; Comment, in Osee, Prol., PL 25. Col. 820 AB; Comment, in Ephes., Prol., PL 26. Col. 440 V. – Ed. Hieron., Praefatio ad Paulinianum, PL 23. Col. 104 A (preface to the translation of “On the Holy Spirit” by Didymus); Comment, in Gal., Prol., PL 26. Col. 309 A; cf. Rufin., Apol. in Hieronymum II, 12; 25, PL 21. Col. 594 C, 604 BC. – Ed. CPGS 2570. TLG 2102/8, 9, 42, 43. – Ed. Researchers have serious doubts that the “Three Books of the Trinity” belong to Didymus. In the TLG the work is placed (under Didyma's name) with the mark spurium. – Ed. For more details, see: Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Golden Age... pp. 127–128. – Ed. CPGS 2544. Placed in CLCLT 4 as CPL 615 f (Additamentum). Rus. Transl.: Jerome. Translation of Didymus's book on the Holy Spirit // TKDA. 1870. No. 12. P. 409–481 (and in the collected works of Jerome, part 5 = Works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Western Church. 8). – Ed. CPG 2545. TLG 2102/12. At the very beginning of the treatise there are many interpolations (see CPG). – Ed. Apparently, the author has in mind the small treatise “Syllogisms of the Holy Fathers,” also known (in abbreviation) under the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa (CPGS 3220. TLG 2017/61), but whose original author is John the Grammar (of Caesarea) (CPG 6861. TLG 2816/8). – Ed. CPG 2571 and TLG 2102/X02 (Didim), CPG 2837 (Vasily) and TLG 2040/19, CPGS 2837a. Most scientists are inclined to believe that Didymus is the author, but the question remains open. Belonging to Vasily the Great State University and V books available in Russian. lane among the creations of this holy father (see the painting in BV 3. 2003. P. 293. No. 99), is denied by modern science. – Ed. Spassky A. A. Who owns the IV and V books of St. Basil the Great against Eunomius. Bibliographic information // BV. 1900. T. 1. pp. 120–137. – Ed. CPGS 3141 and TLG 2017/5 - in both indexes as the original creation of Gregory (but the CPGS stipulates the denial of authorship by some scholars). – Ed. In the 20th century in Tours, many extensive interpretations of Didymus on the Old Testament books were found among the papyri (Russian translation no). These findings are discussed below in the notes. – Ed. CPGS 2550 (Tours Papyri, TLG 2102/16–20, 49: on Ps. 20–44 and 36), 2551 (from another commentary in the catenae, TLG 2102/21). – Ed. 22. CPGS 2553 (commentary found in its entirety among the Tours papyri). TLG 2102/1–4 (Turkish pap.), 14 (catenae). – Ed. 23. CPG 2552. TLG 2102/22. – Ed. 24. CPG 2547. TLG 2102/X06 (fragment of John of Damascus in “Sacred Parallels”). – Ed. CPG 2564(2). TLG 2102/X03 (fragment of John of Damascus in “Sacred Parallels”). – Ed. 1905 Found among the Tours papyri (CPGS 2549. TLG 2102/10). – Ed. 1906 Interpretations not indicated by N.I. Sagarda: on the Octateuch and Kings. (CPGS 2546. TLG 2102/41, found among the Tours papyri; minor fragments in catenas, TLG 2102/13), Jer. (CPG 2548, in catenas), Canto. (CPG 2554, in catenae), Eccl. (CPGS 2555, found among the Tours papyri. TLG 2102/5–7, 11, 47), Dan. (CPG 2556, in catenas). – Ed. 1907 CPGS 2557. TLG 2102/25 (in catenas). – Ed. 1908 CPG 2561. In TLG see under No. 4102/8 (via search on Didyma or pages listed in CPG). – Ed. 1909 In addition to those listed by N.I. Sagarda, passages on interpretation are also known from the catenas: Rom. (CPG 2558. TLG 2102/26), Heb. (TLG 2102/46, not in CPG), Apoc. (CPG 2563). – Ed. CPG 2559. TLG 2102/27 (1 Cor.); CPG 2560. TLG 2102/28 (2 Cor.) (in catenae). – Ed. 12 Commentaries on Gal. and Eph. are absent in CPG and TLG. – Ed. 13 CPG 2562 (with statement of authenticity). TLG 2102/30. – Ed. 14 De institutione divinarum litteramm 8.6, PL 70. Col. 1120 V. – Ed. 15 Literature on the Cappadocians in Russian. language (see also below the bibliography for individual authors): [Anonymous.] The life of ecumenical teachers and saints: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, as an example of the struggle with the modern trend in matters of Christian faith and morality // Don Diocesan Gazette, neof. Part. 1884. P. 804 ff., 839 ff., 938 ff.; Karpov S., priest Lessons from the lives of the great Saints: (Basily the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom) // Voronezh Diocesan Gazette. 1888. No. 6. P. 284–294; No. 9. P. 435–450; Losev S. Teaching of the Saints. Church Fathers on the knowability of God in refutation of Arian errors // ViR. 1898. No. 6. P. 399–416; Rozhdestvensky D., priest. An element of modernity in the words and conversations of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. Sergiev Posad, 1907; A. S. The teaching of the Cappadocians about the unity of the persons of the Holy Trinity // ViR. 1911. No. 15. P. 301–315; [Anonymous] 1600th anniversary of the birth of the great teachers and saints Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian // ZhMP. 1931. No. 2. S. 4; Chronicle of church life [celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the birth of Saints Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian] // Ibid. P. 7; Miller T. A. Images of the sea in the letters of the Cappadocians and John Chrysostom (An experience of comparative analysis) // Antiquity and modernity. M., 1972. S. 360–369; Mayorov. Latin patristics. pp. 150–163 (Chapter 5. The beginning of classical patristics. § 1. Christian speculation and Neoplatonism: the Cappadocians); Lossky V.N. Cappadocians // BT 25. 1984. P. 161–168 (chapter from the book, republished: Lossky V. God Vision. M., 1995. P. 50–62); Smirnov E. S. Cappadocians. Vilnius, 1992; Chukoven-kov Yu. A. Anthropology of classical patristics (based on the works of Greek-speaking authors) // Historical and Philosophical Yearbook 1994. M., 1995. pp. 34–50; Konstantin, bishop Novogrudsky and Lidsky, rector of the Minsk Theological Seminary. Speech at the solemn act dedicated to the day of the Heavenly Patrons of the Seminary of Ecumenical Teachers and Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom (February 12, 1996) // ZhMP. 1996. No. 4/5. pp. 27–30; Bychkov. Byzantium. Ch. 3. Comprehensive symbolism. (pp. 316–348); Ch. 4. Paradigms of symbolic thinking. (pp. 349–373); Ch. 5 Art in spiritual light. (pp. 374–416); Afanasy (Evtich), bishop. Cappadocian fathers //A&O. 2003. No. 2. P. 138–151. – Ed. The text contains a somewhat strange expression: “by reviving the true Origen.” – Ed. Links to the messages of St. Vasily are given by the author according to the generally accepted numbering (Garnier/Maran; in the Russian translation indicated in brackets), which is also used in modern critical editions. The links that appear several times in the text (without a specific system) or the addition of links indicating the number according to the Russian translation were corrected or deleted by us accordingly. The sequence of messages in the Russian translation corresponds to the generally accepted one, so that there are no difficulties when moving from one numbering system to another, but the difference in numbering is caused by the omission in the Russian edition of obviously forged messages, as well as those addressed to St. himself. Vasily. – Ed. For the latest literature and bibliography, see the extensive article by the team of authors: Basil the Great // PE 7. pp. 131–191 (a useful, but not exhaustively researched summary of abbreviations of Basil’s work on pp. 741–743). Unfortunately, due to the absence of a pathological section in the encyclopedia (indicative, for example, is the incorrect decoding of the abbreviation CPG in this and other volumes of PE, despite the fact that the “Key of the Greek Fathers” is available in the library of the Church Scientific Center), incompletely thought-out technical presentation and insufficient coordination of material from different authors, the article is not entirely convenient for scientific use (for example, abbreviations are partially placed at the end, partially embedded in the bibliography, with excessive volume very unsuccessfully combines chronological and alphabetical principles; there is no at least a brief overview of the ancient translations, manuscripts and editions of Vasily’s works, as a result of which in the section on Slavic translations the major four-volume study of P. Feduik, which is nevertheless present in the general bibliography, is not used or even mentioned). To Russian bibliography in PE (far from complete, especially in terms of pre-revolutionary literature) should be added: [Anonymous] Life of St. Basil the Great // KhCh 9. 1823. pp. 3–75, 121–181, 233–267; [Anonymous] Two friends [about St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian] // Kh. 1838. Part 2. pp. 94–110; Vadkovsky A. [V.] St. Basil the Great, his life and preaching works // PS. 1872. No. 5. P. 3–37; No. 9. pp. 121–141; 1873. No. 3. P. 390–430; Agapit, archim. The life of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, and his pastoral activity. St. Petersburg, 1873. 471 e.; [Anonymous] St. Basil the Great - his life, works, eloquence // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette, neof. Part. 1883. No. 7. P. 49–55; No. 8. P. 56–62; Stadnitsky A. [Yu.] About fasting according to the teachings of St. Basil the Great // Chisinau Diocesan Gazette, unofficial. Part. 1887. Part 4. pp. 117–126; Part 5. pp. 166–178; Chetyrkin F.V. Saint Basil the Great. St. Petersburg, 1889. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1894; Blagorazumov N. [V.], prot. Saint Basil the Great as a theologian and natural teacher // CHOLDP. 1891. Part 2. No. 11/12. Dept. 1. pp. 635–692 (and department: M., 1891); Quiet A.I. Pastoral activity of St. Basil the Great. M., 1892; Farrar F.V. Saint Basil the Great. St. Petersburg, 1892; N–E. I. About the works of St. Basil the Great on the structure of Christian worship // Saratov Diocesan Gazette, neof. Part. 1893. No. 19. P. 519–529; N° 20. P. 564–576; N° 22. P. 658–669; Nikanor (Kamensky), bishop. Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, his life and selected works. St. Petersburg, 1894 (cf.: Nikanor, Bishop. The Life of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. 2nd ed. Orel, 1899. [Church readings. Reading 10]. 112 f.); Barsov N. Representatives of the practical oratorical type of preaching in the 4th century. in the Eastern Church // ViR. 1895. T. 1. 4. 1. S. 3–19, 81–95, 132–149 (about St. Basil the Great); Ukhanov V.P. St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Vyatka, 1898; Nalimov T. A. Reasons for divisions in the Church according to the view of Basil the Great. (Speech read at the sales act of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy on February 10, 1898) // KhCh 205. 1898. 4. 1. pp. 344–364; Rules of a godly life in the new lane. from Greek From app. short biography of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. SPb.: t.-l. Frolova, 1898.16,152 e.; Borisovsky P. St. Basil the Great as the shepherd of the church // ViR 1901. No. 1. Book. 1. Dept. 1. pp. 23–41; No. 2. Book. 2. Dept. 1. pp. 82–106; see also No. 19, cf. rec.: Popov I. V. Ancient church life and its figures in current spiritual journalism. (Review of Russian magazines) // BV. 1901. No. 5. P. 181–194; Vasiliev M. The power and position of Roman bishops in the church according to the teachings of Basil the Great // PS. 1901. 4.% pp. 343–356; Katansky. About grace. pp. 150–170; Shchebedeva] E. A. St. Basil the Great: (Essay on his life and works). St. Petersburg, 1902. 4, 216 e.; Popov I.V. Vasily the Great (article in PBE, 1903). Reprint: Popov. Proceedings. pp. 190–202; Sobolevsky A.I. Lives of saints according to ancient Russian lists. St. Petersburg, 1903 (Memoirs of ancient writing and art. 149). pp. 17–57 (Life of St. Basil the Great); Ponomarev P.I. From the history of Holy Tradition. The Doctrine of the Holy Tradition of St. Basil the Great // PS. 1904. No. 2. P. 264–278; No. 3. P. 318–338 (and in a separate edition: Kazan, 1908); Ephraim the Syrian and Basil the Great. How and with what should a monk adorn himself and be perfect / [Comp. not specified.] Odessa, 1906; About virtues and exploits. According to the works of St. Basil the Great / [Comp. not specified.] St. Petersburg, 1906. 166 e.; Smirnov P. [F.] The essence of evil, according to the teachings of St. Basil the Great // Kh. 1907. No. 2. P. 238–249; E.K. Basil the Great’s view of the origin and development of religious knowledge in man // Tauride Diocesan Gazette. 1911. No. 19–21; Aivazov I. The power and position of the Roman bishop in the Church according to St. Basil the Great // GC. 1912. No. 9. P. 114–141; Kruglov A.V. Vasily the Great. Essay on life and work. M., 1912; Platonov N. Teaching of St. Basil the Great about the Church // GC. 1914. No. 5. P. 61–73; Zarin S., prof. The teaching of St. Basil the Great on the Holy Spirit // Ibid. 1915. No. 4. P. 75–86; No. 5. P. 72–82; No. 6. P. 80–90; Peretz V. Information about the ancient world in Ancient Rus' XI-XIV centuries. // Hermes: Illustrated popular science newsletter of the ancient world. Pg., 1917. No. 13/14 (Sept.). pp. 205–210 (based on materials from the works of Basil the Great, known in Rus'. pp. 206–207); [Anonymous] St. Basil the Great (January 1/14) // ZhMP. 1955. No. 1. P. 18–20; Ivanov N., Ph.D. theologian The Great Pillar of Orthodoxy Saint Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia // ZhMP. 1959. No. 1. P. 40–50; GorfunkelA. X., Panchenko A.M. From grandfather’s box // In the world of books. 1965. No. 6. P. 46 pp. (about the discovery of a collection of fasting words of Basil of Caesarea in the list of 1482); Nefedov G., student. MDA. Saint Basil the Great on the knowledge of God // ZhMP. 1972. No. 3. P. 73–75; Pavel (Gashko), hierodeacon. About fasting and prayer according to the works of St. Basil the Great // ZhMP. 1973. No. 2. S. 75–78; [Anonymous] On the 1600th anniversary of the repose of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (379–1979) // ZhMP. 1979. No. 1. P. 69; Mayorov. Latin patristics. pp. 150–155; Skurat K E. prof., dr. In memory of St. Basil the Great // ZhMP. 1980. No. 1. P. 45–48 Strigunov S., protodiac., asp. MDA. Saint Basil the Great on Christian peacemaking // ZhMP. 1981. No. 2. P. 74–76; Borisov N. S. About some literary sources of “The Life of Sergius of Radonezh” // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 8. History. 1989. No. 5. P. 69–79 (Basily’s teaching on monasticism and his life as one of the main sources of the life of St. Sergius); Gaidenko V. I., Smirnov G. A. Symbolism and logic: two poles of medieval rationality // Historical types of rationality. M., 1996. pp. 113–139 (about Vasily, see pp. 116–125); Lebedev A., student. MDA. Word on the day of memory of St. Basil the Great // ZhMP. 1996. No. 1. P. 64–65; Vasily (Krivoshey), archbishop. Ecclesiology of St. Basil the Great (1968). Reprint: 'Pages. 1998. T. 3. No. 3. P. 338–358; Church of Vladyka Vasily (Krivoshein). Nizhny Novgorod, 2004. pp. 220–245 (principles of publication are specified on pp. 292–293); Bychkov. Byzantium., pp. 319–323, 349–373, 383–388 (aesthetics); Biryukov D.S. About external and internal. Towards an understanding of the consubstantial image // Christianity and world culture. Proceedings of the conference “St. Petersburg Christian Readings” May 21, 2004 St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 16–22 (on the meaning of the word “character”); More precisely: “an experienced (lit.: standing on the right) assistant” (παραστάτης δεξιός). – Ed. Deputy - here: put in place of someone. – Ed. So in the text; Probably, this means that these accusations are unfounded, or the typewritten text contains a typo and should be read: “all possible.” – Ed. Let us note some discrepancy with what is stated by H himself. I. Sagarda below (p. 655), where he dates the request of the Orthodox inhabitants of Constantinople to the beginning of 379 and to the moment after the death of St. Vasily. – Ed. Latest editions and literature: CPGS 2835–2908 (works of varying degrees of reliability), 2909–2914 (disputed), 2920–2963 (falsified), 2965–3008 (ancient translations). Main Russian lane was completed; in the MDA and was republished several times (with text corrections). Creations of St. Basil the Great in Russian. language have not yet been completely republished, and the existing reprints (the letters of St. Basil were reprinted in Minsk in 2003 without indicating the source) were made from different editions mixed together, so their use is very difficult. Scientific painting of the first edition in Russian. lane MDA (indicating the numbers TLG, CPG and PG columns) see: BV 3. 2003. pp. 292–297, 307–308 (painting), 333–334, 338–339, 345–346 (correspondence tables). This painting is posted on the Internet CPG 2837 (Books 1–3); CPGS 2837a (Books 4–5). See also: Makhlak K. A. Thinking and faith. St. Basil the Great against Eunomius // Beginning: Journal of the Institute of Theology and Philosophy. No. 8. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 6–20. – Ed. See above, p. 616–617. – Ed. Την πατρότητα (II, 12), that is, the property of being a Father. – Ed. In the Russian translation (M., 1846), which is quoted here by the author, there is a certain inconsistency: in doxology itself, δια του Υΐοΰ is translated literally - “through the Son” (cap. 1), but lower, in the explanation of St. Basil of these words (cap. 7), the construction with a preposition is replaced by the instrumental case: δι' αύτοΰ - “By Him” (should be: “through Him”). The same remark applies to the continuation of the quote. – Ed. In the text by N.I. Sagarda: “Clement and Dionysius of Alexandria.” In fact, neither Clement of Alexandria himself nor any of his writings are mentioned in chapter 29 (and in general in the entire work of St. Basil under consideration) (SC 17 bis, however, the critical apparatus is far from complete). In 29.72 the names “Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria” appear side by side, and below Clement of Rome is quoted by St. Vasily simply as “Clement”; probably one of these reasons caused the error of N.I. Sagarda. – Ed. Let us note that in chapter 29.73 St. Vasily quite clearly distinguishes the hymn from which he quotes the line “we praise the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of God” (αινούμεν Πατέρα καΐ Υίόν καΐ αγιον Πιϋμα 0εου), without naming the name of its compiler (“and not we can say who is the author (πατήρ) of these sayings of luminary thanksgiving"), from the hymn sschmch. Athenogenes (“and if anyone knows the song of Athenogenes...”), from which, on the contrary, he does not quote a single word. Despite this, the hymn “Quiet Light” (one of the lines of which coincides almost word for word with the quote from Vasily), as a result of a misunderstanding of this place, was subsequently attributed to the sschmch. Athenogenes of Sevastia. – Ed. Bishop of Caesarea. – Ed. Bishop in Pontus (SC 17 bis. P. 513, not. 4; cf. Euseb., Hist. eccl. VII, 32.26–28). Additionally, we note that among the various quotations in chapter 29, fragments of the lost works of Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea have also been preserved. – Ed. PL 70. Col. 1107 D - 1108 A. St. Basil is mentioned here among other Greek writers who, according to Cassiodorus, explained all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments “from the very beginning to the end.” The context, however, suggests that Cassiodorus was referring to the interpretations of these fathers taken together. – Ed. CPGS 2835. See also New Rus. lane: 1) JI. A. Freyberg excerpts from conversations 1; 2 (chapter 3); 8 (chapter 6) // Memory. visa liter. pp. 47–50; 2) Basil the Great. Homilies 1 and 2 on Shestodnev / Transl. O. Nesterova // Symbol 36. 1996. Homilia 1. P. 193–205 (trans.), 205–229 (note); Homilia 2. pp. 230–241 (trans.), 241–262 (note). Literature: Gaidenko V.P. Nature in the religious worldview // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. No. 3. (http://www.philosophy.ru/library/vopros/13.html). – Ed. 1 CPGS 3215–3216. TLG 2017/34, 35. Critically published in the series “Christian Sources” under the name of St. Basil the Great as the 10th and 11th homilies on the Sixth Day. See: Basile de Cesaree. Sur l'origine de l'homme (Horn. X et XI de l'Hexaemeron) / Intr., texte critique, traduction et notes par A. Smets, M. Van Esbroeck. Paris, 1970 (SC 160). P. 116–126 (about belonging to St. Basil); P. 162221 (10th homilia), 224–279 (11th homilia) (Greek text and French translation). – Ed. CPG 3217. TLG 2017/36. All three works are placed in the CPG among the spuria of Gregory of Nyssa. The attribution of the 10th and 11th homilies to Basil or Gregory has not been definitively resolved, although scientific opinion leans in favor of Basil. It is also believed (see note in CPG 3217) that homilies 10 and 11, on the one hand, and “On Paradise” on the other, were compiled (more precisely, revised) by different persons. Thus, taking into account the attribution of both homilies “On the Creation of Man” to Basil, the authorship of Gregory of Nyssa for “On Paradise” is quite likely. In Russian language these three works have not been translated. – Ed. CPGS 2836. New Russian. lane T. A. Miller phragm. from the homily on Ps. 1 (chapter 2) // Memory. visa liter. pp. 50–53. – Ed. Pitra. Analecta sacra 5. P. 75–101 [fragments from catenas. – Ed.]. Based on the research of J. Gribomon, for Nos. 2888 and 2890 in the “Key of the Greek Fathers” reservations were made about dubious authenticity; for 2889, forgery was indicated. The TLG classifies all three works as dubia. – Ed. CPGS 2883 (according to J. Gribomont, may belong to Vasily or his student, but D. Amand de Mendieta considers the work to be fraudulent), 2891 (marked dubium). In TLG 2040/46, 44 both creations are labeled dubia. – Ed. CPGS 2895 (with a note about forgery). – Ed. CPGS 2897. Rus. trans.: Ancient monastic charters... collected by bishop. Feofan [Recluse]. M., 1892 (reprint: Riga, 1995). pp. 476–477, no. 1–11 (= CPG 2897/1. TLG 2040/65 [dub.]); S. 477481, No. 12–60 (= CPG 2897/3. TLG 2040/67 [sp.]. Forged); pp. 490–492, no. 1–19 (= CPG 2897/2. TLG 2040/66 [dub.]. J. Gribomon admits it belongs to Vasily). – Ed. In addition to the ascetic-canonical texts listed by N.I. Sagarda, belonging to or attributed to St. Vasily the Great, as part of the Slavic “Kormcha” there is a selection from the works of Vasily, the origin of which requires further research. 1) “The rules of St. Basil are even worthy of being kept by the monks” // Beneshevich. Kormchaya 2. pp. 67–71 (only glory, text, 54 rules; according to the main list, 326g–328g, with options from the Novgorod helmsman, 547–549v). The text is undoubtedly fraudulent. 2) “St. Basil on the non-parental penances and the prohibition of them” // Ibid. P. 100. Slav, text - according to the main list, 312w, with options from the Novgorod Helmsman, 363w, and the printed Helmsman, ch. 24, 253–254. Grech, text - in reverse translation by Beneshevich, cf. edition: Σύνταγμα τών θείων καΐ ιερών κανόνων...Έκδ. ύπδ Γ.' Ράλλη, Μ. Πότλη. Τ. 4. 'Αθήναι, 1854. Σ. 415, and GPB manuscript, Greek. 208 (old numbering), 173ν. The text is identical to Vasily's letter 288 and almost completely coincides with the fragment from TLG 2040/75 = PG 32. Col. 1144, lin. 5–21. 3) “The rules of the saints, the father of the commandment of the holy and great Basil, to all of us” // Ibid. WITH. 122–123 (25 rules, glory only, text according to the main list, 350v–351G) – one of the examples of “penitential nomocanons,” the anonymous compilers of which often called themselves “disciples of St. Basil.” 4) “St. Basil’s interpretation of the priestly rank, what are priests, and why is it said to be a priest, and what is the cutting of his head” // Ibid. pp. 128–129 (only glory, text according to the main list, 354–355g, with options from the Novgorod helmsman, 588–589v) · Beneshevich gives a link to the ed. Greek text (without citing the text itself): Roma e POriente. 1911. T. 2. R. 144 sq., 219 sq., 286 sq., 346 sq. (there are also links to old editions). It has nothing in common with the original texts of Vasily. – Ed. CPGS 2905/1 (recensiobreviorvetusta) [= TLG 2040/71], 2 (recensiolongiorbyzantina). There is extensive specialized literature and translations, including into Russian. language (we indicate only the most important): Dmitrievsky A. A., prof. Review of the book by Rev. V. Nechaev “Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy according to the rite of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great." Moscow, 1883 // Theological bibliographic leaflet. 1884. No. 10. P. 1–17; It's him. About the stichera “We see the true light” in the rites of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great // Guide for rural shepherds. 1886. No. 10. P. 265–278; It's him. Feedback on M's essay. M. Orlova “Liturgy of St. Basil the Great." Introductory information. 1. Greek and Slavic texts. 2. Prayers behind the pulpit. 3. Features of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. With the image of St. Basil the Great and four photographs from manuscripts. First critical edition. St. Petersburg, 1909 // Collection of reports on prizes and awards awarded by the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Reports for 1909. St. Petersburg, 1912. pp. 176–347; Bolotov V.V., prof. Notes on the text of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great (Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland) // Kh. 1914. No. 3. P. 281–298; Uspensky N.D., prof. Prayers of the Eucharist to St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom (in the rite of the Orthodox liturgy) // BT 2. M., 1961[1963]. pp. 63–76; Desnov N., prot. A few more words about the well-known discrepancies between Russians and Greeks in the liturgies of Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom // BT 31. M., 1992. pp. 86–96. – Ed. Given by us from the Russian translation of the works of St. Gregory the Theologian (St. Petersburg, 1910; above, N.I. Sagarda quotes: “beautiful decoration”). Note that the word εύκοσμία also has the meaning: “order, discipline” (I. Kh. Dvoretsky. Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary. T. 1. M., 1958, s. v.), “good order, harmony in worship” (PGL, s. v.); SC 384 translates this part of the phrase: “G ordre mis dans la tribune” (P. 201). – Ed. Words from Patr. Photius is given by N. I. Sagarda in a free restatement. – Ed. Homil. XXVII. CPGS 2913. Rus. lane and comment. A. R. Fokina: St. Basil the Great. Homily on St. Nativity of Christ // BSb PSTBI. No. 5. 2000. pp. 104–117. See also: Petrovsky M. Conversation on the Nativity of Christ, attributed to Basil the Great. Based on a Serbian manuscript from the 15th century. // PS. 1889. Part 3. pp. 509–530, and the Old Russian translation in the “Great Four Menaions” by Met. Macarius on December 25th. – Ed. Homil. XXIX. CPGS 2914. – Ed. In the text by N.I. Sagarda: “eunomian”. – Ed. CPGS [2243], [2869], 3674. In the painting in BV 3, see No. 125. In TLG the notes sp. no, since the reattribution is relatively recent. The real author of the conversation is Apollinaris of Laodicea. – Ed. CPGS 2867. New Russian. lane L. A. Freyberg // Pam. visa liter. pp. 54–65 (according to edition: Paris, 1935). Wed. also: [Anonymous] About the conversation of St. Basil the Great: De legendis libris gentilium; content and plan of the conversation // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette, unofficial. Part. 1883. No. 8. pp. 62–64. – Ed. CPGS 2861. Currently accepted by all scholars as not belonging to St. Vasily, the true authorship has not been clarified (possibly Chrysostom, as N.I. Sagarda points out). – Ed. CPGS 2900. For letter numbering, see above, note. 2 on p. 619. New Russian. lane T. A. Miller letters No. 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 19, 20 // Pam. visa liter. pp. 65–69. See also: Ivanchenko A.V., Mikhailovsky A.V. To the publication of the 38th letter to St. Basil the Great // Historical and philosophical yearbook 1995. M., 1996. pp. 281–283. – Ed. See below, p. 672 and note. 1. – Ed. Relatively recently, it was proposed that letter 81 be considered genuine, but addressed to Faustinus of Iconium. – Ed. List of inauthentic letters on p. 146 PE gives outdated or incorrect information without any clarification, content with a simple reference to the work of 1981, although the general bibliography also contains the latest research on this issue. According to CPG and CPGS, the following letters are forged (we indicate dubious authorship in parentheses): 8, 10, 16, 38–45, 47, 50, (81), 90, (92), 93, 124, (150), 166–167, 169–171, 189, 197/§2, 321, (335–359), 360, 365, 366. In the list of PE, letters 65, 66, 246–248 are also considered inauthentic. – Ed. Many modern researchers attribute this message to Gregory of Nyssa himself. – Ed. An example of an exemplary analysis of the dogmatic content of one of the letters of St. Vasily, see the work of V.V. Bolotov “On the Question of the Filioque” (St. Petersburg, 1914, separate reprint from KhCh). – Ed. « 3 See: Rules of the Holy Fathers. pp. 146–444 (Greek and Church Slavonic texts, as well as ancient interpretations in Russian translation); Rules of the Orthodox Church. pp. 366–480 (Russian translation with commentary). Crete. ed. Greek and glory, texts: Beneshevich. Kormchaya 1. pp. 460–531. Scholium: Beneshevich. Canonical collection. pp. 57–73, no. 519–672. Crete. ed. scholium from the “Synagogue” (an older collection than the “Syntagma” and “Nomocanon of XIV titles”) to the rules of Basil from 2 and 3 of his letters to Amphilochius // Beneshevich V. N. Synagogue in 50 titles and other legal collections of John Scholastic. St. Petersburg, 1914. pp. 263–266, no. 72–92. – Ed. For a similar classification of letters indicating their numbers, see: PE 7. P. 146. – Ed. The authorship of Evagrius Pontus has now been established. – Ed. TLG 2040/39. Vol. 31, col. 616, lin. 37–38 (=PG). – Ed. The end of the quote has been slightly changed by the author. – Ed. TLG 2040/39. Vol. 31, col. 605, lin. 23–27 (=PG). – Ed. TLG 2040/39. Vol. 31, col. 605, lin. 11–12, 13–22 (= PG). – Ed. Russian translation, quoted by N. I. Sagarda, is theologically incorrect here, since διάκρισις in such a context should be translated “distinction” and in no case “separation”; cf. P.G.L., s. v., A 2 (ad loc. cit.): “of distinction of Persons within Godhead.” This note applies entirely to the next sentence of the text, in which the author also quotes (without quotes) the Russian translation of Epist. 38. – Ed. ώς αυτήν την τών πραγμάτων άλήθεΐαν. – Ed. TLG 2040/39. Vol. 31, col. 609, lin. 19–21 (= PG). – Ed. "For He who is essentially God is consubstantial with Him Who (also) essentially God." – Ed. TLG 2040/39. Vol. 31, col. 608, lin. 4–5 (=PG). – Ed. Added according to the text of De Spiritu Sancto. – Ed. TLG (2040/4. Epist. 236, sect. 6, lin. 18 / Ed. Υ. Courtonne, 1966) prefers the reading of “The Divine” (θαον). – Ed. Latest editions and literature: CPGS 3010–3052 (authentic works), 3055–3057 (doubtful), 3059–3128 (false and oriental versions). Finding correspondence between Russian translations of CPG and TLG is now not difficult thanks to the list in BV 3 (for clarifications on the list, see also in note 3 on pp. 660–661). Internet resource: Center for the Study of the Heritage of Gregory of Nazianzus, http://nazianzos.fltr.ucl.ac.be/ (as of June 2004, the consolidated bibliography included 1,690 descriptions in different languages). Incomplete bibliography of works in Russian (see also below in the notes): Salmin M. Life of St. Gregory the Theologian // PrTSO 1. [Rufinus. Interpretatio orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni / Ed. A. Engelbrecht] // Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Bd. 46. Vindobonae, 1910. S. 5. Here and below are references to the poetic works of St. Gregory, cited by N.I. Sagarda from an unidentified edition (and without indicating names), were replaced (and also supplemented in places) with references according to TLG. – Ed. De vita sua, lin. 239. – Ed. The first number corresponds to the number of the message according to the most common numbering system = Gallay, 1964, 1967, 1974), adopted in the newest editions, the second (after the fraction; may be absent) - according to the Russian translation. The four “dogmatic” messages (101, 102, 202, 243, the last one is forged) are placed separately in the Russian translation, with their own numbering. Occasionally found in the text of N, I. Sagarda, additional numbers according to Billius's edition (in Russian translation - in brackets) were removed by us. In the notes there are links to the messages of St. Gregory are also given by us by numbering of the newest editions; For a table of correspondences with Russian translation, see BV 3. pp. 311–313. – Ed. De vita sua, lin. 345. – Ed. So it is in the Russian translation; according to TLG: "To Philagrios". – Ed. CPGS ZOYU. Scholia for words: 3011–3031. Wed: 13 words of Gregory the Theologian / Transl. Ep. Irinea (Klementyevsky). M., 1798; 13 words of Gregory the Theologian (Guarantee of the Imperial Publ. Bible of the 19th century) / Critical. ed. A. S. Budilovich. St. Petersburg, 1875. XII, 285 p. (comments addressed to the publication by A. Budilovich: Falev I. A. Notes on the “13 Words of Gregory of Nazianzus,” a manuscript of the 11th century // Collection of articles in honor of A. I. Sobolevsky / Edited by V. N. Peretz. L., 1928 (Collected Department, Russian Language and Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Vol. 1. No. 3). P. 394–397). Research: BudilovichA. S. Study of the language of the Old Slavic translation of 13 words of Gregory the Theologian from a manuscript of the Imperial Public Library of the 11th century. St. Petersburg, 1871; Vyalkina L.V. Greek parallels of compound words in the Old Russian language XI-XIVbb. // Lexicography and word formation of the Old Russian language. M., 1966. S. 154–188 (in the words of Gregory the Theologian); Putsko V. G. Antique motifs in the homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus and their echoes in Byzantine illustration // Antiquity and Byzantium. M., 1975. S. 326–339; BulaninD. M. Comments by Maxim the Greek on the words of Gregory the Theologian // TODRL. T. 32. 1977. pp. 275–289; Rybakov B. A. Treatise written on a ship // History and culture of the ancient world. M.: USSR Academy of Sciences (Institute of Archeology), 1977. P. 185–188 (“The Sermon on Epiphany” by St. Gregory the Theologian as the basis for the creation of Old Russian monuments of the 12th century); Kocheva E. Old Russian apograph of the Slavic translation of 13 words of Gregory the Theologian // Century. 1977. No. 6/3. pp. 17–24; It's her. The oldest Cyrillic apograph of the words of Gregory the Theologian // Bulgarian Middle Ages. Collection by I. Duychev. Sofia, 1980. pp. 240–252; Thick N. I. and S. M. Notes on Slavic paganism // Poetics of Russian folklore. Institute of Russian liters of the USSR Academy of Sciences / Responsible. ed. A. A. Gorelov. JI., 1981 (Russian folklore. T. 21). pp. 87–98 (on pp. 87–90 commentary on the translation of 13 words of Gregory the Theologian, words of Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.); Petrova L. Ya. Reduced vowels in the Russian manuscript of the 11th century // Bulletin of Leningrad State University. History, language, lit. Vol. 2. No. 9. D., 1985. P. 77–81 (language of the list of words of Gregory the Theologian: GPB. Q. p. 1.16); It's her. Linguotextological study of the manuscript of the ΧΙΙ-ΧΙΙΙ centuries. words of Grigory Theologian (GPB. Q. p. 1. 16): Abstract of the dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Leningrad State University, 1985. 16th; It's her. Semantic differences in lexical variants as a means of determining the antiquity of the first Slavic translations // Problems of historical linguistics. L., 1986. Issue. 3. S. 109–115 (“Word for Christmas” and “Word for Easter” from the collection of 13 words of Gregory the Theologian, 11th century); Barankova G. S. An excerpt from the words of Gregory the Theologian against Julian in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav of 1073 and the Chronicle of George Amartol // History of the Russian language and linguistic source studies. M., 1987. S. 20–28; Degtev S.V. Notes on two translations as part of the work of Gregory Nazianzen “Thirteen Words” // Traditions of the most ancient Slavic writing and the linguistic culture of the Eastern Slavs. M., 1991. S. 36–41; Barankova G. S. Anti-pagan motives in the words of Gregory the Theologian (based on the material of ancient Russian written monuments) // Translated monuments of philosophical thought in Ancient Rus'. M., 1992. S. 20–36; Degtev S. V., Maksimovich K. A. On the interpretation of the theological and philosophical fragment of Gregory the Theologian // Ibid. pp. 36–43 (with the publication of a fragment from “A Word for Christmas”); St. Gregory the Theologian. About the beginnings [= word 1] / Transl., commentary. T. Sidasha // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute. No. 1. 1997. P. 167–176; Dolgushina L.V. On the history of the translation of the homilies of St. Gregory the Theologian into the Slavic language // Siberia at the crossroads of world religions. Novosibirsk, 2002. pp. 230–232. – Ed. Word XXXV is currently recognized as inauthentic (CPGS 3010/35). – Ed. See also new Russian. lane T. V. Popova “From the funeral speech to Vasily the Great” (excerpt, chapter 5) // Pam. visa liter. pp. 77–81. – Ed. Fragment from the 2nd speech against Julian, ch. 11, also translated by T.V. Popova // Memory. visa liter. pp. 81–83. – Ed. Crop destruction by hail. – Ed. Norden [E. Die antique Kunstprosa. Bd. 2. [Leipzig, 1898.] S. 572 ff. CPGS 3032. A total of 249 letters are known, but letter 241 belongs to Basil the Great, 249 to Gregory of Nyssa, 243 is forged. For the numbering of letters, see above, note. 1 on p. 654. Letter 4 (in PG this is No. 5) see also in the new Russian. lane T. A. Miller // Memory. visa liter, p. 75–77. – Ed. In TLG and PG it is placed as a forged letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa (TLG 2017/70 = PG 46. Col. 1101–1108; the corresponding reference is also given in PG 37 instead of the omitted text of message 243). The indication “in PG is absent” in the list of works by St. Gregory the Theologian in BV 3 (P. 289, note 22), which does not give the TLG address, is erroneous. Let us also note that another inauthentic letter of St. Gregory the Theologian - 236 according to the numbering of the Russian translation, for which in the same list it is indicated: “The Greek text of the letter has not been established” (BV 3. P. 313, note 40), in fact coincides with the 208th letter of St. Basil the Great (TLG 2040/4. Epist. 208; in Russian translation – 200). The vast majority of the poetic works of St. Gregory, for which the corresponding Greek texts are not indicated in the painting, are also easy to find in TLG (and PG): the “addition” to poem No. 177 (hereinafter - the numbers according to the painting of the “Theological Bulletin”; BV 3. P. 298, note 25: “the Greek prototype of which has not been established”) corresponds to the ending Carmina de se ipso 26 (TLG 2022/61. Col. 1286, lin. 1–2 = PG 37); “the first half” of poem No. 179 (BV 3. P. 298, note 26: “not found in TLG”) corresponds to Carmina de se ipso 86 (TLG 2022/61. Col. 1432, lin. 12 – col. 1433, lin. 5 = PG 37); poem No. 230 (BV 3. P. 301, note 28: “The Greek text is not established”; ibid., p. 343, note 93: “there were no matches in PG, nor in TLG, nor in CPG”) corresponds to Carmina moralia 39 (TLG 2022/60. Col. 967, lin. 10 – cöl. 968, lin. 3 = PG 37 [Sp.]); the “passage” allegedly added in the Russian translation to the original text of epigram No. 342 (BV 3. P. 306, note 30: “the origin of which is not established”) is in its place in the TLG (TLG 2022/57. Lib. 8, epigr. 192, lin. 3–4); poem No. 390 “About my life” (De vita sua), which has the address 2022/4 in the TLG, is placed in the painting among the poems “About myself” and under the address 2022/61 (while for the text TLG 2022/4 there is a lack of Russian translation (!), see: BV 3. p. 332); finally, the Russian translation is also not indicated for TLG 2022/12 (Ibid.), which in fact duplicates the text of Carmina moralia 8 (TLG 2022/60. Col. 649, lin. 3 – col. 667, lin. 3 = PG 37) and the corresponding painting No. 238. – Ed. CPGS 3034–3041 (poems classified by theme and genre), 3042–3051 (scholia on poems by later authors). See also new Russian. trans.: 1) S. S. Averintseva (Epigrams, Hymn to Christ, Complaints, Prayer for illness, Lamentation, For Maxim) // Paem. visa liter. pp. 71–75; 2) Gregory the Theologian. About human nature / Verse. lane and note. priest Leonid Lutkovsky // ZhMP. 1989. No. 11. P. 67–71 (poetry arranged interlinearly in “Tvoreniya.” T. 4. M., 1844. P. 258–263). Literature in Russian language: Porfiry (Popov), archimandrite. About the poems of St. Gregory the Theologian // TKDA. 1863. No. 4. P. 400–430; Govorov A. St. Gregory the Theologian as a Christian poet // PS. 1886. App. Part 1. pp. 1–96; 4. 2. pp. 97–288; 4. 3. pp. 289–320, 1– XII (department: Kazan, 1886); Men'A., diak. Poetry of St. Gregory the Theologian // ZhMP. 1959. No. 3. P. 62–68; FreybergL. A. Byzantine poetry IV–X centuries. and ancient traditions // Byzantine literature. M., 1974. pp. 24–76 (about Gregory the Theologian, see pp. 28–39). – Ed. In addition to Russian lane, indicated in BV 3 under No. 208, see also: Rules of the Holy Fathers. pp. 504–506 (Greek and Church Slavonic texts), 506–507 (ancient interpretations in Russian translation); Rules of the Orthodox Church. pp. 490–491 (Russian translation with commentary); Metzger. Canon. P. 209, 310 (translation). Crete. ed. Greek and glory, texts: Beneshevich. Kormchaya 1. pp. 632–633. – Ed. CPG 3038. New Russian Poems. lane see: Epigrams of the Greek anthology. M., 1999. pp. 285–288. – Ed. Versification - versification (from Lat. versus - verse). – Ed. The non-belonging of this work to St. Gregory the Theologian has not yet been conclusively proven. – Ed. See in Russian. language: [Pavsky G.P., prot.] Our Holy Father Gregory the Theologian dogmatic teaching: Preliminary remarks // KhCh 31. 1828. pp. 134–149; The doctrine of God and the refutation of Eunomius and his followers // Ibid. pp. 149–174; The doctrine of the Trinity // Ibid. pp. 254–343; The doctrine of the union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. Refutation of the Apollinarians // KhCh 32.1828. pp. 60–84; The doctrine of man and the salvation of man // Ibid. pp. 160–250; The doctrine of the world and Angels, of immortality and fate after death // Ibid. pp. 268–289; Vinogradov N.P. Dogmatic teaching of St. Gregory the Theologian. Kazan, 1887; Borisovsky P. Dogmatic foundations of Christian morality according to the works of St. Gregory the Theologian // ViR. 1894. T. 1.4. 1. pp. 443–557, 509–525; Katansky. About grace. pp. 170–185; Ponomarev P. From the history of Holy Tradition. The Doctrine of the Holy Tradition of St. Gregory the Theologian // PS. 1904. No. 9. P. 363–376 (and in a separate edition: Kazan, 1908); Panteleimon (Uspensky), Hierom. Three theologians: St. ap. John the Evangelist, St. Gregory the Theologian and Rev. Simeon the New Theologian: (Common features of their teaching in general and the theory of knowledge of God in particular) // BV. 1913. No. 1. 77–103 (and department: Sergiev Posad, 1913); Spassky. Story. WITH. 478–483, 490–563 (triadology); Oksiyuk. Eschatology. pp. 238–257; God and nature. Proof of the existence of God from consideration of the world (theological) / As presented by St. Gregory the Theologian [compiler not specified]. Pg., 1915 (Materials for references on the Law of God in Wednesdays and higher schools; 1). 32 e.; Kern. Anthropology. pp. 148–152; Eleutherius (Didenko), hierome, student. MDL. About the two natures of the God-man (from the Christology of St. Gregory the Theologian) // ZhMP. 1973. No. 4. P. 72–74; Pavel (Gashko), hierodeacon. The Teaching of the Holy Trinity of St. Gregory the Theologian // ZhMP. 1973. No. 4. P. 68–72; Zyablitsev G., diac. Arrhythmology in patristic theology // Tsiv. 1992. No. 3. P. 77–80 (about the symbolism of numbers 1, 2, 3 in Iamblichus, Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Gregory the Theologian); Khorkov M. Anthropological motives in the works of Gregory of Nazianzus // Philosophical Sciences. M., 1994. No. 4/6. pp. 83–87 (on pp. 87–90 verses of the translation “On Human Nature” from Poemata moralia); Nasonov M. Yu. The relationship of cosmology and anthropology in the teachings of St. Gregory the Theologian /x/ Beginning: Journal of the Institute of Theology and Philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1996. No. 3/4. pp. 54–62 (http://ibif.nm.ru/nachalo34/34–04.pdf); Hilarion (Alfeev), Hierom. St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Simeon the New Theologian: Compare, analysis of the doctrine of God: [Ch. from doc. dis. "Reverend Simeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition." Oxford, 1995] / Trans. from English E. L. Maidanovich // CiV. 1998. No. 2 (5). pp. 128–147. – Ed. The author is somewhat inaccurate. While the first term is indeed never used in the surviving texts of St. Gregory, we find the second in a number of his works: Orat. XXV, 16; XXXI, 9; XXXIV, 10; XL, 13, and in all the indicated places, except the last, it is used precisely to designate the distinctive feature of the Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit. – Ed. The translation of the second word is conditional; πρόβλημα literally means "thrown (or thrown) forward", in the Russian translation Orat. XXIX, 2: “harassed.” – Ed. In Russian translation: “originality”. – ed. “Αλλο μεν και αλλο ta έξ ών ό Σωτήρ. – Ed. For the latest literature and editions of texts, see CPGS 3135–3207 (authentic), 3214–3226 (false cit.). For a scientific listing of all available Russian translations (except for some reprints, and also with the exception of the anthology: Monuments of Byzantine literature of the 4th-9th centuries. M., 1968, where there are new translations of small fragments) indicating the numbers TLG, CPG and PG columns, see: BV 4. 2004. pp. 446–457, nos. 934–961, 997–1006, 1033–1066. Below we indicate only CPG numbers (this is quite enough for orientation in painting in BV 4 and, if necessary, clarification of TLG numbers, PG columns and Russian translation pages). There are rare cases when Russian translations of the works of St. mentioned by N.I. Sagarda. Gregory is absent, we make a special reservation. Literature in Russian (incomplete): [Anonymous] Brief information about St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa // Kh. 4. 23. 1826. pp. 3–8; Porfiry (Popov), archimandrite. Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa // PrTSO 20. 1861. 1–99; Barsov N.I. St. Gregory of Nyssa as a preacher // Kh. 1887. 4. 2. No. 9/10. pp. 312–347; Popov I. Grigory Nissky // PBE 4. Stlb. 633–643 (reprint: Popov. Trudy. pp. 211–218); Nikolai (Yarushevich), priest. The path to salvation according to St. Gregory of Nyssa // GC. 1916. No. 3. P. 67–71; No. 6/7. pp. 55–63; No. 8/9. pp. 37–49; No. 10. S. 33–40; No. 11/12. pp. 46–57; Malkov P. Yu. Two caves: From the history of an ancient philosophical symbol: Plato and St. Gregory of Nyssa // PSTBI Annual Theological Conference: Materials / PSTBI. M., 1997. P. 55–60; Danielou J. Anointing with oil and baptism by St. Gregory of Nyssa / Trans. from fr. and comment. M. Tishchenko // BSb. 1999. No. 4. P. 208–224; Bychkov. Byzantium. pp. 324–335, 349–373, 393–395, 432–436, 444–447 (aesthetics); Eastern Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 4th Century. Anthology / Comp. hierome Hilarion (Alfeev). In 3 volumes. T. 2. [M., 1999.] pp. 60–76 (preface, bibliogr.), 77–403 (reprint of several pre-revolutionary translations); Dode E.R. Pagan and Christian in troubled times. St. Petersburg, 2003, pp. 161–167. Literature about the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa is given below. – Ed. This means “Epistle on the Life of St. Macrinae" (Vita sanctae Macrinae). In the manuscripts, the name of the addressee is indicated differently (“to Euprepius the bishop,” “to Jeria,” “to Eutropius the bishop,” “to Olympius the ascetic”) or is absent altogether (SC 178. R. 136). – Ed. This name N.I. Sagarda conveys here and below in transliteration from Latin (Flaccilla). The traditional Russian translation (from the Greek pronunciation) is Plakilla. – Ed. Currently, the critical edition of the works of St. is nearing completion. Gregory of Nyssa (Gregorii Nysseni opera), begun in 1921 and continued under the leadership of V. Yeager since 1952 - Ed. Obviously, of course, representatives of the Antiochian school. Obvious line skipping. Restored from the Russian translation (M., 1862). – Ed. R. 4, IP. 10 – r. 5, IP. 6/Ed. N. Langerbeck, 1960 (TLG 2017/32 = GNO 6). – Ed. R. 6, Ip. 13 – r. 7, lin. 1. – Ed. R. 9, Ip. 18 – r. 10, IP. 4. – Ed. CPGS 3159. See also: Desnitsky A. Exegesis of St. Gregory of Nyssa (“On the Life of Moses”): marginal notes // AiO. 2003. No. 2. P. 78–90. – Ed. CPGS 3155. Interpretation of the inscription of psalms (about the meaning of music) was also translated by S. S. Averintsev // Pam. visa liter. pp. 85–87. – Ed. This is exactly how the books of this work are arranged in the newest editions: the second (according to the Russian translation) - as a separate work Refutatio confessionis Eunomii (TLG 2017/31 = GNO 2; CPG 3136), the rest - as three books, of which the last is divided into 10 chapters (TLG 2017/30 = GNO 1-2; CPG 3135). N.I. Sagarda provides references to this work in accordance with the order of the books in the Russian translation (M., 1863–1864). We provide an additional reference (after the fraction) according to the latest editions (and TLG). A visual sign of the correspondence of books in PG and TLG is available in the list in BV 4. - Ed., Ed. CPGS 3137. Rus. lane only among the letters of St. Basil the Great. – Ed. CPGS 3141 and TLG 2017/5. In the latest research, the authorship of St. Gregory of Nyssa continues to be disputed; see also above, p. 617 and note. 2. – Ed. CPGS 3162. A new translation by A. I. Sidorov is indicated in the painting in BV 4. In fact, this work is a revision of the “Great Epistle” of Macarius/Simeon (Russian translation, see: St. Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual words and messages. Collection of type I (Vatic, graec. 694) / Ed. sub. A. G. Dunaev. M., 2002. pp. 373–414. Other Russian translations are listed on p. 341). The opinion about the primacy of “On the Purpose of Life” in relation to the “Great Message,” once defended by V. Yeager, has now been abandoned, and the text of Macarius/Simeon is recognized as the original version. Currently, scientists (except R. Staats) are not sure that the reworking of the “Great Message” was done by Gregory of Nyssa. The timid tendency that has emerged in recent years to attribute the “Great Epistle” not to Macarius/Simeon, but to his disciples, does not, in our opinion, have any solid foundations. – Ed. CPGS 7035, homilia 77 (Sevirus of Antioch; attribution of homilia to Hesychius of Jerusalem is erroneous). Rus. lane No. – Ed. CPG 3177. Essay false; written perhaps by Amphilochius of Iconium. Rus. lane No. – Ed. CPGS 3194 (authenticity beyond doubt). Rus. lane No. – Ed. According to Russian translation and old editions. In modern editions, the first two words are one (CPGS 3188) and the third is the second (CPGS 3189). – Ed. CPGS 3193 (authenticity questionable). – Ed. 27 CPG 3182. Wed. above, p. 669, note. 1. – Ed. Modern critical editions include 30 letters of St. Gregory (including the 30th letter of Peter of Sebaste to his brother); for the necessary clarifications and additions (124th letter of St. Basil the Great Belongs to Gregory of Nyssa) see CPG and CPGS. – Ed. Also known as the 243rd Epistle of St. Gregory the Theologian, among whose works it is placed in the Russian translation (“Epistle 1, to the monk Evagrius, on the Divine”). See above, p. 660–661 and note. 3. – Ed. CPGS 3148. Placed (unnumbered) separately from the Corpus of St. Epistles. Gregory. In addition to Russian lane, indicated in the painting in BV 4 under No. 1065, see also: Rules of the Holy Fathers. pp. 445–503 (Greek and Church Slavonic texts, as well as ancient interpretations in Russian translation); Rules of the Orthodox Church. pp. 495–509 (Russian translation with commentary). Crete. ed. Greek and glory, texts: Beneshevich. Kormchaya 1. pp. 612–631. Scholium: Beneshevich. Canonical collection. pp. 73–76, no. 673–716. – Ed. Skvortsov I.M., prot. Christian use of philosophy or the philosophy of St. Gregory of Nyssa // TKDA. 1863. No. 10. P. 129–160; Skvortsov E. Teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the dignity of human nature // TKDA. 1865. No. 10. P. 159–184; Martynov A.V. Eschatology of St. Gregory Nissky // PrTSO 32. 1883. 86–197 (and department: M., 1883); It's him. Anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa: (Experience of research in the field of Christian philosophy of the 4th century) // PrTSO 37.1886. pp. 1–154, 505–629; It's him. The teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on human nature (Experience of research in the field of Christian philosophy of the 4th century). M., 1886. 386 p. (combines two previous publications); Tikhomirov D.I. St. Gregory of Nyssa as a moralist. Ethical and historical research. Mogilev-on-Dnieper, 1886; Gusev D. [Ä] Review of the course essay by student V. Nesmelov “The Dogmatic System of St. Gregory of Nyssa” // Minutes of the Council of the Kyiv Theological Academy for 1887. pp. 180–202; Nesmeloe V. The dogmatic system of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Kazan, 1887. 635, XV p. (partially published also in appendices to the PS); reprint: St. Petersburg, 2000; Tikhomirov D.I. Tasks of Christian etiology and the significance of St. Gregory of Nyssa in the history of Christian legal consciousness: (Speech delivered on June 7, 1888 before the defense of his master’s thesis “St. Gregory of Nyssa as a moralist. Ethical and historical study”) // Kh. 1888. Part 2. No. 11/12. pp. 682–693; It's him. The tasks of Christian ethology and the meaning of St. Gregory of Nyssa in the history of Christian legal consciousness. St. Petersburg, 1888; Kirillov A. A. Dogmatic teaching about the sacrament of the Eucharist in the works of two catechists of the 4th century. – St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Novocherkassk, 1898; Katansky. About grace pp. 185–207; Ponomarev I. From the history of Holy Tradition. The Doctrine of the Holy Tradition of St. Gregory of Nyssa // PS. 1904. No. 7/8. pp. 97–130 (and in a separate edition: Kazan, 1908); Talankin V. Patristic view of death: (An experience of systematization of the religious and philosophical teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on death) // ViR. 1908. No. 10. P. 488–507; No. 11. P. 631–652; No. 13. pp. 81–92; Troitsky S.V. Teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the names of God and name-worshipers // Church Gazette. 1913. No. 37. P. 1659–1674; No. 38. pp. 1706–1715; No. 39. pp. 1771–1779; No. 40. P. 1809–1822; No. 41. S. 1862–1870; No. 42. S. 1919–1930; No. 43. S. 1973–1980; No. 44. P. 2000–2017; No. 45. pp. 2077–2080; No. 46. pp. 2132–2140; No. 47. pp. 2169–2173; No. 48. pp. 2223–2231; No. 49. pp. 2281–2290; No. 50. pp. 2331–2340; No. 51/52. pp. 2391–2407; Oksiyuk. Eschatology. pp. 258–591; Podlutsky I. Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa // ViR. 1914. No. 17. P. 664–686; Spassky. Story. pp. 478–483, 490–563 (triadology); Troitsky S.V. About the names of God and name-worshippers. St. Petersburg, 1914 (on pp. 1–46 a review of the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, on pp. 47–151 a comparison of the teachings of the saint with the theory of the name-slavers); It's him. The teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the names of God and “relative” worship. St. Petersburg, 1914. 16th; Platonov N., priest. Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa // GC. 1915. No. 1. P. 96–114; No. 2. P. 62–75; Kern. Anthropology. pp. 152–166; Zyablitsev Yu. Platonism and the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa // Choice. M., 1990. No. 8. P. 80–94; Syrtsova E. N. Ideas of apocatastasis in the eschatology of Gregory of Nyssa // Domestic philosophical thought of the 11th-17th centuries. and Greek culture. Kyiv, 1991. pp. 146–158; Losev A.F. Teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about God [report December 13, 1922] // Beginnings. 1995. No. 1/4 (republished: Same. Name: Works and translations. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 36–38); Schönborn. Icon of Christ. pp. 23–45. (Chapter 1. Trinitarian foundations. § 2. On the way to a new understanding of the person-hypostasis); Callistus (Ware), Bishop of Diocleia. Do we dare hope for the salvation of everyone? Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Nineveh / Trans. from English A. Kurt // Pages. T. 5. No. 1. 2000. P. 16–36; Lurie V. M. Afterword // Gregory of Nyssa, St. On the structure of man / Transl., afterword. and note. V. M. Lurie. Ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 2000. pp. 183–220; Khorkov M. L. The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about time // Historical and Philosophical Yearbook 1998. M., 2000. P. 65–76; Petrov V.V. Origen’s teaching about the body of the resurrection and its influence on the theology of Gregory of Nyssa and John Eriugena // IX Christmas educational readings. Theology and philosophy: aspects of dialogue. Collection of conference reports... M., 2001. pp. 22–58; Shmaliy V., priest. The problem of “churching philosophy” using the example of the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa // Ibid. pp. 59–87; Malkov P. Anthropological premises of the doctrine of apocatastasis among the Eastern Fathers of the Church // BSb PSTBI. No. 10. 2002. P. 88–113, about St. 1rigory of Nyssa, see p. 92–102 (reprint, in the collection: Orthodox teaching about man. Selected articles. M., 2004. pp. 100–120, see pp. 102–111); Vasily (Krivoshey), archbishop. The simplicity of the Divine nature and the differences in God according to St. Gregory of Nyssa [fr. original 1975] / Trans. from fr. T. A. Ugrimova // Church of Bishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Nizhny Novgorod, 2004. pp. 258–285 (editorial note on pp. 297–298). – Ed. Contra Eunomium I, 8/I, 1.74; In Basilium fratrem 8; 23. – Ed., Ed. Apol. in Hexaemeron, TLG 2017/78. Col. 68, lin. 27–33 (= PG 44). – Ed. PG 44. Col. 1268–1269. – Ed. Skipping a line. Restored from the Russian translation (M., 1862). – Ed. R. 333, lin. 13 – r. 335, lin. 1. – Ed. In the text by N.I. Sagarda: “and similar reflections.” Corrected according to Russian translation and in accordance with TLG 2017/53 (= PG 44). – Ed. PG 44. Col. 1269–1272. – Ed. R. 179, Ip. 21 – r. 180, lin. 7. – Ed. R. 181, lin. 8–10. – Ed. R. 41, Ip. 2–7, 10–12/Ed. F. Müller, 1958 (TLG 2017/3 = GNO 3.1). – Ed. P. 41, Ip. 13–14, 15–16, 18 – p. 42, lin. 3. – Ed. R. 47, lin. 21 – r. 48, lin. 8. – Ed. P 48, line. 20 – p. 49, lin. 1. – Ed. R. 50, lin. 13 – r. 51, lin. 9. – Ed. R. 55, Ip. 24 – r. 56, IP. 14. – Ed. That is μέσον (“distance”, “obstacle”). – Ed. More precisely: “not initiated” (αμύητοι), as it is read in the Russian translation (M., 1862). – Ed. New editions and literature are indicated in CPGS 3585–3588 (genuine, but with reservations), 3590–3594 (forged), 3598–3618 (ancient translations, including Old Slavic and Old Russian, mostly forged). Russian translations of the works of St. Kirill were done twice. The first (less reliable, in places very inaccurate and free) translation was made at the Yaroslavl Theological Seminary (St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1822 and numerous reprints), a reprint (from the publisher: Moscow, 1900) was published in Jordanville in 1976 and in Moscow in 1991 (St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem. Catechetical Teachings and secret production. M., 1991 [= Creativity]). The second (more reliable) translation, in which the division of the text corresponds to PG, was made in the MDA in 1855 (for the list with references to CPG, TLG and PG, see BV 4. 2004. No. 760–785), republished in Sergiev Posad in 1893 and in St. Petersburg in 1913, as well as in the ZhMP. “Catechetical Words” republished in abbreviation (according to the 1893 edition) // ZhMP. 1986. No. 1 (= 6 Announced), 2 (= 7–9), 3 (= 10), 4–5 (= 11), 6 (= 12), 7–8 (= 13), 9 (= 14), 10 (= 15), 11 (= 16), 12 (= 17); 1987. No. 1 (= 17, finalized), 2–3 (= 18). “Secret words” in the MDA translation have been republished in full (except for the 2nd) // ZhMP. 1987. No. 4 (= 1 Taynov.), 5 (= 3), 6 (= 4), 7–8 (= 5). Literature in Russian: Porfiry (Popov), archimandrite. St. Cyril, Archbishop. Jerusalem // PrTSO 14. 1855. P. 89–138; Kirillov A. A. Dogmatic teaching about the sacrament of the Eucharist in the works of two catechists of the 4th century. – St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Novocherkassk, 1898; Golosov A. The teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the sacraments. Samarkand, 1901; Katansky. About grace. pp. 137–150; Ponomarev P.I. From the history of Holy Tradition. The Doctrine of Sacred Tradition during the Ecumenical Councils // PS. 1903. No. 1. P. 1–54 (or in a separate edition: Kazan, 1908; at the beginning of the article on pp. 1–15 the teaching of St. Cyril is analyzed, then – St. Athanasius of Alexandria); Poteleschenko I., prot., teacher. UDS. Catechetical words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an example of patristic sermon // ZhMP. 1978. No. 11. P. 66–68; Gavrilyuk. History of catechesis. pp. 152–176. – Ed. The author probably refers to the following passage: “Do you contemplate... the reading of the scriptures, the presence of those ranked among the clergy (κανονικών tarodhnssh), the sequence of teaching (διδασκαλίας άκολουθίαν)?”; in the Russian translation it is conveyed very inaccurately: “Do you contemplate... the reading of the scriptures? the presence of the clergy and the continuity of teachings? (Tvor. P. 3). Firstly, “canons” in the ancient Church were everyone whose names were included in the list (canon) of the clergy of the local Church, including deaconesses, virgins, widows and ascetics (cf. Basil. Caesar., Epist. 188, cap. 6 = canon 6 of St. Basil the Great), and not just clergy in the current meaning of the word. Thus, it is likely that Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes himself with these words from all clergy below the bishop. Secondly, the phrase “sequence of teaching” seems to indicate the custom according to which, after the reading of the Gospel, several elders preached one after another, and “after them a bishop, who is like a helmsman” (Const, apost. II, 57.9, SC 320. P. 314). It is possible that St. Kirill points out his episcopal right to preach after the elders. – Ed. At the indicated place St. Kirill prepares his listeners to carefully memorize the Symbol that he intends to pronounce (the so-called traditio symboli - “transfer of a symbol”). The characteristic expressions ή Πίστις and τα της Πίστεως, denoting the Symbol, are conveyed in the Russian translation very vaguely: “truths of faith” (Tvor. pp. 70–71). In the ancient Church, the explanation of the Symbol was usually the prerogative of the bishop (see: Gavrilyuk. History of catechesis. P. 165). In addition, we note that it was the bishop who usually conducted a preliminary interview with those wishing to be baptized, and subsequently explained to the newly enlightened the meaning of the sacraments (Ibid. pp. 154, 163, with references to Egeria, which describes the Jerusalem practice). – Ed., Ed. PL 27. Col. 683; p. 237, lin. 3 Helm. – Ed., Ed. In the Chronicle, Jerome lists St. Cyril to the Arians and speaks extremely harshly of him. – Ed. CPGS 3586, CPG 3622. – Ed. The breakdown of the text of the “Catechetical Words” into chapters in TLG 2110/3 (and modern Western editions) in some places does not coincide with that accepted in the Russian translation (Tvor.): the final part of the II catechumen (from the words: “So, brethren, seeing many examples...”; Chapter 19 in Russian translation) in the TLG constitutes a separate twentieth chapter; the text of the III announcement is divided into 12 chapters in the Russian translation, and into 16 in the TLG. Below, when referring to the III announcement, we additionally indicate after the fraction the chapter number according to the TLG. – Ed. Of the deuterocanonical ones, two are mentioned: the prophet Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah (Cateches. IV, 35). These same books are included in the canonical 60 rules of the Council of Laodicea, St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Cyprus, in contrast to the canons of Sts. Gregory the Theologian and Amphilochius of Iconium. For more details, see: P. A. Yungerov. Introduction to the Old Testament. Book 1. General historical-critical introduction to the Holy Old Testament books. M., 2003. pp. 122–127. – Ed., Ed. Compare: Metzger. Canon. pp. 206–207, 307 (translation). – Ed. The text of the Symbol is not included in extenso in any of the announcements. – Ed. "Ομοιος kv πα οιν (XI, 4; 18); δμοιος κατά πάντα (IV, 7). – Ed. The latest literature on the subject is listed in CPGS 3586. According to Appendix I in SC 126 bis (1988), the author of the Words of Secret Science, the final edition of which occurs after 380, was most likely Cyril, and John used and processed the finished material. Mark sp. in TLG is therefore incorrect (dub. would be acceptable). – Ed. According to the Russian translation (Tvor. p. 357, conclusion of the message); in TLG 2110/13 (= E. Bihain, Ί 1973) these words are omitted. – Ed. Due to the presence of a modern critical edition and a number of ancient translations, N. I. Sagarda’s statement requires special verification. – Ed. CPG 3590. TLG 2110/8 (sp.). Rus. lane No. – Ed. CPG 3591. TLG 2110/9 (sp.). Fragment from a homily interpreting John. 14:12. Rus. lane No. – Ed. Apparently, the inaccuracy of N.I. Sagarda, who probably meant the same homilik) on Yn. 14:12, since the special conversation on John. 17:5 among the known works (or fragments thereof) there is no Cyril of Jerusalem. – Ed. CPGS 3592. TLG 2110/7 (sp.). Rus. trans.: Creation. pp. 358–366. – Ed. CPG 3593. TLG 2110/10 (sp.). Rus. lane No. – Ed. CPG 3594. CPL 367 (nota). Spurious op. XII century Rus. lane No. – Ed. Ουκ 4ξ ανθρώπων (TLG 2110/3. Catech. 11, cap. 1, lin. 6 / Ed. W. C. Reischl, J. Rupp, 1848, 1860, repr. 1967); Creation P. 136: “not from among the people.” – Ed. TLG (2110/3. Catech. 11, cap. 4, lin. 15) instead of “from nothing” gives the reading “from the beginning” (4ξ αρχής), also in Creation, p. 138 (“from the beginning”). There is probably a typo in the typescript. – Ed. Translation of the Yaroslavl Seminary (Tvor. p. 142) contrary to the Greek. the text here states the exact opposite: “How He gave birth to Him, I promise to tell you about this, and that He gave birth to Him differently, I confirm this again.” – Ed. Text of the critical edition (different punctuation than in the quotation by N.I. Sagarda and in Tvor., p. 326, allowing for different interpretations): ... (SC 126 bis. 124). – Ed. In the critical edition the reading “Christ’s” is missing (SC 126 bis. P. 138; cf. apparatus ad lin. 2). – Ed.