About the Creed

Essay by blzh. Aurelius Augustine's “On the Creed” was written in 393 and consists of 10 chapters. It is a thorough explanation of the apostolic symbol for the instruction and strengthening of the newly baptized, as well as a refutation of all the objections of the heretics on each point of the Creed. Also presented in a condensed form are the views of the blj. Augustine on various dogmatic issues: triadology, the doctrine of creation, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc. In this treatise the views of the blj. Augustine is in many ways more consistent with the theology of his contemporary Eastern Fathers of the Church, but already here one can see tendencies that subsequently took him too far from the Orthodox theological tradition. *The title of the essay in Latin is De fide et symbolo. Contents Chapter I. Reason for writing and purpose of this treatise (§ 1) Chapter II. About faith in one omnipotent God the Father. That there was no nature co-eternal with God, from which God created the world. The nature of world matter. About how the world came from nothing, even if it was created from formless matter (§§ 2-3) Chapter III About faith in the Son of God. About why the Son of God is called the Word of God, and about the fact that the Word of God is identical with the Father in essence (§§ 3-4) Chapter IV. The Son of God is not created and is not less than the Father. Against the Arian heresy. The Incarnation and Christology. Against the error of the Manichaeans (§§ 5–10) Chapter V. The suffering, burial and resurrection of Christ (§§ 11–12) Chapter VI. Ascension to Heaven (§ 13) Chapter VII. Seating at the right hand of the Father (§ 14) Chapter VIII. Coming for Judgment (§ 15) Chapter IX. About faith in the Holy Spirit. Exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity using analogies. The opinion of those who believe that the Holy Spirit is the very Divinity of the Father and the Son, Their common Gift or mutual Love (§§ 16–21) Chapter X. Conciliar (universal) Church. Forgiveness of sins. The change of the whole person into a better state, accomplished in resurrection. The Resurrection of the Flesh and Its Truth (§§ 21–25) A small but very informative treatise “On the Creed” (more precisely, “On Faith and Symbol”, De fide et symbolo) was written by Blessed Augustine during the period of his presbytery around 393. As Augustine himself wrote, initially it was a discourse (disputatio) about faith and the Creed, which he prepared at the request of the bishops who gathered at the Council of the West African Church in the city of Ippon in 393. After this, some of the bishops, friends of Augustine, asked him to formalize this discourse in the form of a book (Retractationes I.17). The treatise is a lengthy exposition of the Nicene Creed with digressions by the author on various occasions. It is very valuable that it presents in a condensed form the views of St. Augustine on various dogmatic issues: triadology, the doctrine of creation, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc. In general, it should be noted that in this treatise, Augustine’s views are in many ways more consistent with the theology of the Eastern Fathers of the Church of his time, but trends are already visible here that subsequently took Augustine too far from the Orthodox theological tradition. Chapter I. Reason for writing and purpose of this treatise (§ 1) 1. Since it is written and confirmed by the undoubted authority of the Apostolic teaching that “the just shall live by faith” (Gal. 3:11), this faith requires from us the ministry of heart and tongue. In fact, the Apostle says: “With the heart one believes for righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses for salvation” (Rom. 10:10). This means that we need to remember both righteousness and salvation. After all, since we will reign in eternal righteousness, we will not be able to be saved from the evil of this age, unless, striving for the salvation of our neighbors, we confess with our lips the faith that we carry in our hearts. But, being in pious and prudent vigilance, we should take care in advance that this faith of ours cannot in any way be distorted by the cunning cunning of heretics. The universal faith is known to the faithful from the Creed and is entrusted to [their] memory. And such a great thing is set forth there in brief words, so that in these few words it is possible to establish in these few words what beginners and infants should believe, who have already been reborn in Christ, but are not yet strong in an accurate spiritual interpretation and knowledge of the Divine Scriptures. This same faith should be expressed in lengthy words for those who are successful and strive for the Divine teaching with sufficiently strong love and humility. However, many heretics have tried to hide their poison in these few words of the Creed. But Divine mercy resisted and continues to resist these heretics through spiritual men who were worthy to accept and confess the universal faith not only in these words, but also to know and understand it [directly] through revelation from the Lord. After all, it is written: “Unless you believe, you will not know” (Isaiah 7:9) 1. And reasoning about faith should contribute to the defense of the Symbol [of faith], - not so that it itself would be transmitted instead of the Symbol [of faith], preserved in memory and repeated by those who have acquired the grace of God; but so that, on the basis of conciliar authority, it would more effectively defend and protect from the malicious intent of heretics what is contained in the Symbol. Chapter II. About faith in one omnipotent God the Father. That there was no nature co-eternal with God, from which God created the world. The nature of world matter. About how the world came from nothing, even if it was created from formless matter (§§ 2-3) 2. Indeed, there are some [heretics] 2 who try to convince that God the Father is not Almighty. Not that they dared to openly assert this, but their own writings expose them to the fact that they believe and believe so. In fact, when they say that there is a nature not created by Almighty God, from which He created this world (which they agree [to recognize] as beautifully constructed), then they deny the omnipotence of God, since they do not believe that He could have created this world, [even] if He had not used another nature to create it, which would already exist and which He Himself did not create. They look at this, following the carnal habit, imagining craftsmen and house builders, and any other artisans who cannot proceed to the execution of their plans unless they take advantage of ready-made matter. After all, it turns out to them (the heretics) that the Organizer of the world is not the Almighty, if He can organize the world only with the help of a certain nature, as if matter, which was not produced by Him. Or if they agree that the Organizer of the world is Almighty God, then let them admit it as necessary that He created from nothing what He created. After all, there cannot be anything that does not have a Creator, for God is Almighty. Even if He created one thing from something else, such as, for example, a man from dust (see Gen. 2:7), He did not create him from what He Himself did not create, because God had previously created the earth from which the dust comes from nothing. Even if the heavens and the earth itself, that is, the world and everything in it, He created from some matter, as it is written: You, Who “created the world from formless” (or, as some manuscripts contain, “from formless”) “matter” (Wis. 11:18) 3, then it cannot be believed that this very matter from which the world was created, although formless and formless, whatever it was, could exist by itself by itself as coeternal and simultaneous with God. But any image of herself that she had, in order to somehow exist and be able to take the forms of various things, she received from no one other than from Almighty God, by whose grace there is not only every thing that has a form (formata), but also every thing capable of taking a form (formabilis). What is formed (formatum) differs from what is capable of taking form (formabile) in that what is formed has already taken form, while what is capable of taking form can still receive it. But He who gives forms to things also gives the very possibility of taking form (posse formari); since from Him and in Him there is the most beautiful unchangeable image (speciosissima species incommuta-bilis) only 4. And therefore there is one One who gives each thing not only beauty, but also the very opportunity to be beautiful. Therefore, we believe with all justice that God created everything from nothing, because even if the world came from some matter, then matter itself was created from nothing in order to become the first recipient of forms by the most just gift of God, and then [from it] everything that [subsequently] received form would be formed. However, we say this so that we do not consider the meaning of Holy Scripture to be contrary to itself, for it is written that “God created everything from nothing” (2 Macc. 7:28), and that the world was created “from formless matter” (cf. Wis. 11:18). 3. So, believing in Almighty God the Father, we must consider that there is nothing created that was not created by the Almighty. And He created all things through the Word, which is called “Truth” (see John 14:6) and “God’s Power and Wisdom” (see 1 Cor 1:24), and many other names by which the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Deliverer and Ruler, is committed to our faith. After all, this Word, through whom all things were created (cf. John 1:3), could not have been born from anyone other than the One who through Him (that is, the Word) created all things. Chapter III About faith in the Son of God. About why the Son of God is called the Word of God, and about the fact that the Word of God is identical with the Father in essence (§§ 3–4) We also believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, that is, the only Son of the Father, our Lord. However, we must understand that He is the Word, not like our words, which are spoken by voice and lips, and then disappear into the wavering air and remain no longer than they sound. This Word remains unchanged. Indeed, what is said about Wisdom applies to Him: “Being in herself, she renews everything” (see Wis. 7:27). The Word of the Father is spoken in such a way that through Him the Father Himself is known. Just as we, when we speak the truth, by means of our words make our spirit known to the hearer, and all the secret things that we have in our hearts are pronounced by means of this kind of signs for the understanding of someone else, so this Wisdom, Which God the Father begat, is very rightly called His Word, since through It the most hidden Father is revealed to worthy souls. 4. However, there are many differences between our spirit and the words in which we try to manifest it. In fact, we do not give birth to sounding words, but we produce them. And in order to produce them, we need a body as matter. But there is a huge difference between the spirit and the body. And God, when He gave birth to His Word, He gave birth to That which He Himself is; and not from nothing, and not from other, already created and created matter, but from Himself [gave birth] That which He Himself is. We also strive for this when we speak, if we carefully consider the aspirations of our will (however, not when we lie, but when we speak the truth). For what else do we set in motion but our spirit itself, as far as possible, in order to make it cognizable and visible to the spirit of the listener? At the same time, we remain within ourselves and do not move away from ourselves, although we produce such a sign thanks to which our thoughts become [understandable] to another person, so that, as far as possible, from one spirit comes another spirit, through which the first expresses itself. We try to do this with words, and with the very sound of the voice, and with facial expressions, and with body gestures, that is, in all possible ways, wanting to show what is inside [of us]. But since we cannot achieve this in its entirety, and the spirit of the speaker cannot fully manifest itself, hence the possibility of lying arises. But God the Father both wished and was able to truly reveal Himself to the spirits striving for [His] knowledge, and in order to reveal Himself, He gave birth to That which He Himself is, [that is, the Word] 5, which is also called His “Power and Wisdom” (see 1 Cor. 1:24), since through Him He (the Father) accomplished and arranged everything, and therefore it is said about Him: “He spreads mightily from one end to the other and everything arranges perfectly” (Wis. 8:1) 6. Chapter IV. The Son of God is not created and is not less than the Father. Against the Arian heresy. The Incarnation and Christology. Against the error of the Manichaeans (§§ 5–10) 5. Therefore, He is the Only Begotten Son of God and was not created by the Father, for, as the Evangelist says: “All things came into being through Him” (John 1:3). He was not born in time, since God is eternally thinking and eternally has His Wisdom with Him 7 . He is also not unequal to the Father, that is, in any way less than Him, for the Apostle also says: “He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil 2:6). This universal faith excludes those who say that One and the Same is the Son and the Father, 8 because this Word could not be “with God” except with God the Father, and He who is one cannot be equal to anyone else. Also excluded are those who call the Son a creature, although not like other creatures 9 . After all, everything that they call a creature, if it is a creature (creatura), is created and created (condita et facta). After all, “to create” (condere) is the same as “to create” (creare). And although in Latin you can sometimes say “creare” in the sense of “gignere,” this is different in Greek. After all, what we call a creature (creaturam), they call κτίσμα or κτίσιν. And when we want to speak unambiguously, we do not say “create” (creare), but we say “create” (condere). Therefore, if the Son is a creature, no matter how great, then he is created (facta). We believe in Him “through” Whom “all things came into being” (John 1:3), and not in Him through Whom only other things came into being. After all, we can understand “everything” only as absolutely everything that began to be. 6. But since “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), the same Wisdom that was begotten of God deigned to be created among men. This is precisely what the following expression refers to: “The Lord created Me at the beginning of His ways” (Prov. 8:22) 10. In fact, the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, that is, Christ clothed in man, and through Him (Christ) we are given a model of life, that is, the right path by which we could come to God. After all, we, who fell because of pride (as it was said to our original man: “Taste them, and you will be like gods” (Gen. 3:5)), could return [to Him] only through humility. Therefore, our Restorer deigned to show in His Person an example of such humility, that is, the path by which one should return, who, “being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:6–7), so that the Word, “through whom all things were made at the beginning of His ways,” might be made man. Therefore, according to the fact that He is the “Only Begotten,” He has no brothers, but according to the fact that He is the “First-born,” He deigned to call “brothers” (cf. Luke 8:21) all who after Him and through Him are first of all reborn by the grace of God through adoption, which is confirmed by the Apostolic teaching (cf. Heb. 2:11). Thus the natural and only Son was begotten from the very essence of the Father (de ipsa substantia Patris), 11 being [essentially] the same as the Father, God from God, Light from Light. We are not light by nature, but we are illuminated by this Light so that we ourselves can shine with wisdom. For, as the Apostle says, “there was the true Light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). So, now let us add to the faith in eternal realities also the temporal Economy 12 of our Lord, which He deigned to complete and fulfill for us for the sake of our salvation. Indeed, according to the fact that He is the “Only Begotten Son” of God, it cannot be said that He “was” and “will be,” but only that He “is,” since what was no longer exists, and what will be is not yet. Therefore He is unchangeable and not subject to the conditions of time and change. I believe that this is precisely why He revealed His name to His servant Moses. After all, when Moses asked Him: if the people to whom he was sent despise him, what should he say, from whom he was sent, then God said to him: “I am who I am. And he said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: Jehovah has sent me to you” (Exodus 3:14). 7. From this, I believe, it is clear to spiritual souls that there can be no nature contrary to God. Indeed, if He is “Existing,” and this concept in its proper sense is applicable only to God (after all, what truly exists remains unchangeable, since that which changes was once what it is no longer, and will be what it is not yet), then God has nothing opposite to Himself. After all, if we are asked what is the opposite of white, we will answer “black”, if asked what is the opposite of warm, we will answer “cold”, if asked what is the opposite of fast, we will answer “slow” and so on. And when they ask what is the opposite of what exists, we will correctly answer “non-existent” (that is, that which does not exist). 8. But since, as we have already said, by the mercy of God, our changeable nature for the sake of our salvation and restoration through the Economy was received by the Wisdom of the unchangeable God, then we add to this faith in temporary events perfect for our sake and believe that the Son of God was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. In fact, by the Gift of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, such great humility of such a great God was revealed to us that He deigned to accept the whole person in the womb of the Virgin, inhabiting the immaculate mother’s body [and after birth] leaving it immaculate. But even against this House-Building the heretics are building various intrigues 13 . But if someone adheres to the universal faith, so that he believes that the whole man, that is, body, soul and spirit, was received by the Word of God, then he is already sufficiently protected from them. And since this perception [of man] was made for the sake of our salvation, we must beware lest it happen that, believing that any part of our nature was not perceived, it would not inherit salvation 14. And since man (if we do not take into account the form of the bodily members, which differs in different types of living beings) does not differ from animals in anything except the rational spirit, which is also called mind, then how can that faith 15 be sound, according to which they believe that Divine Wisdom has accepted that part of our nature that we have in common with animals, and has not accepted that part that is enlightened by the light of Wisdom and is peculiar only to man? 9 . It is also necessary to refute those who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ had an earthly Mother Mary, 16 since this Dispensation glorifies both sexes, both male and female, and shows that God's care touched these both sexes: not only [the sex] which He assumed, but also the one through which He assumed, becoming a man, being born of a woman. And let us not be led to deny the Mother of Christ by what He Himself said: “What is it to me and to you, Woman? My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). By this, He rather reminds us to understand that He who showed the greatness of His Face by turning water into wine, like God, has no mother. And that He was crucified, He was crucified as a man. And it was precisely this hour that had not yet come when it was said: “What do I need? For you, Zheno? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4), that is, "[the hour] in which I will know You." After all, when He was crucified as a man, then He recognized the human mother and lovingly entrusted her to his “beloved disciple” (see John 19:26–27). And let us not be confused by the fact that when His Mother and brothers sent to Him, He answered: “Who is My Mother? and who are my brothers?” (Matthew 12:48). By this He rather teaches us service: when we preach the Word of God to our brothers, if our parents hinder us, we should not recognize them. After all, if someone thinks that He did not have an earthly Mother because He said: “Who is My Mother?” (Matthew 12:48), it will be necessary to come to deny that the Apostles also had fathers on earth, because He commanded them the following: “And call no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). 10. And let not the very thought of a woman’s womb diminish our faith, lest it should seem that because of this such a birth of our Lord should be rejected, because base people consider it base. “For the foolish things of God are wiser than men” (1 Cor 1:25), and “to the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15), as the Apostle rightly says. For those who hold this point of view, on the same ground, must admit that the rays of this sun (which they not only praise as the creation of God, but also worship as God 17) spread everywhere amid the stench of latrines and all other abominations, manifest their natural effect in them, but because of this they are not polluted by any defilement, although visible light is in nature closer to visible impurities. How much less could the incorporeal and invisible Word of God be defiled from a female body, from which It received human flesh along with soul and spirit, through which the Greatness of the Word of God secretly dwelt in a weak human body 18? From this it is clear that the Word of God could in no way be defiled by the human body, from which the human soul itself is not defiled. After all, the soul is polluted from the body not when it rules the body and animates it, but only when it desires its mortal blessings. Therefore, if they wanted to avoid spiritual defilement, it would be better to be afraid of this lie and sacrilege of theirs. Chapter V. The Passion, Burial and Resurrection of Christ (§§ 11–12) 11. But our Lord’s humility for us at Christmas was not enough; He also came in order to deign to die for the sake of mortals. In fact, He “humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, even death on the cross” (Phil 2:8), so that any of us, even if we could not be afraid of [ordinary] death, would not be afraid of this kind of death, which is considered the most shameful among people. So, we believe in the One who was crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate. For it was necessary that the name of the judge be added to [precisely] indicate the time. And faith in this burial is a remembrance of the “new tomb” (see John 19:41), because it served as evidence of the coming resurrection “to newness of life” (cf. Rom 6:4), just as the virgin womb testifies to the future birth. After all, just as in that tomb, neither before nor after, “no other dead person was buried” (see John 19:41), so in that womb, neither before nor after, nothing mortal was conceived. 12. We also believe that on the third day He rose from the dead, “the firstborn among the brethren who will follow Him” (cf. Rom. 8:29) and whom He called “to be sons of God by adoption” (cf. Eph. 1:5) and worthy to be His partakers and joint heirs. Chapter VI. Ascension to Heaven (§ 13) 13. We also believe that He ascended to heaven, which He also promised us as a place of [future] bliss, saying: “They will be like [God’s] angels in heaven” (see Matt. 22:30), in that City, which is “the mother of us all,” in the eternal heavenly “Jerusalem” (Gal. 4:26). However, as often happens, some wicked pagans and heretics do not like our belief that the earthly body has been taken up into heaven. But when the pagans say that there cannot be anything earthly in heaven, they strive to communicate with us mostly with the help of philosophical arguments. After all, they have not studied our Scriptures and do not know what the words mean: “A natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor 15:44). Of course, this does not mean that the body will turn into spirit and become a spirit, because even now our body, which is called “spiritual” (animale), has not turned into a soul and has not become a soul. But the body is considered “spiritual” because it is subordinated to the spirit so as to correspond to the dwelling in heaven, [where] all earthly frailty and corruption is changed and transformed into heavenly purity and solidity. This is a change about which the Apostle also says: “We will not all die, but we will all be changed” (1 Cor 15:51). He also teaches that this change will not be for the worse, but for the better, when he says: “And we will be changed” (1 Cor 15:52). But it would be unnecessary curiosity to try to find out where and how the body of the Lord could be in heaven; you just have to believe that it is in heaven. After all, exploring the secrets of heaven is beyond the power of our mortal nature, but our faith must imagine the dignity of the body of the Lord in an exalted and decent manner. Chapter VII. Seated at the right hand of the Father (§ 14) 14. We also believe that He sits at the right hand of the Father. However, it should not be assumed that God the Father is limited to the [small] human form, so that when we think about Him, our mind would imagine the right or left side. And also we should not assume that when it is said about the Father: “He sits,” then His knees are bent, so that we do not fall into that sacrilege for which the Apostle curses those who “have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man” (Rom. 1:23). For it is wicked for a Christian to place such an image of God in a church, and even more ungodly in the heart, where the true church of God is, if it is cleansed of earthly passions and delusions. Therefore, the word “at the right hand” must be understood as “in the highest bliss,” where there is righteousness, peace and joy; just like those words that “the goats are placed on their sides” (see Matt. 25:33), that is, “in distress” [for] torment because of their unrighteous deeds 19. Therefore, when it is said that “God sits,” then [this] does not denote the position of the [bodily] members, but the power of the Judge, which the Filial Majesty never loses, always rendering what is worthy to the worthy; although at the last Judgment the undoubted glory of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Judge of the living and the dead, will shine 20 among people much more clearly. Chapter VIII. Coming for Judgment (§ 15) 15. We also believe that from there He will come at the proper time and judge the living and the dead. These names designate either the righteous and the sinful, or “living” are those whom He will find on earth before their death, and “dead” are those who will be resurrected at His coming. And this temporary Economy not only “is,” like that [eternal] Birth according to the Divine, but also “was” and “will be.” Indeed, our Lord was on earth, is now in heaven and will be in glory as the Judge of the living and the dead. For “he will come as he came,” according to the testimony contained in the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts 1:11). So, in accordance with this temporary Economy, He speaks in the Apocalypse, where it is written: This “says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev 1:8). Chapter IX. About faith in the Holy Spirit. Exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity using analogies. Opinion of those who hold that the Holy Spirit is the very Divinity of the Father and the Son, Their common Gift or mutual Love (§§ 16–21) 16. So, after we have discerned and committed to [our] faith the Divine Birth and the human Economy of the Lord, for the perfection of the faith that is given to us from God, to our confession is added [faith] in the Holy Spirit, who is not less in nature than the Father and the Son, but, so to speak, consubstantialis and co-eternal with [them]. Indeed, the Holy Trinity is One God, but not so that the Father is the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but so that the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and [nevertheless] the Trinity is One God, as it is written: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one God” (Deut. 6:4) 21. After all, if they ask us individually and tell us: “Is the Father God?” – we will answer: “God”. And if they ask about the Son, whether He is God, we will answer the same. If the same question arises about the Holy Spirit, then we should not answer anything other than that He is also God. However, one should be especially careful to understand this in the same way as about people about whom it is said: “You are gods” (Ps. 82:6). For all those who are created and created from the Father through the Son in the gift of the Holy Spirit 22 are not gods by nature. In fact, when the Apostle says: “For all things are from Him, in Him and through Him” (Rom. 11:36) 23, then this signifies the Holy Trinity Itself. Therefore, when we are asked individually, we will answer that the One who is being asked about - Father, Son or Holy Spirit - is God. However, let no one think that [in this case] we honor three Gods. 17. There is nothing surprising in the fact that this is said about the ineffable Nature, since even in those things that we perceive with bodily eyes and discern with bodily senses, there is something similar [to this]. In fact, when we are asked about the source, we cannot say that it is the river itself; and when we are asked about the river, we also cannot call it a source; finally, we cannot call drinking water that is taken from a source or from a river either the river itself or the source. However, in these three things [together] (in hac trinitate) we recognize the same water, and when we are asked about each of them, we separately also call them water 24. And indeed, if we ask whether there is water in the source, the answer will be: “yes, water”; and if we ask if there is water in the river, the answer will be exactly the same; Finally, there can be no other answer about drinking water. However, we do not call them three waters, but one water. But one must be very careful lest anyone imagine the ineffable essence (substantiam) of the Divine Majesty like this visible, bodily source, river or drinking water. After all, in them the water that is now in the source passes into the river and does not remain in itself; and when it is taken from a river or spring as drinking water, it does not remain where it comes from. Thus, it may be that the same water takes the name of a source, a river, or drinking water. However, we have already said that in the Divine Trinity it cannot be that the Father is the Son at one moment, and the Holy Spirit at another. It is rather like how we can say that in a tree the root is nothing but the root, the trunk is nothing but the trunk, and the branches are nothing but branches. Indeed, what is called the root cannot be called the trunk or branches. And wood, which belongs to the root, cannot, due to some transition, end up in the root, then in the trunk, then in the branches, but is contained only in the root. And although the naming rule remains, according to which the root is wood, the trunk is wood and the branches are also wood, they are not called three, but one wood. And even if they are dissimilar in some way, so that it is not without reason that they can be called three woods due to their inherent different hardness, then everyone will agree that if three bowls are filled from one source, they can be called three bowls, but not three waters, but only one water. And when you are asked about individual bowls, you will answer that there is water in any of them, although there is no transition here, which we saw from the source to the river. But we gave all these examples from the field of bodily objects not for the sake of similarity with that Divine nature, but for the sake of the unity of visible objects [observed in them], in order to understand that it could be that some three things have the same name not only individually, but all together. So let no one be surprised or consider it absurd that we say: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and in this Trinity there are not three Gods, but one God and one essence. 18. Scientists and spiritual men have already devoted many books to discussions about the Father and the Son. In these books they tried to delve, as far as humanly possible, into such questions as, for example, how the Father and the Son are not one, but “one” (non unus esset, sed unum essent) 25, and what is the special property of the Father and what of the Son. Namely, one is the Parent, and the other is the Begotten, one is not from the Son, but the other from the Father, one is the Head of the other, which is why He is called the “Head of Christ” (see 1 Cor 11:3), although Christ Himself is the “Beginning” (John 8:25) 26, but not the Father; one is the “Image” of the other ( Col. 1:15 ), although in no way different and completely and indistinguishably equal 27 . All this is discussed in greater detail by those who wish to set forth, less briefly than we do, the confession of the whole Christian faith. So, insofar as one is the Son, He received from the Father what He should be, but the other did not receive this from the Son. And since He (the Son), by ineffable mercy, as a result of the temporal Dispensation, took on man, that is, a changeable creation that must change for the better, in the Holy Scriptures one can find much said about Him that pushed the wicked minds of heretics into error, who wanted to teach first and only then learn. [On the basis of this] they believed that He was not equal to the Father and not of the same essence with Him (ejusdem substantiae) 28 . Here are some examples of such expressions: “For my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28); “The head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3) 29; “Then He Himself will submit to Him who has put all things in subjection to Him” (see 1 Cor 15:28); “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” (John 20:17) and the like. In fact, all this was not written at all in order to point out the inequality of nature or essence, so that, in turn, other expressions would not turn out to be false, for example: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9); “The Word was God” (John 1:1, because It Himself did not begin to be, since “all things came into being through Him” - John 1:3); “He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil 2:6) and the like. All this was written partly as a result of the ministry of the person perceived by Him, according to what has been said; “He made Himself of no reputation” (Phil 2:7), but not because Divine Wisdom itself changed, for It is completely unchangeable, but because He wanted to appear to people in such a humble way. So, all these expressions, which are falsely interpreted by heretics, were written partly as a result of this ministry, and partly due to the fact that the Son owes to the Father what He is, including the fact that He is equal to the Father Himself; and the Father owes no one what He is 30 . 19. However, scientists and eminent interpreters of the Holy Scriptures have not yet discussed the Holy Spirit in such detail and carefully that one can easily understand His special property, thanks to which we can say that He is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Holy Spirit. [In particular], they preached that He is the “Gift of God” (cf. Eph 3:7) 31 so that we would believe that God gives a Gift that is not inferior to Himself. They are careful not to preach, on the one hand, that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father in the same way as the Son, since Christ is unique; and on the other hand, so as not to preach that He was born of the Son as the grandson of the supreme Father. Indeed, He owes what He is to no one except the Father, “from whom are all things” (cf. Rom. 11:36), lest we introduce two beginningless principles, which is extremely false and absurd and is not characteristic of the universal faith, but of the erroneous opinion of some heretics 32 . However, some have dared to believe that the Holy Spirit is the very union (ipsam communionem) of the Father and the Son, and even, so to speak, the very Godhead (deitatem), which the Greeks call θεότητα. So that since the Father is God and the Son is God, the very Godhead by which They are connected with each other - the one by begetting the Son, and the other by agreeing with the Father - would be equal to Him from Whom It came 33 . So, they claim that the Holy Spirit is called Deity, which they also want to understand as the mutual love of Both of them (i.e., the Father and the Son), 34 and they bring a lot of evidence from the Holy Scriptures to support their point of view. For example: “For the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5) and many other similar testimonies. They want to [think] that the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Love of God follows quite clearly from the very fact that we are reconciled to God through the Holy Spirit, which is why He is called the “Gift of God” (cf. Eph 3:7). Indeed, we are not reconciled to Him except through love, through which we are also called “sons” (cf. 1 John 3:1). And we are no longer under fear as slaves, for “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). We have also received the Spirit of freedom, “By whom we cry, Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15). And because we are reconciled and called to friendship through love (cf. Rom 5:8–10), we can know all the mysteries of God. That is why it is said about the Holy Spirit: “He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Therefore, confidence in preaching the truth, which the Apostles were filled with at His coming (cf. Acts 2:4), is rightly attributed to love, since uncertainty also refers to fear, which perfect love casts out. The Holy Spirit is also called the "Gift of God" (cf. Eph 3:7) because what anyone knows he cannot enjoy unless he loves it. And enjoying God’s Wisdom means nothing more than clinging to Her with love. And no one abides in what he knows except through love. The Spirit is also called Holy, since [by Him] everything that is sanctified is sanctified for permanence (after all, it is certain that “holiness” gets its name from “sanctification”). Defenders of this position cite as evidence mainly the following evidence: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6), and also: “For God is spirit” (John 4:24). Indeed, here [the Lord] speaks of our rebirth; not about that which is according to Adam from the flesh, but about that which is according to Christ from the Holy Spirit. Because of this they say that if the Holy Spirit is mentioned in this place, since it is said: For God is spirit, then it should be noted that it is not said here: For the Spirit is God, but it is said: For God is spirit, so that the very Deity of the Father and the Son in this place was called God, and this is the Holy Spirit 36. This also includes another testimony cited by the Apostle John: For “God is love” (1 John 4:16). In fact, he did not say here: “Love is God,” but said: “God is love,” so that by love the Divinity itself was understood. And since the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in the famous enumeration of things connected with each other, when it is said, “All things are yours; But you are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (1 Cor 3:22-23), and: "The head of a woman is husband, the head of a man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God" (cf. 1 Cor 11:3), they say that this is because, in all likelihood, among those who are connected with each other, the connection itself is usually not mentioned (ipsa connexio). Therefore, in another place, it seems that attentive readers can also discern the Holy Trinity, since it is said: “For all things are from Him, through Him and in Him” (cf. Rom 11:36). [Indeed], “from Him,” as if from One who owes nothing to anyone for what He is; “through Him”, as if through a Mediator; “in Him”, as if in the One who contains, that is, connects with a bundle 37. 20. Those who do not agree with this point of view are those who believe that the very compound that we call Divinity or Love is not a substance. They demand that the Holy Spirit be posited for them according to substance, and do not understand that it is impossible to say: “God is love” unless love is substance. They are influenced by habitual bodily ideas, since if two bodies are connected with each other, so that they are placed next to each other, then their connection itself is not a body. In fact, after these bodies, which were connected, are separated from each other, it no longer remains, and at the same time it is not considered that it has gone away and moved away, like these bodies themselves. But let such people purify their hearts as much as they can in order to be able to see that the Divine substance is not such that one thing in it is a substance, and another is something that is inherent in the substance (accident) and was not the substance itself. After all, everything that can be thought in it is the substance itself 38. However, one can easily say this and believe it, but to see how it really is is possible only with a pure heart. Therefore, regardless of whether this statement is true or some other, one should without any hesitation adhere to the belief that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but not three Gods, but the Holy Trinity Itself is one God; and also that They do not differ in nature, but are of the same essence; not that the Father is at one time the Son, and at another the Holy Spirit, but that the Father is always the Father, the Son is always the Son, and the Holy Spirit is always the Holy Spirit. And we should not rashly assert anything about the invisible, as if we knew, but [only] as believers, since this can only be seen with a pure heart. However, the one who already in this life sees this partially and, as it is written, “in fortune-telling” (see 1 Cor 13:12), [unfortunately] cannot make the one to whom he speaks also see it, if impurity of the heart prevents him. But “blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8). Such is faith in God, our Creator and Renewer. 21. But since we are commanded to love not only God (as it is said: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” - Matthew 22:37), but also for your neighbor (as it is said: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” - Matthew 22:39), then if this faith does not include a meeting and community of people in which brotherly love operates, then such faith will be less fruitful. Chapter X. Conciliar (universal) Church. Forgiveness of sins. The change of the whole person into a better state, accomplished in resurrection. The Resurrection of the Flesh and Its Truth (§§ 21–25) We also believe in the Holy Catholic Church. However, heretics and schismatics also call their communities churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, distort the faith itself, and schismatics, through lawless divisions, retreat from brotherly love, although they believe in the same thing as us. Therefore, neither heretics belong to the universal Church, which loves God, nor schismatics 39 [do not belong to Her], since She loves her neighbor and easily forgives her neighbor’s sins, because she herself prays for her forgiveness from the One who reconciled us to Himself again, consigning to oblivion the whole past and calling us to a new life. And until we achieve this perfect life, we cannot be without sins. However, there is a difference in what types of sins there are. 22. However, now is not the time to talk about the difference between sins, but we should simply believe that we will in no way be forgiven for what we have sinned if we are inexorable in forgiving the sins of [other people] (see Matthew 6:15). So, we also believe in the remission of sins. 23. As you know, a person consists of three parts - spirit, soul and body (which also come down to two, since the soul is often mentioned together with the spirit; after all, [in this case] the spirit is called some intelligent part of the same [soul], which animals do not have). Spirit is the most important thing in us; Next comes life, through which we are united with the body and which is called the soul; finally, there comes the body itself, which is visible and which is our external [part]. It is “the whole creation groans and suffers together until now” (Rom. 8:22). The spirit was the first to bear fruit because he believed God, and this is already characteristic of good will 40 . This spirit is also called “mine,” about which the Apostle speaks: “With my mind I serve the law of God” (Rom. 7:25). Elsewhere he also says: “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit” (see Rom 1:9). The soul is called flesh whenever it strives for carnal goods. In fact, some part of it resists the spirit not by its nature, but by its habit of sins. Therefore it is written: “With my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25). This habit [of men] became nature according to mortal birth because of the sin of the first man. That is why it is written: “And we were once by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), that is, punishment, through which it became so that we serve the law of sin. But the nature of the soul becomes perfect when it submits to its spirit and follows it, and it in turn follows God. Therefore, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:14). But the soul does not submit to the spirit for good work as quickly as the spirit [submits] to God for true faith and good will. Indeed, sometimes her desire, with which she descends towards the corporeal and temporal, is contained more slowly. But since the soul itself is again purified, finding the immutability of its nature thanks to the spirit dominating [over it], which is its head, and this head of its head is Christ, then one should not lose hope that the body will be restored to its own nature. But this will happen, of course, not as quickly as in the soul, just as in the soul not as quickly as in the spirit; but in due time, “at the last trumpet, when the dead are raised and we are changed” (1 Cor 15-52). And therefore we also believe in the resurrection of the flesh; not only because the soul will be restored, which is now called flesh because of bodily passions, but because even this visible flesh will be restored, which by nature is flesh and the name of which the soul received not because of its nature, but because of bodily passions. Therefore, we must believe that this visible flesh, which is properly called flesh, will certainly rise again. After all, it seems that the Apostle Paul seems to be pointing his finger at it when he says: “This corruptible must put on incorruptibility” (1 Cor 15:53). In fact, when he says this, it is as if he is pointing a finger at the flesh. After all, what is visible can be pointed with a finger. Although the soul could be called perishable; after all, she herself is corrupted by vicious morals. And when it is said: “And this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53), this denotes the same visible flesh, since it is as if the finger is constantly pointed at it. Although the soul, due to vicious morals, can be called both perishable and mortal. In fact, the death of the soul is a departure from God, which was its first sin in paradise, as written in the Holy Scriptures. 24. Thus, according to Christian faith, which cannot be mistaken, the body will be resurrected. This seems incredible to those who pay attention to what kind of flesh is now, but cannot imagine what it will be like. Indeed, during the coming angelic change there will no longer be flesh and blood, but simply a body. In fact, when the Apostle talks about the flesh, he says: “There is one kind of flesh among beasts, another among fishes, and another among birds. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (1 Cor 15:39–40). He did not say: and the flesh of heaven; but he said: “both heavenly and earthly.” Indeed, all flesh is at the same time a body, but not every body is also flesh at the same time. First of all, [this is so] among earthly creatures, since wood is a body, not flesh; the body of a person or a beast is also flesh at the same time. And the heavenly beings have no flesh at all, but have simple and radiant bodies, which the Apostle calls “spiritual” (1 Cor 15:44), and some call them ethereal. Therefore, the resurrection of the flesh does not contradict what he said: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). By this he rather predicted what it would be like to be what is now flesh and blood. Anyone who does not believe that this flesh can be transformed into such a nature must be brought to faith gradually. After all, if you ask him whether earth can turn into water, then thanks to their similarity it will not seem incredible to him. Again, if you ask whether water can [turn] into air, he will not answer that this is absurd, because they are similar to each other. And if they ask about air whether it can be transformed into an ethereal, that is, a celestial body, then the very similarity convinces [him of this]. Therefore, if he agrees that gradually through intermediate stages it can happen that the earth is transformed into an ethereal body, then why does he not believe that by the will of God, thanks to which the human body could walk on the waters, this can happen speedily, or, as it is said, “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52), without any intermediate stages, just as smoke usually turns into fire with amazing speed? Although our flesh [consists] of earth, the philosophers themselves, whose evidence most often refutes the resurrection of the flesh (and they claim that no earthly body can be in heaven), [these philosophers themselves] declare that any body can turn and change into any other body. Once the resurrection of the body is accomplished, we will be free from the conditions of time and will enjoy eternal life, unspeakable love, immutability and incorruptibility. After all, then what is written will come true: “Death is swallowed up in victory. Death! where is your sting? Death! where is your victory? (1 Cor 15:54–55) 41. 25. This faith, which is contained in a few words in the Symbol, is given to modern Christians so that they adhere to it. These few words became known to the faithful, so that by believing they would obey God; by obeying, we would live correctly; living correctly, they would purify their hearts and with a pure heart they would know what they believe in 42. Augustine's text coincides with the LXX [ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε. Augustine: /Nisi credideritis, non intellegetis/. – Editorial office of “ABC of Faith”]. To the Synod. trans.: “If you do not believe, it is because you are not certified.” With the help of this quote, St. Augustine substantiates his philosophical teaching about the relationship between faith and reason. See Fokin A. “From the history of Western theology: St. Augustine of Hippo” Most likely, this refers to theologians who were influenced by Platonic philosophy, for example, Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian wrote his treatise of the same name. The text of St. Augustine does not coincide with the LXX and the Synod. trans.: “(for Thy almighty hand), which created the world from unimaginable matter.” ["ex materia invisa" . tsl.: “from an ugly substance.” LXX: ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” ] Apparently, we are talking about the idea of peace in the Mind of God. For more details, see the specified article about St. Augustine. An echo of the pre-Nicene teaching about the Word of God, which places the existence of God the Son in close connection with the action and manifestation of God the Father in the created world. The text of St. Augustine is close to the LXX; to the Synod. trans.: “It quickly spreads from one end to the other and arranges everything for the benefit.” This is a common argument used in polemics with the Arians by many Holy Fathers, in particular St. Athanasius the Great. This refers to medal-winning monarchs. See Quintus Septimius Florent Tertullian. Against Praxeus / Alpha and Omega. 2001. No. 1(27), 2(28) The text of St. Augustine is close to the LXX. In Synod, trans.: “The Lord made me the beginning of His path.” An expression used by the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council and Saint Athanasius, emphasizing the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. That is, perfect in time. This refers to Christological heresies - Docetism, Apollinarianism, Manichaeism, etc. St. Augustine uses here the well-known patristic argument: “what is not received is not healed (saved).” See, for example, St. Gregory the Theologian. Epistle 3 to Kledonius This refers to the teaching of Apollinaris. This refers to the Docetes and Manichaeans. The teaching about the mediation of the rational part of the soul during the incarnation of the Word of God is found in St. Gregory the Theologian, see his Words 38 and 45. (St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Op. Vol. 1. pp. 526, 667). The reading “because of one’s unrighteous deeds” is taken from the critical apparatus of the present edition; in the main text: “because of unrighteousness, labors.” The reading “will shine” is taken from the critical apparatus of this edition; in the main text: “will be.” Synod. Translation: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God. There is only one Lord." Ex Patre per Filium dono Spiritus Sancti. A similar expression is also often found among the Eastern Fathers of the Church and means the unity of the natural action of all the Persons of the Holy Trinity, which begins from the Father as the Source, is carried out through the Son and is brought to fullness and perfection by the Holy Spirit (see, for example, the 1st Epistle to Serapion of St. Athanasius the Great (St. Athanasius the Great. Creations. Vol. 3. M., 1994. P. 41); book “On the Holy Spirit” by St. Basil the Great (Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1911. P. 607), etc.). The text of St. Augustine, apart from the word order, is closer to the Greek than the Synod. trans.: “For all things are from Him, through Him and to Him.” To the Synod. trans.: “For all things are from Him, by Him and to Him.” The last expression είς αυτόν (“towards Him”) can also be translated “into Him”, “in Him”, since in the New Testament Greek the distinction between the prepositions εις “in, towards” and εν “in” is erased. As for the order of expressions in the quotation, below in § 19 Augustine gives the correct order. It should be noted that this place was traditionally considered by the Holy Fathers as an indication of the Holy Trinity. This same “water” image was already used by Tertullian as an analogy for the Holy Trinity; see the indicated translation of his treatise “Against Praxeus”. Wed. John 10:30. In particular, such a distinction was already made by Tertullian. See the indicated translation of his treatise “Against Praxeus”. Augustine's text is closer to the Greek. To the Synod. Transl.: “From the beginning I am.” The hypostatic properties listed here by Augustine are often found among the Eastern Holy Fathers, in particular the Cappadocians, and the main point here is the idea of ​​​​the monarchy of God the Father. An expression apparently introduced by St. Hilary of Pictavia as a Latin analogue of the Greek concept ομοούσιος “consubstantial.” It is identical with another Latin term, consubstantialis, used in the Creed (see § 16 above). B Synod. lane (Greek): “The head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” The same teaching about the monarchy of God the Father is characteristic of the Cappadocians, see, for example, “St. Gregory the Theologian”. Sermon 20, 29, 40 / St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Decree. op. T. 1. pp. 301–302, 423, 572. In particular, this refers to St. Hilary of Pictavia. In fact, in this place the Apostle speaks of the “gift of God’s grace,” which belongs to all the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and is not identified with any one Person. These words of Blessed Augustine clearly show that at that time (c. 393) he did not allow a double source of the essential existence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not allow a double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (filioque). However, Augustine subsequently moved away from this true understanding of the origin of the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity and began to teach that the source of the essential existence of the Holy Spirit is both the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds simultaneously (see his treatise “On the Trinity” (PL 42, 1057–1098), book 15). It should be noted that elements of Augustine's later teaching are already noticeable in this treatise (see below). A quo est genitus. The word genitus “born” here apparently means “arisen, occurred.” The grammatical structure of the phrase does not allow us to attribute this expression to the Son. This particular theological opinion, along with the idea of ​​St. Hilary of Pictavia about the Holy Spirit as a Gift (munus), contains the premises of the doctrine of filioque; see Augustine's treatise "On the Trinity", book. 15. In the treatise “On the Creed” Augustine seems to distance himself from this teaching, but in fact defends it, see further § 20. Or stability, ad permanendum. That is, Blessed Augustine wants to say that the subject of this statement is God, and the predicate is the Spirit, and not vice versa, which, according to Augustine, points to the Holy Spirit as the Divine nature itself, which is actually common to all three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. This idea of ​​the Holy Spirit as a connection between the Father and the Son, supported by a psychological analogy in the treatise “On the Trinity,” is alien to the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity and is also one of the arguments in favor of the doctrine of the filioque. This well-known Augustinian teaching about the coincidence in God of essence and properties, substance and accidents also differs decisively from the Orthodox teaching on this issue; For more details, see the mentioned article about St. Augustine. This refers to the Donatists, who, like the Montanists and Novatians, denied the possibility of repentance after baptism. From this we can conclude that at that time (c. 393) Blessed Augustine did not yet deny the participation of human free will in the very act of faith in God, as he later did. So in some early Greek manuscripts. To the Synod. trans.: “Death! where is your sting? Hell! where is your victory? Quod credunt intelligunt. This is one of the main provisions of St. Augustine’s teaching on the relationship between faith and reason, which passed into medieval Latin theology. You might be interested in: