By the Resurrection of Christ, Death is defeated, but not stopped... Defeated, for all will be resurrected. It has not ceased, for all die, and will die until the circle of sensual time is completed. And then the shift will stop. This transient and transient time will stop, for "the need to come into being will pass away, and there will be no more that which can be destroyed"—"there will no longer be the force that brings into existence and destruction." Then the resurrection will take place, and nature will be transformed into some other state of life. Until this period, until the expiration of the Great Seven Days, the action of death continues. Death is the separation of soul and body, and the body left by the soul is dissolved into its constituent elements — each component part of the body returns to a homogeneous element, but not a single particle is destroyed, does not turn into nothing, does not go beyond the boundaries of the world, but remains in it... This is decay, but not death, not a transition into non-existence. "The body does not disappear completely, but dissolves into the parts of which it is composed, and these parts of it exist in water, in air, in earth, and in fire... And in these elements, the parts of the human body that have returned to them remain completely intact." At the same time, the particles of the body retain special signs that testify to their belonging to a particular body — the soul leaves its special seal on them, as on wax. Following Origen, Gregory calls this seal imposed by the soul on the corporeal elements which it unites into its body, the "appearance" or "form," είδος, it is the inner image, idea, or form of the body. It does not change in the transformations of life, it is the unique and discriminating, ideal face of man. Only in heavy, passionate falls is it distorted, or rather, "covered by an alien mask," by the ugliness of illness. By this "appearance" in the resurrection the soul "recognizes its body as a garment different from others"... In death, in this process of disintegration of the living wholeness of man, the soul is not affected, for being simple and uncomplicated, it cannot disintegrate... The soul is immortal and extends into eternity. In death, only the way of its existence changes. First of all, its connection with the decaying body is not broken—the soul finds its "cognitive power" with all its elements, like a kind of guardian, "without any difficulty knows the location of each particle of the whole body that once belonged to it"... And in the soul there remain certain "signs of unity," a certain "bodily sign," imprinted in the soul like a seal impression. This is a new image of the connection between the soul and the body, however, similar to the image of union that exists during life, when the soul, as a kind of "living force," penetrates all parts of the body evenly and uniformly and animates them. The soul during earthly life has some kind of natural friendship and love for its cohabitant, the body, and this friendship and "acquaintance" is secretly preserved in the afterlife. And this living connection is incomprehensible to us – of course, this is not the spatial distribution of the soul – the soul is not located in any special place of the body – it is not spatial – and therefore space does not limit it – "the soul freely extends throughout all creation by the movements of thought", sometimes ascending to heavenly miracles. "The communion of the mind with the corporeal," says St. Gregory, "consists in a kind of ineffable and inconceivable contact: it does not take place within, because the incorporeal is not held by the body, and does not encompass from without, because the incorporeal does not surround anything." The mind is nowhere, not in any part of the body, neither in all nor outside — "but in such a way that it is impossible to say or imagine it"... Therefore, the spatial dispersion of the particles of the dead body does not interfere with the knowledge and connection of the soul with them: "spiritual and non-extended nature does not experience the consequences of distance"... This connection between soul and body has a strictly individual character, and therefore St. Gregory considers the teaching of the transmigration of souls absurd. Death is a special stage of the human path, a moment in the formation or, better to say, in the restoration of a person. "After all, the Creator did not predespose us to remain in the form of embryos," says Gregory. "And the purpose of our nature is neither the state of infancy, nor the ages that follow it, which successively clothe us, changing our species in the course of time, nor, finally, the destruction of the body that occurs on account of death, but all these and the like are parts of the path that we walk... And the goal and limit of this pilgrimage is the restoration to the ancient state"... Death is the path and the path of transformation into the better... In death, the soul, freed from the body, is more conveniently likened to its kindred beauty. It is as if the body is remelted and purified in the earth, cleansed of vicious passions and addictions, freed from the needs connected with the conditions of this life, and in general changed in order to be recreated for another life. "The artist of everything melts down the lump of our body into the weapon of benevolence," concludes St. Gregory. This is a time of waiting and preparation, for resurrection and judgment. And it is already a kind of judgment. For not everyone has the same fate, not everyone walks the same path... The difference relates to souls. The righteous receive praise, the sinners receive punishment. But there are also those who are given a certain middle place, neither with the honored, nor with the punished... To this unresolved category Gregory includes those who were baptized before death and therefore did not have time to bear fruit, "infants who were prematurely snatched away by death" and therefore did not bring anything with them and did not receive any recompense — "moreover, due to their lack of development and ignorance, they are incapable of participating in the blessings of true life"... Incidentally, this is a new manifestation of how much Gregory of Nyssa valued the dynamism and feat of empirical life... They still have to develop... — The righteous ascend to heaven, the sinners descend to hell. Although Gregory speaks of heaven and hell as places, and even distinguishes between different kinds of heavenly dwellings, in the final analysis he considers the concept of "place" to be only a metaphor, for "the soul, being incorporeal by nature, has no need to dwell in any places"... Rather, they are images of existence, and images of being that cannot be described and defined, "do not obey the power of words and are inaccessible to the divination of reason"... In his teaching about the world beyond the grave, Gregory spoke in the language of Origen, and from Origen he also received this geography of the world beyond the grave. From Origen he also borrows the idea of the afterlife as a path. However, it agrees with his basic idea of human life as a path — beyond the grave the journey continues, — and continues to infinity... Heavenly blessings, which aphids do not corrupt, "not only remain always, but like seeds, increase in every way." First, "there is no limit that can stop the growth of heavenly bliss," and the benefits sought "are always equally higher and superior than the power of those who are exalted"... Secondly, it is characteristic of the soul to strive, and beyond the grave nothing opposes this attraction – it becomes light and free, the soul rises higher and higher. "And she will always make a flight to the highest, constantly renewing the effort to fly by the very thing that she has already achieved." In this ascent there is order and sequence, in accordance with the measure of capacity for each soul, that is, with the measure of its striving for the Good. This is a height similar to the growth of infants... These blessings are the contemplation of God... It is not accessible to the wicked, they are spiritually blind, and therefore inevitably find themselves outside of life and bliss — they are banished into utter darkness... They bring with them the stench of the flesh, with which they have been soaked from a long life in carnal passions... Of course, we are talking about unrepentant sins, but only on earth does confession have power, and in hell it is not... In particular, St. Gregory speaks of the souls of the unbaptized, unsealed, "bearing no sign of the Lord." "It is natural," he thinks, "that such a soul will whirl in the air, wandering, rushing hither and thither, unchallenged by anyone, as having no Master, desiring peace and shelter, and not finding, grieving in vain, fruitlessly repenting"... The torment of the sinner, according to St. Gregory, is first of all in his nakedness and hunger, in the deprivation of blessings. At the same time, it is fire, the "furnace of Gehenna," the "undying worm," both inextinguishable fire and "utter darkness." These are all metaphors and symbols that point to spiritual realities. This is also a process, a continuation of the earthly path, and again a path – the path of purification. The mysterious fire of hell, in the opinion of St. Gregory, is the fire of purification and baptism, — "there is in fire and in water a certain purifying power," those who are not worthy of purification through the mysterious water "are of necessity purified by fire"... There is healing in the future life as well. The afterlife of impure and unrepentant souls is a kind of healing, cleansing from evil... In the fire burn the empty plans of life. This is not an external or violent process. And in hellish healing, the domineering freedom of man is observed. Repentance is awakened by fire, and the soul, attached to the material, suddenly sees the unexpected and recognizes the vainness of all that it has striven for, and repents with tears... As Gregory says, it clearly "recognizes the difference between virtue and vice, from the impossibility of being a partaker of the Divine." For it is natural for the soul to strive for God. And when she turns away from evil, she is met by God, "appropriating and attracting to Himself everything that only through His mercy came into being"... In other words: beyond the threshold of death, sinful deception is dissipated. And the revelation of the truth shakes the soul. And it turns "with all necessity" — the stubbornness of the evil will weakens and is exhausted. St. Gregory cannot imagine that the evil stubbornness of the created will, turned into non-existence, will be infinite. He considers such extreme folly of the will to be excluded and improbable, especially when the bonds of matter fall or are loosened, which seems to him incompatible with the God-like nature of man. "Not forever," says Gregory, "does the passionate desire for that which is alien to nature remain in nature... Everyone is satiated and burdened by what is not peculiar to him, with which nature itself had no communion in the beginning. Only that which is akin and homogeneous remains desired and loved forever"... "Evil is not so powerful," Gregory argues, "that it can overcome the good power and folly of our nature no higher or stronger than Divine Wisdom... And it is impossible for the perverse and changeable to be higher and stronger than that which is always identical and firmly established in the good"... This is the necessity of the process, the "necessity" of free circulation. And conversion opens up the possibility of healing, fiery burning from sin, "from impurities" and "material excrescences", "from the remnants of fleshly fast ice"... This is a painful process, but a healing process. St. Gregory compares this cleansing to cutting off warts or calluses. But this is too pale an image. Purification is division and judgment — God's love irresistibly draws to itself the God-like nature. But this attraction is easy only for the pure. Torment in bifurcation: the soul, entangled in addiction to material and earthly things, "suffers and is in a tense state, when God draws His property to Himself, and what is alien to it, as to a certain extent grown together with it, destroys by force, and causes it unbearable painful suffering"... The purifying task of torment determines its duration and measure, the "duration of healing"... "The measure of suffering is the amount of evil found in each person." And from this it necessarily follows that the torment will end, for the "quantity" of evil, the "quantity of matter" in the soul of the sinner cannot be infinite, since infinity is not characteristic of evil. Sooner or later, over a long period of time, the exterminating power of fire will destroy all impurity and evil. This healing with "fire and bitter medicines" may turn out to be very long, "commensurate with eternity" or "eternal time," but all this is time. St. Gregory of Nyssa definitely distinguishes between the expressions: άιώνιος from άιών and άίδιος from άεί, and never applies the second to torture, just as he does not apply the first to blessedness and to the Divine Good itself. ̉Αεί means super-temporality and timelessness, "immeasurability by centuries and immobility in time"... This is the realm of the Divine. And creation dwells in time, "measured by the distance of ages"... Άιών means precisely temporality, something in time. This is precisely the key to Gregory's alleged self-contradiction, when he proves the temporality of torment with the texts of Scripture that speak of "eternity." This is the eternity of time, all-temporality, but all-temporality is not super-temporality. And it is not necessary to ascribe to Gregory the idea that the Scriptures only prophesy about eternal torment, in case of impenitence. This would not have been enough for him, for the finitude of purification is for him a fundamental and self-evident truth, and it cannot but end. Pedagogical interpretation does not solve the problem either. The main thing for Gregory is the necessary finitude of all created things in his only created things. Thus, time, as the realm of death (for there can be dying only in time and in change), is at the same time the realm of purification, the purification of man through death for eternity. The body is purified through decomposition into the elements, the soul is purified and matures in the mysterious abodes and paths. And when the time is fulfilled, it will cease, the Lord will come, the resurrection and judgment will take place. This will be the first recovery.

Time will end someday, when the inner measure of the universe is fulfilled, and further emergence will no longer be possible, and therefore the flow of time will be unnecessary. "When our nature in a certain order and connection completes a complete turn of time," says St. Gregory, "this fluid movement, accomplished by the succession of those who are born, will certainly cease"... The meaning of the movement of time is precisely in human births, in which the "fullness of humanity" predestined by God is realized. "In the increase in the number of souls," says Gregory, "reason must necessarily foresee a stop, so that there is no endless flow in nature, which always flows in births and does not stop" — the measure and limit belong to the perfection of nature... "And when this birth of men ceases, then time will end with it, and thus the renewal of the universe will be accomplished." It is not only exhaustion — what has begun will end — but it is precisely fulfillment, fulfillment, gathering—the realization of fullness, the gathering and reunion of fullness. The seven days of fluid time will come to an end, and the day will come, "the great day of the age to come" — a new life will come — "constant and inviolable, unchangeable neither by birth nor by corruption"... Christ will come again and the general resurrection will take place. The Lord will come for the sake of resurrection, "to restore the dead to incorruption." He will come in glory, adorned by the thousands of angels who worship Him as King — "all the worldly creation will worship Him," "the fullness of all the angels, rejoicing in the calling of people back to the original grace." This calling is the resurrection, the restoration and fulfillment of fullness, the gathering of creation, "and all creation will be united in one rejoicing from the lands below and on high"... This gathering will begin with the resurrection of the dead. It is the bodies that will be resurrected, for the soul does not die, but the bodies decompose. The soul will not be resurrected, but will return—"souls will return again from the invisible and scattered state to the visible and self-collected." This is the restoration of the whole man, "the return of the separated to an indissoluble union." In this way the bodies are restored to the primitive beauty of all men, and there will be no bodily distinction between the virtuous and the vicious. However, this does not mean that there will be no difference between the purified and the uncleansed, but it is a difference in their inner fate and condition. The fate of people after death is purification. With the resurrection for all, the purification, renewal and restoration of the body ends. But the purification of souls for others will continue. Here a certain duality is revealed in the thought of St. Gregory, apparently because he preserves Origen's schemes, rejecting the basic ideas of Origen. In his opinion, resurrection is precisely restoration, "the restoration of the Divine image to its primitive state," a new introduction to paradise... However, the main thing is not yet restored – impurity still remains, only the deadness engendered by sin is cut off. The soul is not already healed in everyone, but in it is precisely the image of God... True apocatastasis is separated from the resurrection and pushed somewhere forward; And this turns out to be contradictory and unexpected — after all, time has ended and the flow of time has stopped. Humanity has not yet been introduced into paradise, only righteous people have been introduced, and unpurified souls cannot enter there, because paradise is purity. If we expect times of universal restoration to be fulfilled, it cannot be divided into parts, for by this division the wholeness and completeness are violated. For Origen there was no contradiction, since for him the "resurrection of the dead" was not the final restoration, it was not the fulfillment of universal destiny, but only a transitional and turning point in the lasting course of centuries. And for Origen, bodily fate is not yet decided by the resurrection, which will be followed by empirical life in future ages. Origen's physical and spiritual fate is not torn apart. Gregory repeats Origen, although the meaning of the main eschatological moments in his understanding is different. Time is over, the last time is done; And now it turns out that it did not happen... The indivisible fate of man is divided; and at the same time it remains incomprehensible how the body can be incorruptible and radiant, if it is ensouled and revived by a soul that has not yet been purified (if it has been converted), and therefore is still dead and as it were smouldering: through such a soul the power of Divine life cannot act, and the body itself, without a soul, is dead and is a corpse. Incidentally, Origen consistently distinguished between the bodies of the righteous and the sinners, although this is connected with his idea of the progressive overcoming of all corporeality... One of two things. Either the resurrection is the restoration of fullness, it is a "catholic resurrection," as St. Gregory says; And then the process ceases, — it does not matter whether all are cleansed or not all, and sinners fall under eternal (i.e., timeless) torment, — so thought St. John the Great. Maximus the Confessor. Or the resurrection is not yet restoration, so thought Origen. St. Gregory also repeats Origen in that which is no longer logically compatible with the changed prerequisites. Origen's scheme cracks and disintegrates into contradictions. Gregory of Nyssa tried in vain to combine in a single synthesis the eschatology of Origen and the eschatology of Methodius of Olympia, from whom he borrowed the doctrine of the resurrection... St. St. Gregory compares the resurrection with the germination of seeds, with the blossoming of trees, with the origin of the human organism from the seed – this is an analogy that has long been in Christian circulation. "Thus, according to the words of the Apostle," he reminds us, "the mystery of the resurrection is already clarified through that which is wonderful in the seeds"... "Ear" and "seed" are the favorite images of St. Gregory. Gregory emphasizes two motives. First, all development begins with a formless state—"the seed, being formless in the beginning, built up by the ineffable art of God, is formed into an outline and grows into a dense body." In the same way, there is nothing exceptional in the germination of the seeds of a dead body and in the restoration of the former form, "from the whole human substance"... Secondly, all germination is accomplished through decay and death, and there is a kind of resurrection, a victory over death. The bond between soul and body in an individual organic unity makes resurrection possible, but it is the power of God that resurrects, just as the power of God imparts to all nature the capacity for birth, renewal, and life. The Resurrection is a miracle of Divine omnipotence, but a miracle in accordance with the fundamental laws of nature is a new manifestation of the universal mystery of life. Therefore, the resurrection is a kind of fulfillment, the fulfillment of nature. And, on the one hand, the same bodies will be resurrected, otherwise there would be no resurrection, but a new creation. Resurrected bodies are composed of former elements, collected from everywhere by the life-giving power of the soul. "Thus, because of the attraction of the various elements by the single power of the soul... then the soul will weave the chain of our body"... On the other hand, the resurrection is not a return to the former life and to the former way of existence, for that would be the greatest misfortune, and then it would be better not to have the hope of the resurrection. The resurrection is the restoration of the whole man, and therefore the renewal, the transition to the better and fuller, nevertheless passes over to the same body. Not only the unity of the subject is preserved, but also the identity of the substratum, not only the individual identity of the person, but also the continuity of matter. This is not disturbed by its renewal and its transformation. "The bodily veil destroyed by death," says Gregory, "will again be woven from the same substance... But not in this coarse and heavy composition, but in such a way that its thread will consist of something light and airy, which is why it will be restored to its best and most desirable beauty." The same one who lies in the tomb returns to life, and no one else, the same with himself... But he returns different... After all, earthly life is also a constant change and renewal – "human nature is like a kind of stream," remarks Gregory. And this does not turn a person into a "crowd of people". A person will be resurrected not at one age, but not at all at once. For the very concept of age is removed by the resurrection and does not belong to the primordial nature. "In the first life there was probably no old age, no childhood, no suffering from various diseases, no other miserable bodily condition, because it is not in God's nature to create anything like this... All this has invaded us along with the entrance of vice"... And therefore all this is not subject to, but does not hinder the integral resurrection. Only nature is resurrected, but not the admixture of vice and passion. This is the essence of renewal, liberation from the heritage and traces of an evil life, a life of evil. Resurrection is a transfiguration into incorruption and immortality, and therefore it is a victory over death. An ear grows tall, branchy, straight and stretching into the heavenly heights... Nothing connected with illness, decrepitude, or deformity is resurrected. Neither senile wrinkles, nor mutilations, nor infantile immaturity are resurrected. And moreover, in the resurrected bodies there will be no organs and parts connected with the needs of this sinful life – "death will cleanse the body of what is superfluous and unnecessary for the enjoyment of the future life"... This applies to the organs of nutrition and in general to the functions of plant life associated with the rotation of matter and growth. First of all, to the difference between the sexes. In general, all coarse materiality is overcome and the weight of the flesh disappears. The body becomes light, striving upwards... And in general, all the properties of the body—color, appearance, outline, etc.—are "transformed into something Divine"... Impenetrability disappears, accidental differences are removed, "which our nature now necessarily has from the successive change of its states." In this sense, Gregory says that in the resurrection all will take on one form: "we will all become one body of Christ, having taken on one image and form, because in all the light of the Divine image will shine in the same way"... This means that the appearance will be determined from within: "the distinctive appearance will be communicated to everyone not by the elements, but by the peculiarities of vice and virtue." But this does not mean that everyone will be the same. Thus, resurrection is, on the one hand, a restoration to the original state, and on the other, it is not only a return, but also a gathering of all that has happened in a past life. Not only άποκατάστασις, but also recapitulatio... It should be emphasized that for Gregory of Nyssa the concept of apocatastasis did not have the same meaning as for Origen, precisely because he did not recognize the pre-existence of souls. Restoration is not a return to the past, but the realization of what has not been realized, or, more precisely, the completion of what has not been completed, is fulfillment, not oblivion. This applies first of all to the body: it is not abolished, but transformed, and thus achieves its destination; to be the mirror of the soul.

The resurrection is followed by judgment. And the judgment of all, the judgment of the universe. The Son of God will come again for judgment. For judgment is given to the Son. But the Father also judges through the Son. And to it, in fact, "belongs everything done by the Only-begotten during the Last Judgment." However, the Son of man judges, and as if on the basis of his personal experience measures the circumstances and difficulties of human life, "and whether each one has experienced many good or evils for a long time, or whether he has not touched the beginning of both at all, since he ended his life in an imperfect mind"... This is the judgment of Divine love rather than of God's Truth. However, the judgment is just, i.e., exactly proportionate to the merits of each; and Christ is "the righteousness of God, revealed by the gospel"... In a sense, everyone will be his own judge. Having awakened in the resurrection, each will remember his whole life and give a fair assessment of it – everyone will appear at the judgment with full consciousness of both merit and guilt. At the judgment, as in an exact mirror, everything will be reflected... — In the judgment, the equal glory of the Son will be revealed. The judgment will be universal, before the royal throne of the Son will gather and appear "the entire human race, from the first creation to the fullness of those brought into being"... And with him the devil and his angels will be brought to trial, "then," says Gregory, "the author of the rebellion, who dreamed of the dignity of the Lord, will appear before the eyes of all as a servant constantly scourged, dragged by the angels to execution, and all the servants and accomplices of his wickedness will be subjected to punishments and executions befitting them." The last deception will be revealed, and the one real King will appear, who will be recognized and sung by both the vanquished and the victors. — On the Last Judgment of St. St. Gregory says comparatively little, although he paints vivid images of the terrible day, but this is more homiletic poetry than theology in the proper sense. In the eschatological perspectives of St. Gregory, the judgment does not occupy a central place. And this is understandable. Judgment is not the final decision of fate. This is only a preliminary summary of history, a mirror of the past, and only the beginning of the eighth day, in which the process continues. Only the resurrection is final, on the one hand, the appearance of Christ in glory, on the other. The judgment of the Son is not so much a decision as a revelation of all human deeds and thoughts. There is little new at the trial itself. The blessedness of the righteous is determined by the resurrection. The torments of sinners begin before the resurrection and will continue after the judgment. The whole point of the idea of judgment is to wait for it. The thought of judgment is a factor in our present religious and moral success—"the future judgment for weak people is a threat and an increase in sorrow, so that by the fear of painful retribution we may be wise to avoid evil." "This strict judgment seat is vividly depicted in words for nothing else than to teach us the benefits of charity," remarks Gregory. In the doctrine of the Last Judgment, Gregory repeats Origen.

St. Gregory taught about "universal restoration." "Everyone is expected to share in the benefits," he said. Some achieve this already by the podvig of earthly life. Others must pass through the fire of purification. However, in the end, "after long periods of centuries, vice will disappear and nothing will remain outside the good. And this will be the complete return of all rational beings to the primordial state in which they were created, when there was no evil"... One day it will happen that "evil will disappear from the realm of existence and will again become bearing"... There will be no trace of evil; and then, Gregory believes, "God-like beauty will shine again in all, by which we were formed from the beginning"... "There was a time," says Gregory, "that rational nature was a single assembly, and through the fulfillment of the commandments it brought itself into harmony with the harmony which its Chief established by His movement. But after the intruding sin had disturbed the Divine harmony of the assembly, and after it had poured under the feet of the first men, who were one with the angelic powers, something which had made them inclined to deceit, thereby led them to fall, and man was deprived of communion with the angels, so that through the fall their unanimity ceased, — after this the fallen man needed much labor and sweat, so that, having overcome and freed himself from the power that had been extended over him during the fall, he would rise up again — and receive as a reward for the victory over the enemy the right to participate in the Divine exultation"... In this exultation, the human and angelic natures will unite together and form a kind of "Divine Regiment"... A great and common feast will be revealed, at which nothing will divide the rational creature; and the lower and the higher will rejoice with common gladness, and all will bow down with one accord and praise the Father through the Son. All veils will be lifted, one joy and glory will shine in all. This final restoration will embrace everyone: all people or the whole race, all human nature. But, moreover, evil spirits; And the triumphant council will be joined in the last by the "inventor of evil" himself... And he will be healed, for in the three days of His death, the Lord healed all three vessels of evil: the devil's nature, the female sex, and the male sex. Finally, it also expels evil "from the race of serpents, in which the nature of evil found its birth in the first"... In the teaching of universal restoration, of the restoration of everything to its primordial state, St. Gregory repeats Origen. And his motives are the same. The main argument is from the omnipotence of the Good, as the only Being, as the only foundation and goal of all existence. "The counsel of God is always and in all things immutable," says St. Gregory... "In vain do you, people, be indignant and look with displeasure at this chain of the necessary sequence of things, not knowing to what end everything separate in the economy of the universe is directed, for everything is necessary in a certain order and sequence, in accordance with the true Wisdom of the Governing, to come into agreement with the Divine nature"... The opposition of good and evil in the understanding of St. Gregory is the opposition of being and will, in other words: necessary and accidental. There is no evil; it does not exist, but only happens, it happens. That which happens inevitably has an end, "that which has not always been, will not always be"... That which has arisen can be eternally preserved only through the eternal will for it, only in the eternal and existent, through participation in the Existent, through the communion of the Good. Thus the creature will be preserved; but evil cannot be preserved in this way, for it is not of God, and it is precisely "deprivation of goodness," ungoodness, i.e., non-existence. "After all, if evil does not possess the property of being outside of volition," Gregory argues, "then when all volition is in God, evil will reach its complete annihilation, for there will be nowhere for it to be"... Following Origen, St. Gregory reminds us of the Apostle's words: God will be all in all... "By this the Scriptures teach about the complete destruction of evil," Gregory explains, "for if there is God in all beings, it is evident that there will be no evil or vice in creatures"... The exclusion of someone from the total number would make the volume of all... God is in everything, which means that everything is in God, in the communion of Good. — St. Gregory sidesteps one of Origen's difficulties. For him, time is not a fall out of eternity, it is not a medium only for sin and for the fallen. He does not admit the pre-existence of an eternal creature — the creature is realized for the first time in a single historical process. This radically changes the meaning of apocatastasis — and saves the positive meaning of the story. But in St. Gregory this is weakened by another motive: God is the only worthy object of contemplation and searching, and therefore nothing created in essence has value. That is why he teaches about the last oblivion... "The remembrance of what happened after the initial prosperity and from which mankind plunged into evil, will be erased by what will finally come to pass after the lapse of time. For the remembrance of this will cease when it is finally accomplished. This means that the last restoration in Christ Jesus will completely blot out the memory of evil"... It is unlikely that it is only about evil, for it cannot be without the remembrance of evil and the memory of podvig, of victories over evil... St. St. Gregory explicitly or implicitly assumes that in God the coming creation will find everything, its entirety, to a certain self-forgetfulness, or at least to self-forgetfulness of everything that is not part of the likeness of God, so that people will see only God in each other, and in all there will be one image of God. In these correct considerations, however, there is a certain tinge of historical docetism. It is associated with the underestimation of human will. This is the reason why St. Gregory does not allow the persistence of evil. The human will cannot persist before the revelation of the Good. It is also weak in resistance. To this is added the intellectualistic motive: the will is uniquely determined by reason. Reason can only err in deception, and cannot persist in an error that has been exposed: a clear vision of the truth, according to Gregory, will necessarily determine the will to truth. In this way he combines the pathos of freedom and the motive of necessity in the concept of the necessary conversion of free will. For him, this is the basic question of eschatological theology. At the same time, the will is subject to the law of good nature. The content of the eschatological process is determined by the overcoming of the consequences of the generation of evil—this is the meaning of the purifying fire. In this respect, St. Gregory follows the Alexandrian tradition and differs from Basil the Great. It should be noted that the obscure features of Origenism can be noticed in Gregory the Theologian, the idea of fiery baptism, but not apocatastasis. Contemporaries did not speak out about the eschatology of Gregory of Nyssa. The first mention we find in St. Barsanuphius (died about 550), he believed that Gregory uncritically followed Origen. Later, St. St. Maximus the Confessor explained Gregory's teaching on apocatastasis in the sense that "restoration" refers only to the "totality of the powers of the soul," so that every soul will turn to the contemplation of God, "for it is fitting that, just as the whole of nature in the expected time through the resurrection of the flesh should receive incorruption, so the damaged powers of the soul in the course of ages should remove the evil images that are in it, and that the soul, having reached the end of the ages, and finding no rest, it came to the infinite God, and in this way, in recognition, but not in communion of blessings, it regained its strength, was restored to its primitive state, and it would become clear that the Creator is not the author of sin." Prep. Maximus distinguished: έπίγνωσις and μέθεξις — for the latter the conversion of the will is necessary. Such was his view, but St. Gregory thought differently. He did not distinguish between the obviousness of consciousness and the inclination of will... In any case, the explanation of St. Maxim did not satisfy his contemporaries. A few decades later, Patriarch Germanus spoke about the Origenistic insertions in Gregory. His opinion is quoted and accepted by Patriarch Photius. The assumption is unacceptable – the system of St. Gregory is too organically connected in itself. But on the contrary, it shows how Gregory was understood in the eighth and ninth centuries. The silence of Justinian in the well-known epistle to Pat. The minus about Gregory (as well as the silence of the Fathers of the Fifth Council) is fully explained by the historical situation: it was a question of the errors of the Origenists, who proceeded from the presupposition of Origen, the pre-existence of souls and the primordial pure spirituality of all creatures, which St. Gregory rejected. Perhaps it is no accident that the Fathers of the Council expressed themselves in their anathemas: "Who affirms the pre-existence of souls and the apocatastasis that is connected with it"... It can be thought that the universally recognized authority and holiness of Gregory of Nyssa predisposed the opponents of Origenism in the sixth century to keep silent about his views, which did not coincide, but reminded of the "impious, obscene, and criminal teaching of Origen." In any case, the Origenism of St. Gregory was reflected in his authority – he was read and referred to less often than to other, "chosen fathers"...

7. Lesser theologians of the fourth century.

I. St. Eustathius of Antioch.

1. We know little about the life of St. Eustathius. At the direction of Blzh. Jerome, he was a native of the Pamphylian city of Cid. But the year of his birth is difficult to establish—the year of his episcopal consecration is unknown, and therefore there is no data at all to judge even approximately his age. From about 319 to 320 he was bishop of Verria, in Syria, during which years, as bishop of Verra, as bishop of Verra, he received from Alexander of Alexandria a copy of his famous letter against Arius to Alexander of Thessalonica. Just before the Council of Nicaea, Eustathius was elected to the Antiochian cathedra. The Arian turmoil had already heated up, and Eustathius was immediately drawn into the struggle. He was apparently not universally recognized in Antioch... At the Council of Nicaea, St. Eustathius was one of the main defenders of consubstantiality. This explains the subsequent struggle of the anti-Nicaeans against him. In Antioch, Eustathius waged an intense struggle with the Arians and the Arians, including a literary one. Ancient authors highly valued his dogmatic activity, and Athanasius called him a "confessor." Enmity boiled around him and suspicion soon hung over him. in Sabeilancy. In the year 330 a rather large council was assembled at Antioch, with Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea at its head, who had returned from exile, and at it Eustathius was deposed, "in fact," says Sozomen, "because he approved of the Nicene faith." It is difficult to decide what pretext was put forward for cover. Eustathius was exiled "to the western borders of the state" and went into exile with a multitude of clergymen. The place of exile is not known exactly. In 337, when all the exiled Nicaeans were returned from exile, Eustathius was no longer alive.

Eustathius was a prolific writer. Of his numerous works, only an extensive exegetical treatise has been fully preserved: "On the Ventriloquist" (against Origen). Only a few fragments of his other books have survived, the authenticity of which is still debated. Theodoret speaks of Eustathius' commentary on the disputed text of Proverbs (see 8:22) and quotes a passage from the introduction. Other writers have preserved 15 more excerpts from this interpretation. Excerpts from the explanation of some psalms have been preserved. Eustathius is the author of an extensive denunciation against the Arians, in no less than 8 books, of which only a few excerpts have been preserved in Facundus and in the library of Photius. Apparently, for the most part, this denunciation also had an exegetical character. Jerome also called the book "On the Soul," of which eleven fragments have been preserved by various writers, and it was apparently written against the Arians. Jerome speaks of "a great multitude of letters" — they have not been preserved. It is hardly possible to consider the recently published discourse on the resurrection of Lazarus to belong to Eustathius. All the other works attributed to St. Eustathius do not belong to him. Apparently, the literary activity of Eustathius was connected primarily with anti-Arian polemics. He was well prepared for this—he combined serious philosophical erudition with his knowledge of the Scriptures.

As an exegete, Eustathius was a resolute opponent of allegorism and relied primarily on the "letter of the narrative." He makes extensive use of biblical parallels, and in particular shows that the speech of Samuel, who appeared in Endor, is composed of his earliest prophecies about Saul. He analyzes the text in detail and sensitively. Eustathius speaks ironically of Origen: instead of drawing the image of the long-suffering Job as an example of patience, "he spent his time like an old woman, turning lightly to the names of his daughters"...

Only the Christology of Eustathius can be judged with perfect clarity. Strangely, we do not have detailed data on his Trinitarian theology. In Christology, Eustathius dwelt with particular force on the revelation of the fullness of human nature. He speaks of two natures. By Divine nature, Christ is of one essence with the Father, and being a "separate person" He remains invariably with the Father. He is the Divine Word and Wisdom, and through Him all things were created, "the Most Divine Son of the Living God," born of the uncreated essence of the Father, the most sincere Image of the Father. Against the Docetists, Eustathius spoke of the reality of the Incarnation, against the Arians, of the human soul of Christ: "The rational soul of Jesus is of one essence with the souls of men, just as the flesh proceeding from Mary is of one essence with the flesh of men." Of the human nature of the Incarnate Word he usually says: "the man Christ" or "the man of Christ"... The man-Christ is "the image of the Son," the temple of Divine Wisdom and the Word, his "human abode or tabernacle"... God the Word "bears" His humanity upon Himself, "continuously" dwells in Him... The humanity of Christ in the resurrection is "exalted and glorified." This is "acquired glory," which the "God-bearing man" of Christ did not have before. In soteriology, Eustathius seems to have emphasized the moral aspect: in one passage he calls the Savior "the beginning of the most beautiful paths of righteousness." All this brings Eustathius closer to the later "Antiochian theology, to Diodorus of Tarsus, first of all—the ambiguities in the language of St. Eustathius were already noted in antiquity. However, at the Council of Ephesus, his authority was opposed to Nestorius, which clearly speaks against any attempt to attribute to Eustathius the excesses of Antiochian Dyophysitism.

II. Didymus the Blind.

Didyme lived a long life, until he was 83 or 85 years old. Approximately the years of birth and death can be established as 313 and 398. As a child, he lost his sight, but this did not prevent him from going through the usual circle of sciences and passing with such success that already in his young years he was entrusted with the leadership of the Alexandrian school (probably by Athanasius). The rest of Didyme's life was quiet and peaceful. The Arian storms somehow did not touch him. He did not live in Alexandria itself, but in the suburbs, and led a solitary life of an ascetic there. Bodily blindness predisposed to thoughtfulness. Didymus was close to the Egyptian hermits, among whom he had not a few disciples and admirers, in particular Palladius, the author of Lausaicus, and Evagrius. The ascetic and the theologian were intimately combined in Didymus: in his books, theological reasoning often overflows into prayer; And a living sense of churchliness and conciliarity always warms his thoughts. From the theologian he demands good works, concentration, piety... Didymus's life flowed monotonously, in ascetic exercises and scholarly works. Disciples flocked to him from everywhere, in particular from the West: among them should be mentioned blg. Jerome, who, however, spent only a month with Didymus (in 386), and Rufinus of Aquileia. - Didymus was not an independent thinker. He was first and foremost an erudite; but he transformed his erudition not into a speculative synthesis, but into a confession of faith. We know little about the nature of Didymus's teaching activity. Apparently, as a teacher, Didymus was first and foremost an exegete. In theology, he adhered directly to Origen, many of whose opinions he shared. However, in the doctrine of Troid, Didymus is far from Origen and free from his absurdities and inaccuracies, even Jerome categorically admitted this... In Trinitarian theology, Didymus was influenced by the Cappadocians and was especially close to Gregory the Theologian. Didymus, of course, also knew the works of Athanasius, and apparently also Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. He was also well-read in heretical literature. Contemporaries were amazed by his erudition and memory. His knowledge of the general sciences was diverse, but not profound. He often refers to ancient poets. He did not have a special taste for philosophy, he did not worry about metaphysical problems — for him (as well as for Origen) philosophy was only a theological propaedeutic. This is only Hagar. Didymus considered the abuse of philosophy to be the root of heresies – it is unlikely that Didymus did much philosophy, hardly studied the works of philosophers. He has many philosophical motifs, but he could assimilate them through the theological tradition. Of the philosophers, he held Plato in high esteem, but he treated Neoplatonism harshly. In general, Didymus was primarily a scholar of the Alexandrian type. "He died in peace, in the last years of the IV century. And only later a dispute arose around his name. He was suspected of Origenistic wrong-thinking. Blessed Jerome was the first to speak of this, with a reservation about the purity of his Trinitarian faith, and Didymus always remained an exegetical authority for him. Didymos' reputation at this time was not shaken, even in the west. Ambrose in his theology almost repeated Didymus. On blzh. Augustine, Didymus had a great influence on the doctrine of the Trinity. In Alexandria, Didymus was followed by St. Cyril. It was only in the sixth century, during the Origenistic disputes, that the question of Didymus was put directly and sharply. And at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, his eschatology was anathematized, and it remains unclear whether Didymus himself was anathematized. In any case, his name was defamed. And this entailed the almost complete disappearance of his literary heritage, of which only a few remnants survived, and for the most part, only fragments in various collections and purposes.

Didymus wrote a lot. Of Didymus's books, only his great work on the Trinity has survived in full and in the original, in the only and not very defective manuscript of the eleventh century, discovered only in 1759. The compilation of this book dates back to the old years of Didymus, to the time after the Second Ecumenical Council. Adjacent to it is the treatise On the Holy Spirit, which has survived only in the Latin translation of Jerome, a translation which, for all accuracy, does not allow us to judge Didymus' terminology. It was compiled earlier than 381. Until the eighteenth century, it was the only surviving book of Didymus. With a certain reason, it is possible to attribute to Didymus the 4th and 5th books on the Holy Spirit, preserved under the name of St. Basil; there may also be a "Discourse against Arius and Sabellius", preserved with the name of Gregory of Nyssa. — From the references of ancient authors, it is possible to restore the titles of numerous lost works of Didymus: On Dogmas, On the Death of Little Children, Against the Arians, some other book (the "first word"), etc. A special mention should be made of Didymus' book on Origen, an attempt at commentary on Origen's Elements. According to Jerome, Didymus here tried to explain Origen's teaching about the Trinity, in the Orthodox sense; but he incautiously accepted other impious opinions of the teacher: about the fall of angels, about the fall of souls, about the resurrection, about peace, about universal restoration. Rufinus used Didymus' commentary in his translation: On the Elements. "Of Didymus's exegetical works only fragments have been preserved, scattered in the later catenae, where it is not always possible to identify them with certainty—the sign: "Δι" can mean not only Didymus, but also Diodorus or Dionysius. According to the testimony of Palladius, Didymus explained the entire Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Apparently, this was the case. In any case, there are references or excerpts from Didymus' commentaries on Genesis, on Exodus, on the Books of Kings, on the prophet Isaiah, on Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah, on the Psalms, on the Book of Proverbs, on the book of Job, on Ecclesiastes and on the Song of Songs, and on the prophet Daniel. From the books of the New Testament, Didymus explained the Gospel of Matthew and John, from the Epistles of Paul to the Romans, both to the Corinthians, to the Hebrews. Didymus's commentaries were abundantly used by Jerome. And he compares him, as an exemplary exegete, with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Origen... Didymus was first of all an exegete, he thought in biblical images and phrases. His system is first of all a system of biblical truths. For him, the Bible is a divine and spiritual book, a book "anointed by God." And therefore the Old and New Testaments differ only as aspects, only "in invention." The Old Testament is a temporary tabernacle, a shadow of truth, a preparation for the fullness of the Gospel. Those who spoke in the shadows, however, did not know the truth of which they were a symbol, especially the Psalmist, the prophet Isaiah. This determines Didymus's method, which is always allegorical. Didymus sees the task of the exegete, following Origen, in revealing the highest and spiritual meaning in Scripture, to penetrate into the truth through letters, shadows, and images. This is the path of allegory or ascent of αναγωγή... In this respect he was a faithful disciple of Origen. However, he was much more attentive to the literal meaning, especially in the New Testament. Very often he dwells on philological analysis and on discrepancies.

Didymus was first and foremost a Trinitarian theologian, which is explained not only from the historical circumstances of his time, but from his personal experience. Only he who blamelessly confesses the Trinity is for him a true Christian. In the Old Testament the truth of the Trinity was not revealed, but only mysteriously indicated, perhaps only in Ps. 109 it is expressed clearly and not mysteriously. And this is the main imperfection of the Old Testament in comparison with the New. In his doctrine of God, Didymus proceeds from Origen's transcendentism. God is above all and is inaccessible even to the eyes of a seraphim. And one can speak of Him only in negations and in images. When speaking of the essence of God or of nature, it must always be emphasized that this is a pre-existent essence. Among the apophatic definitions of the Divine being, Didymus especially often names "non-quantitativeness" — this definition, apart from Didymus, is found only in Cyril of Alexandria... Therefore, reason can only marvel before God, and knowledge is possible only through revealed Scripture. However, Didymus does not remove God from the world: He is eternally moving and active in the world; in this all-pervading providence of God, Didymus sees the justification of prayerful petitions for worldly things and affairs. Didymus's Trinitarian terminology is determined by the Cappadocian influence: he speaks firmly of three hypostases and one essence. However, he still has traces of the former identification of the concepts ουσία and ύπόστασις – in particular, he repeats the Nicaean one: "from the essence of the Father". But at the same time, after the birth of the Word, he often says "from the hypostasis of the Father," which means: the birth of the Son is a hypostatic property of the Father... At the same time, Didyme's concept of hypostasis primarily emphasizes the moment of reality. Less clearly he makes the Cappadocian identification: ύπόστασις and ιδιότης. The term πρόσωπον is not used by Didymus at all. Thus, through the Cappadocian influence, he recalls the former vagueness of theological language. And in general, Didymus does not strive for clarity of formulas – this is a common Alexandrian feature. Didymus expresses the motif of the Trinitarian unity with particular sharpness, and for this he accumulates an abundance of definitions. He speaks of one Kingdom, of one State, of one Dominion, of one Will and Will. He especially emphasizes the unity of action and from this concludes about consubstantiality. This is the general idea of the Fathers of the fourth century. All these definitions converge in the concept of one Godhead, of the identity of the Godhead. Didymus speaks constantly and not only of the mutual consubstantiality of hypostases, but also of the consubstantiality of the Trinity, and from ομοούσιος he forms: όμοουσιότης. Consubstantial for him means precisely the identity of essence, – όμοούσιος he often replaces through: ταυτούσιος. On historical grounds (against the Arians), Didymus clearly emphasizes the equality of the Trinitarian hypostases. That is why he rejects the asymmetrical formula of doxology: through the Son, as giving rise to misunderstanding, it is necessary to connect the names of hypostases with a preposition. Related to this is the fact that Didymus constantly emphasizes the "dominion" of the Son and the Spirit. Didymus, following Gregory the Theologian (to whom he is generally closest among the Cappadocians), defines the hypostatic properties of the Son and the Spirit as "birth and procession." The difference between these modes of existence is unknown even to the angelic powers. At the same time, Didymus emphasizes the incommensurability of the Divine birth with the created. The Father is the one principle or root of the Godhead. Didymus does not have phrases analogous to "through the Son" in Gregory of Nyssa — he clearly speaks of the procession of the Spirit from the immortal source of the Father... This does not introduce any inequality into the Trinitarian life, and Didymus emphasizes with the last sharpness the motif of perfect equality. In the mouth of the Word he puts the following speech to the heretics: "The Father is God," they say, "and I also: for I am his Only-begotten, true, beloved Son. The Father is the Lord, and so am I, the Lord of all, the heir of the living Father, the lord of the inheritance, for I possess Mine both as the Creator and as the true Son. Through the incarnation, I became the heir. The Father is the Creator and the King, and so am I. For I said unto you, There was a King, and he made marriages unto his Son the King... The Father is unchangeable, and so am I. For it is said of me: Thou abide forever, and Thy years shall not pass away... The Father is impassible, and so am I, and I give Mine a partaker of this impassibility. The Father is without beginning, and so am I, for there has never been a time when the Father did not possess His name, the personal radiance of His glory, the image of His hypostasis, the image of His Divinity, and that is I. The Father is Life, Light, Goodness, and Power, and Truth, and Wisdom, and all that is worthy of God. And so am I, as you have heard. And I am still the Saviour, the shining sun on the righteous and the sinners, who does not return evil for evil. The Father loves men, and I love, I give Myself up for you, taking the form of a servant and suffering from you ridicule, spitting, and the cross"... It is impossible to bear witness to the consubstantiality of the Son with greater power and exaltation. In his Trinitarian theology, Didymus is completely free from Origen's temptations. He coincides with the Cappadocians. And this is not an external coincidence, not a theological agreement. In Didymus' book about the Trinity, one can feel the immediacy and brightness of contemplation, prayerful firmness. This is one of the most striking monuments of Trinitarian theology.