Индифферинтизм 40

“It is not important,” you say, “whether I am Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or Protestant, but the main thing is to be a Christian. The difference of confessions belongs to school matters; real essentiality lies in human life.” But, reasoning in this way, you seem to forget that only in Divine truth can there be a life-giving power and that, no matter what the appearance of life outside the essential truth may be, this life is certainly deceptive and false at its very root. In the history of paganism and Mohammedanism you will find many examples of people with commendable morality, but can you really conclude from this that Mohammedanism leads to salvation or even that Mohammedanism does not interfere with the salvation of a person? The Mohammedans of commendable morality led a good life in spite of the falsity of their teaching, and not because of this falsity. The contradiction between the truth of their lives and the lies of their beliefs could only be due to a lack of internal integrity in them; This same lack of inner integrity can be the cause of the bad life of a person with true convictions. From this, however, we have no right to conclude that beliefs are something completely extraneous to life. That life is blind, which does not proceed according to convictions, but is accomplished according to unconscious aspirations, not connected in the unity of consciousness. The inner darkness of such a life does not allow us to call it moral, no matter how pure it may seem on the outside. The moral dignity of actions lies not in the action itself, but in the intention: the moral dignity of the intention is determined only by its relation to the entire integrity of self-consciousness. Therefore, where this integrity does not exist, where instead of integrity there lies internal contradiction, there can be no talk of moral dignity. There are no qualities in the human heart that are absolutely virtuous; the most beautiful, most sublime movements of the soul: selfless love, indestructible firmness of will, generous self-sacrifice, fidelity to the word, the heroism of self-sacrifice - everything that a person is surprised at in a person, everything that, by its bright appearance, excites a joyful thrill of sympathy and delight - everything receives its true meaning from the root from which it comes, from that basic impulse that lies at the bottom of the human heart and determines the entire totality of its inner being. This basic impulse of the heart is made up of love and conviction. If the belief is false, then love cannot be unconditionally pure. Therefore, those wonderful qualities with which we are surprised and rejoice in a pagan, in a Mohammedan, in an unbeliever, are beautiful only in isolation from their moral character. For a moral person is not a combination of these or other qualities, but a living integrity of identity. But you will say, perhaps, that by calling the life of a person, and not his opinions, essential, you are not talking about pagans, not about Mohammedans and not about unbelievers, but you are assuming Christian life and convictions, you are only assuming that, based on general Christian convictions, special opinions about various religions have no influence on the internal dignity of human morality. But what are common Christian beliefs? Many people talk about these common beliefs, but almost everyone understands them differently. If we call general Christianity what belongs to all sects without exception that call themselves Christian, then we will have nothing left of Christianity except the most abstract concept of the Divine, and that will be so vague that it will allow the most contradictory interpretations. If we accept all sects with respect, but limit ourselves only to finding what is common between Orthodoxy, Latinism and Protestantism, then here too the mere difference in the interpretation of Protestant dogmas will lead us to almost the same uncertain conclusion. For where do we put the line between Strauss 41, Luther 42 and Calvin 43? And on what basis will we set this border? If we limit ourselves only to those dogmas and interpretations that constituted the personal concepts of the founders of the reform themselves - Luther, Calvin and Zwinglius 44, then, not to mention the fact that in modern humanity we will no longer find almost anyone who would unconditionally and unlimitedly share these concepts - but their very difference between themselves and in relation to the dogmas of Latinism and Orthodoxy is so significant and concerns such essential issues that not only faith man, but the essential meaning of his morality will be completely different depending on the difference in the confession to which he belongs. What will remain common between them is only the Book, only the letter of the New Testament - a letter that each will interpret in accordance with the peculiarities of his confession and not in accordance with the interpretation of another confession. Of course, the Divinity of this Book can, regardless of the accepted dogmas of religion, lead the human mind and heart to the knowledge of essential truth. But this knowledge, these feelings will remain shaky, inconclusive and contradictory until they close in consistent proportions into an integral circle of moral convictions. This closed circle of beliefs, this living unity of faith constitutes a person’s actual faith, which gives meaning and meaning to his life, and not that general and undeveloped vagueness of concepts from which the most heterogeneous and most contradictory interpretations can be derived. The difference in human personality depends on the national personality. In one person, conflicting opinions may not interfere with the correctness of the inner aspiration. But among the people, the relationship between dogmas and moral aspirations is significant. There is no doubt that an Orthodox Christian, an adherent of the Latin Church, and a follower of Protestant teachings can sympathize with each other in many ways, even in many respects related to the objects of faith. But this sympathy can only be alive as long as it remains undeveloped, i.e. until it reaches the depths of the core beliefs of the mind and heart. There, at the bottom of the soul, everyone will find his own inner world, unanimously and closely uniting him with his brothers of the same faith and separating him with an indestructible wall from adherents of other confessions, for the general conclusions of each confession, not only theological, but also philosophical and moral, are completely different, so that the very first, most dominant, most decisive guarantees of inner life, those fundamental convictions where the mind and heart merge into one governing force - each of them will have special and incompatible with others, contradictory. “What is important is not the school definitions, which systematically designate the peculiarities of each creed; Because of school definitions, I would not want to argue with my brothers - what is important are living convictions that control the soul, for which these school definitions serve as an abstract expression.” It is true that many, one might say even the majority of people, repeat the teachings of their faith unconsciously, not noticing the connection that exists between an abstract symbol and living faith. It is even possible, while sincerely professing one creed, to belong to another by the direction of your mind and the disposition of your soul, without noticing it. I will say more, you can be a Christian in mind, but in heart and life an unbeliever or pagan. But such contradictions, arising from human weakness, have no relation to the merit or unworthiness of his creed. Where a person agrees with himself and is consistent in his convictions, there a special mood of spirit must correspond to each special creed. “But what relation,” you say, “can the abstract expression of such a dogma, about which I hardly have to think and which I do not even understand, have to do with my soul?” Of course, if you do not understand the dogma and do not even think about it, then it is difficult to assume that it has a direct effect on you. But you are not the only one who adheres to your religion. In your concepts of faith, you are connected with a whole society of people who have their own specific way of thinking and their own spiritual and moral leaders. These leaders of your fellow believers think about that dogma that you do not think about, and understand why they express it this way and not otherwise. The inner meaning of their collective convictions, if they have any influence on society, constitutes, so to speak, its moral air, which every member of it breathes, consciously or unconsciously. For this reason and because the human heart is mostly formed by sympathy with others, it can easily happen that you will sometimes feel one way and not another, love this and not another, only because the spiritual leaders of your society think one way and not another about that dogma that you do not understand and about which you do not think. In our time, when people of different faiths have mixed into heterogeneous societies that have their own mixed meaning, their own special moral air, emanating from earthly interests and regardless of the creeds of each of their members, it would be very difficult to trace the influence that each faith has on each of its adherents in particular. But the general effect of each creed on a person is generally obvious from its very dogmas, especially when considering them with the real meaning of history. The main feature that distinguishes Orthodox Christianity from the confession of Latin and Protestant doctrine in their influence on the mental and moral development of man is that the Orthodox Church strictly adheres to the boundary between Divine Revelation and human reason, that it preserves without any change the dogmas of Revelation, as they have existed from the first times of Christianity and approved by the Ecumenical Councils 45, not allowing the human hand to touch their holiness or the human mind reinterpret their meaning and expression in accordance with their time systems. But at the same time, the Orthodox Church does not constrain the mind in its natural activity and in its free striving to find truths not communicated to it by Revelation; it does not present any rational system or any plausible view of science as infallible truths, attributing to them the inviolability and holiness equal to Divine Revelation. The Latin Church, on the contrary, does not know the firmness of these boundaries between human reason and Divine Revelation. She assigns to her visible head or her local council the right to introduce a new dogma 46 among those revealed and approved by the Ecumenical Councils; ascribes to some systems of the human mind the exclusive right of domination over others and thus, if it does not directly destroy revealed dogmas, then changes their meaning, while it limits the human mind in the freedom of its natural activity and constrains its sacred right and duty to seek a rapprochement of human truths with the Divine - natural with revealed ones. Protestant doctrines 47 are based on the same destruction of the boundary between human reason and Divine Revelation, with the same difference from the Latin doctrine that they do not elevate any human view or any systematic conclusion to the level of Divine Revelation, thereby constraining the legitimate activity of reason; but, on the contrary, the human mind is given dominance over the Divine dogmas, changing them or destroying them in accordance with the person’s personal understanding. From these three main differences between the relations of Divine Revelation to the human mind come the three main modes of activity of man’s mental powers, and at the same time the three main forms of development of his moral meaning. Naturally, a person who sincerely believes in the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the more he develops his mind, the more his concepts will agree with the truths of Divine Revelation. It is also natural that a sincere adherent of the Latin Church will have to not only subordinate his mind to Divine Revelation, but also to certain human systems and abstract conclusions raised to the level of Divine inviolability. Therefore, he will necessarily be forced to impart a one-sided development to the movements of his mind and is morally obliged to drown out the inner consciousness of truth by submission to blind authority. It is no less natural that a follower of the Protestant confession, recognizing reason as the main basis of truth, will, as his education develops, more and more subordinate his very faith to his personal understanding, until the concepts of natural reason replace for him all the Traditions of Divine Revelation and the Holy Apostolic Church. Where one pure Divine Revelation is recognized above reason, which a person cannot alter according to his understanding, but with which he can only agree with his reason, there, naturally, the more education develops, the more the concepts of a person or a people will be imbued with the teachings of faith, for there is one truth and the desire to find this unity among the diversity of cognitive and productive actions of the mind is a constant law of all development. But in order to reconcile the truths of reason with the truth of Revelation that exceeds reason, a double activity of reason is needed. Not only is it necessary to arrange rational concepts in accordance with the tenets of faith, to select appropriate ones, to exclude those that are contrary, and thus purify them from everything contradictory, but it is also necessary to raise the very image of rational activity to the level at which the mind can sympathize with faith and where both areas merge into one inseparable contemplation of truth. This is the goal that determines the direction of the mental development of an Orthodox Christian, and the inner consciousness of this sought-after edge of mental activity is constantly present in every movement of his mind, the breath of his mental life... Letter to A.I. Koshelev 48 This, one might say, is a truly friendly act, my dear friend! To write three letters, not to be smugly consoled by my superiority, but to write another fourth in order to wake up a sleeping or procrastinating sloth, is such a thing, such a feat, which perhaps only I can fully appreciate. However, I’m not as guilty as you might think. Your first letter was short, in which you only promised another, long one. I waited for this long one for a very long time, and finally, when I received it, I saw that answering it by mail would be too long and I would have to pay too much for postage. Soon after that I received your third letter, at the very time when I went to meet my son in Kaluga, where my wife 49 became ill, and I returned, if not with illness, then at least with a severe toothache, which tormented me almost until that day. July 20. “I was interrupted for a whole week by some business and worries. I hasten to return to the letter I started. First of all, I will tell you, my dear friend, that the current mood of your spirit pleases me more than I can express. I thank God for you and hope much from you. I have long known that you would follow this road, and I waited for you all the more impatiently because a person like you is precisely needed in our time. You ask me for advice on what to read. But from what you are reading, I see that you do not need this advice and gather your own real food. If you find pleasure in reading Basil the Great 50, Chrysostom 51 and Tikhon of Voronezh 52, then there is no doubt that you will read all the holy fathers translated into the Slavic language, for in Western languages ​​they are distorted, and mostly in those places that are most essential for establishing on the straight path of a person who strives to ascend from the West. But you ask me who to read first, who after, and I must admit to you that this simple question has made me difficult. This reading, in order to be of real benefit, must be in accordance with the special disposition of each person. It happened to me that before I had mastered the basic and general, I grabbed onto the highest, befitting only perfect and experienced men, and I confess to you that with this conceit I paralyzed my strength, cultivated in myself precisely that duality, the destruction of which is the main goal of spiritual speculation. Repairing a crack in an existing building is more difficult than building a new one. Therefore, dear friend, it is not for me to give you advice, but on the contrary, you should support me with your sympathy, or, better to say, that reciprocity of sympathy that doubles your strength. Of our entire circle, your thoughts and deeds are closest to each other. This is precisely what we lacked before you. However, precisely because of this property of yours, the slightest deviation is all the more dangerous for you, just as a mistake in war is more dangerous than a mistake in maneuvers. Therefore, it is more important for you than any books and any thinking - to find a holy Orthodox elder who could be your leader, to whom you could communicate your every thought and hear about it not his opinion, more or less intelligent, but the judgment of the holy fathers. Such elders, thank God, still exist in Russia, and if you search sincerely, you will find them. They exist in Moscow, but, of course, not in the white clergy. As for the history of the Church, unfortunately, we do not have a single satisfactory guide. Innocent 53, as you rightly noted, is more suitable for reference than for reading, although it is not quite complete for reference either. Fleury 54 distorted a lot, like a papist, with intent, and distorted even more out of ignorance, because in the West even the most conscientious scholars do not know the history of the Orthodox Church - so it has been distorted by the biased testimonies of the papists. Neander 55 is a believer at heart, but led astray in mental terms. He wants to be impartial and presents the facts fairly correctly, but draws false conclusions from them. However, when verified by others, he can provide real materials for compiling the history of the Church in his mind. Gfrörer 56 is simply not a Christian. He writes, it seems, only in order to distinguish himself by the originality of his views - the German Polevoy 57. But his book is easy to read, intelligent, eloquent, but confusing. Get another Mosheim 58 - this is an old Protestant who is deaf in one ear, but learned and smart. His book, in its external form, served as a model for Innocent. The Haase 59 Concise Manual Book can also be used for reference. About twenty years ago, she was very loved by many of our clergy, especially those who came from the St. Petersburg Academy, despite the fact that Haase himself is almost an unbeliever! A brief history of the first four centuries by Muravyov 60 is easy to read and quite convenient for an initial review. There are, of course, more monographs than stories. Get "Athanasius the Great" by Möhler 61, "John Chrysostom" by Neander, "The Truth of the Russian Church" by Muravyov (a very good book), "History of the Council of Florence" 62, which is very praised, but I have not read it yet. “Theology” of Macarius 63 is not completely known to me, i.e. I know his “Introduction” and the first part of “Theology”. I don't have the second one yet. In the first part there are precious things, namely the refutation of the Filioque, especially precious according to the extracts of Zvernikav 64, whose book cannot be obtained, although, they say, it was published by us. But I really don’t like the “Introduction” of Macarius, both because of the dryness of the school style and because of some opinions that disagree with our Church - for example, about the infallibility of the hierarchy, as if the Holy Spirit appears in the hierarchy separately from the totality of all Christianity. Get the Theology of Anthony of Kyiv 65. The language there is worse and there are also many errors, but there are also good things. However, to tell the truth, we do not have a satisfactory “Theology”. The best introduction to it can be the “Spiritual Alphabet”, published in the works of Demetrius of Rostov 66 under his name, and also the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret 67 . There are many diamond stones there, which should lie at the base of the Zion Fortress 68. However, it seems to me that in the present time, when Christian concepts are so confused by Western distortions that have grown into the true teaching over the course of a millennium and have blinded not only our minds, but also our hearts, so that we, even reading the ancient holy fathers, put our own concepts on them and do not notice what is not in accordance with Western teaching - in our time, I say, the closest thing to the goal would be to compose such an introduction to “Theology”, in which all the differences between Orthodox teaching and Roman teaching would be explained, not only in the main dogmas, but also in all their conclusions. Knowing this difference, we would read the holy fathers with full consciousness of their truth. Farewell, dear friend! I hasten to finish so as not to make you wait even longer for my letter. My wife bows to you. The son bows to yours. We are going to Moscow in early August to see Vasya off. If you're passing through Moscow, maybe I'll see you. Of course, I will participate in our collection 69, if only it takes place. But it seems to me that you were counting without the owner, i.e. without a censor, who, as they say, smears from the shoulder, and smears everything, but especially where there is thought, and especially thought that could be useful. However, try it. Letter to A.I. Koshelev 70 I read the book Vinet 71, which you gave me with the condition of saying my opinion about it in detail, clearly indicating where I agree with it and where I disagree. But I admit that this would be very difficult for me! I can neither agree with Vinet nor reject what he says. It seems to me (forgive me for speaking frankly and without ceremony about such a book, which you call your composition), it seems that he himself did not give himself a clear account of his thoughts before he began to present it, and that is why a very eloquent, very sincere confusion of lies and truth came out. What is he worrying about? What does he want to say? It seems that the Church should be completely separated from the state, so that neither the Church should know the state, nor the state of the Church, but each of these two agreements should exist and act not only independently of the other, but also without any relation to the other. Is this his thought? But what Church and what state should act like this? And what should they be? Which law will they fulfill by acting like this: the law of the Church or the law of the state? And what Church and state exists with what dominant thought? Or does the word must not refer to any law of any Church, to any known state, to any known philosophical idea of ​​the state, but is only a postulate of those concepts that Vinet formed for himself about the best structure of the Protestant Church and about the ideal of the state? In this case, before resolving the question, it was necessary to clearly define: what kind of best Church was formed in the head of Vinet and what was the ideal of the state? Then, from these concepts, their consequence, the law of their mutual relationship, would naturally emerge. Then the thought of Vinet would enter its natural boundaries, then it would be impossible to argue with it as a thought that forms part of his personal religion and his beloved dream of the state. But then, instead of 550 pages, the Vinet book would turn into a very small brochure, which you and I probably would not notice as a thing of too relative interest. But that’s why false thoughts make noise, because they stretch particular truths into the volume of universal truths. Wiene begins his book by talking about religious beliefs in general and the duty of every person to freely express his own. Here he takes as his subject not only all Christian confessions, but also all non-Christian faiths: Jewish, pagan, Mohammedan, and even philosophical convictions, and even a system of unbelief, and puts them all in one category of convictions of conscience about the truth, and from the laws of conscience itself deduces for everyone the obligation to openly and freely confess their convictions. In this case, I completely sympathize with him, as a Christian, for this law of conscience about the open and fearless confession of one’s faith is a Christian law. But I doubt whether all types of paganism and all systems of unbelief will find this law in their conscience. “But there is only one conscience,” you say. Yes, as one truth. This does not, however, prevent a person from often accepting a lie as the truth. Conscience is faith. Demanding one conscience from all people is the same as demanding one faith. Of course, in this particular respect, the consciences of most faiths agree with each other, however, if there are societies of priests or philosophers who keep their beliefs in secret and think that for the very triumph of their truth it is necessary to hide it under the guise of generally accepted error, then I can disagree with them, I can regret them, I can argue with them, but I cannot think that my concepts of conscience and faith must necessarily be their concepts of conscience and faith. Consequently, wouldn’t it be more prudent here to distinguish which belief belongs to which mode of action, and send each demand directly to the address where it is accepted? To console myself with the thought that the whole world recognizes those laws that I consider obligatory for myself is Chinese, from which conclusions can lead to error. From this proposition that every belief has a moral duty to express itself frankly in words and actions, Vinet deduces a moral duty for every state not to hinder any belief from expressing itself and preaching itself in words, deeds and life. Since he speaks about the state in general and about conviction in general, it is natural that in his reasoning there is such vagueness, such exaggeration, such inconsistency of one thought with another, that the first hundred pages of the second part seemed to me like Don Quixote’s war with windmills or the exercises of a talented student on the course of some Swiss Shevyrev 72 . Who is he knighting against? Against Rothe 73, about whom even Protestants even doubt whether he is a Christian or not. His concept of the state, that it should itself be completely human, is one of the systems of which thousands arise daily in Germany. To accept this system as representative of the general opinion and to think that you have done everything when you have overcome it is rather ridiculous and childish. If Vinet had also fought with Rothe’s father, Hegel himself, 74 analyzing his view of the state in its primitive form, then his objections would have some general interest; but to object to one of the semi-Hegelians is good only for those who really want to write. Moreover, no philosophical concept of the state stands on its own, but is derived from the general principles of the system as a necessary consequence. How can one refute a conclusion without touching the beginning? In general, philosophical conclusions are not refuted; they are simply rejected when a system contradicting them is built. But Vinet undertook to talk about the state as a philosopher, and yet did not pose any philosophical truth. Therefore, no matter what he says, truth or lie, everything will be without foundation, just one phrase, more or less a plausible dream. It's another matter when he wants to speak like a Christian. Here he is based on the convictions of the confession to which he belongs. Here, therefore, his word has a voice. Little by little, turning his thoughts from side to side and chewing the same thing, Vinet finally reached this consciousness and feels that what he said was not as generally applicable as it seemed to him at first glance. As a result of this consciousness awakening in him, Vinet first limits his exclamations about beliefs in general to the fact that what he says cannot apply to Mohammedanism, nor to ancient paganism, nor to Judaism, but only to various types of Christianity. Then another hundred pages later he says that what he said cannot apply to Roman Catholicism, which would cease to be entirely Catholicism and the Roman Church if it refused to unite spiritual and secular power. Therefore, his demand for the separation of two powers can only apply to one Protestant confession. The book would have been much clearer if the author had defined the boundaries of his thought from the very beginning. However, it is also necessary to distinguish between Protestant confessions. If, for example, the English Church 75 is considered among the Protestant ones, then it is obvious that the inviolability of secular and spiritual power demanded by the author cannot apply to it. For, as a direct product of secular power, the English Church, with the separation of powers, must itself disintegrate into its component parts and, therefore, be destroyed. The Reformed 76 also could not (at least at the beginning) follow the exhortation of Vinet, for, according to the teachings of Calvin, the state itself must come from the Church and be organized by it. But the historical mill has wiped out this part of the dogma from Reformation, and therefore for this sect the question of the relationship to secular power can still be considered unresolved. Quakers 77 do not directly and purely recognize a state outside themselves and above themselves, and by their dogma they cannot form part of the Vinet audience. The Herrnhuters 78, although not in a hostile relationship with the state, nevertheless within another political society constitute not only a church society, but also a civil society with special arrangements for mutual relations. Consequently, if they constituted a people existing separately, they would certainly form a state, emanating directly from the Church and being one component with the church structure. Therefore, the word Vinet cannot apply to them either. There remain the Lutherans 79 who recognized in the Augsburg Confession that the structure of the secular state should not depend on the Church, that the spiritual and secular powers are different and should not be subordinate to one another, but both should be revered and preserved with equal reverence as the two highest graces of God on earth (als zwei h ö chste Gaben auf Erden). But, having placed the Church in equal rights with the state in dogma, they, in reality, immediately subordinated the spiritual structure to the patronage, and supervision, and order, and even management of secular power. But since this teaching of the Church for Lutherans is not a dogma, but an ingrained historical fact, Vinet’s demand may actually apply to them, for Vinet probably does not want to change religions, he only wants to correct the concepts of some about one extraneous subject of dubious nature. The same sects of the Protestant confession to which the Vinet question refers - i.e. for whom it is not a dogma, but also a question - one can count Christians of all confessions, wavering in their convictions, and then non-believers and philosophical Christians. But these latter, even if they had political power in their hands, can they be considered legitimate judges in the matter of church relations? Meanwhile, the author has them in mind more than others, because he primarily relies on the requirements of modern education. In his opinion, the Christian Church, soon after its appearance in the world, deteriorated and began to go astray. One of the consequences of this error was the rapprochement of the state and the Church under Constantine 80 . Then all the troubles of Christians and Christianity were a necessary consequence of this rapprochement, and only in our modern times it becomes possible for the Church to open its eyes and see its mistake (page 350 and many other places). In other words, the Holy Spirit, soon after the time of the apostles, left the Church and returns to it only through the preaching of Vinet. Or, perhaps, the Holy Spirit did not leave the Church, but while living in it, he was mistaken until Vinet brought him to his senses. Poor Western man, who can get such nonsense into his head!.. Or maybe this nonsense is not in the head (which has not reached the consciousness of its transformative demands), but only in the heart, which inspires the desire to transform and correct the Church. This feeling, after the retreat of Latinism, became dominant in European education. Despite, however, the fact that the book Vinet has neither foundation nor possible applicability, there is a lot of beauty in it, a lot of bright thoughts, a lot of true comments, a lot of heartfelt, precious words, and its reading is very pleasant and, perhaps, not useless, arouses the need for a clear consciousness about this issue in the Orthodox reader. For this question in the Orthodox Church does not have the logical definitive answer that it received in the West from the combination of spiritual and secular power in one person 81 . There, from this circumstance, a whole system of political relations between states emerged, which entered theological dogma as part of it. There the Church was the visible foundation and constantly visible support of worldly power and rose into all branches of worldly government as one of its visible elements. The Latin Church discovered exactly the same material dominance in the field of science. Instead of spiritually penetrating into human thinking itself, into the very root of its thinking, it derived visible, literal principles from its teaching and imposed them on science. Galileo 82 renouncing his system, and Henry the Fourth 83 performing penance, express one sense of ecclesiastical predominance. That is why the Reformation, having separated the Church from Rome, equally severed the connection both between the government and the Church, and between secular science and theology. And in both areas the consequences were the same. As soon as the spiritual principle ceased to dominate the secular, so the secular began to dominate the spiritual. Protestant churches found themselves under the orders of secular governments, and Protestant theologies became a conclusion from philosophical systems. For a state that is completely independent of the Church is just as impossible as a philosophy that is completely independent of the teachings of faith. If the substance does not obey the spirit, then it cannot remain in equal rights, but must inevitably gain the upper hand. The example of American States 84, which Vinet gives, does not prove anything. This is not a state, but a random coupling of several heterogeneous masses, constantly ready to disintegrate. They hold on only because they have not come to self-awareness. As soon as self-consciousness penetrates them from the heart into parts and from parts into the heart, they will scatter into many pieces. Meanwhile, now the government in them cannot seize power over religion because they do not have one religion. The mutual contradiction of many religions is a condition for their independence. But if the people, in any state, had any one faith, then it is impossible to assume that this faith would not determine - indirectly or directly - its relationship to the state and would not require certain relationships from it to itself. Unity in the way of thinking cannot but require unity in the way of action. The same faith requires the same morals, the same system of all relationships - family and social. Will the state structure be correct if it is not a direct consequence of this inter-civil system? Or a government that will restrict the expression of national beliefs under the pretext that this expression may be offensive to some foreign beliefs? Or which itself will offend the people's beliefs with its devices drawn up in the spirit of foreign beliefs, for example, the government of the Mohammedan people, which will require the troops to drink wine for courage? Or when will it allow other sects with impunity to offend the morals of their people by openly performing customs that are contrary to universal beliefs, for example, in a Christian state, public bacchanalia of paganism or public ridicule of the faith and morals of the people? Or the distribution of seductive books? Or should a government, generally speaking, pay any attention to the moral conceptions of its people? Should laws remove that which interferes with the free expression of these moral concepts, or remove that which tends to offend or destroy them? “The United States,” says the author, “has no laws to protect public morals or public beliefs.” But there, in each particular state, social beliefs are protected lawlessly, by a special social willfulness, which, it seems, is no better than the law that the author fears. The crowd acts arbitrarily and with impunity against those who insult their beliefs. If such disorder is part of the general order of things, is it easier because it is produced not according to the law, but without the law? The author says very rightly that in most states where there is a state religion, the government uses it as a means for its own private goals and, under the pretext of patronizing it, oppresses it. But this happens not because there is a dominant faith in the state, but, on the contrary, because the dominant faith of the people does not dominate in the state structure. This unfortunate attitude occurs when, due to some fortuitous historical circumstances, a gap occurs between the beliefs of the people and the government. Then the faith of the people is used as a means, but not for long. One of three things must certainly happen: either the people will waver in their faith, and then the entire state structure will shake, as we saw in the West; or the government will reach the right self-awareness and turn sincerely to the faith of the people, as we hope; or the people will see that they are being deceived, as we fear. The author says that the Orthodox Church has always been under oppression by the government because, being the official state religion, it was under the protection of the government, which, under this pretext, used it as a means. But the injustice of this is proven both by the history of Byzantium and the history of Russia. In Byzantium, the Orthodox Church was very rarely protected by the government, which for the most part was heterodox - either Arian, or Latinizing, or iconoclast, which finally destroyed Greece with its apostasy into the union 85. In Russia, on the contrary, all governments - both princely and popular - were Orthodox, from Vladimir 86 to Grozny 87 we see whether the Church prospered and whether the people's conviction triumphed. Ivan the Terrible acted oppressively because he was a heretic; this is proven, firstly, by the Council of the Stoglavy and, secondly, by the desire to place Byzantineism on the same dignity as Orthodoxy. From this came oprichnina as a desire for heresy of state and church power. And that his concept of the boundaries, or, more correctly, of the limitlessness of his power and its separation from the people, was not Christian, but heretical - this is still publicly testified by the holy relics of Metropolitan Philip 88. For a believer, the relationship with God and His Holy Church is the most essential thing on earth, while the relationship with the state is already secondary and accidental. It is obvious that all the laws of truth must be violated when the essential is subordinate to the accidental or is recognized on equal terms with it, and does not dominate over it. Do I need to stipulate that I do not understand the domination of the Church as an inquisition or as persecution for faith? This Mohammedanism, these forced conversions are just as contrary to true Christianity as conversions through deception. If the Latin Church was carried away, and perhaps is still carried away by the delusion that the end justifies the means, if some members of the Orthodox Church were ever infected with this false teaching, then this mistake of some people does not apply to the Church itself. And the state should not agree with the Church in order to search for and persecute heretics and force them to believe (this is both contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and produces an effect contrary to the intention, and harms the state itself almost as much as it harms the Church), but in this it must agree with the Church in order to set itself the main task of its existence - to constantly become more and more imbued with the spirit of the Church and not only not to look at the Church as a means to its the most convenient existence, but, on the contrary, to see in one’s existence only a means for the complete and most convenient establishment of the Church of God on earth. The state is a structure of society that aims at earthly, temporary life. The Church is a structure of the same society, with the goal of Heavenly, Eternal Life. If a society understands its life in such a way that the temporal in it must serve the eternal, then the state structure of this society must serve the Church. If a society understands its life in such a way that in it earthly relations go on by themselves, and spiritual relations on their own, then the state in such a society must be separated from the Church. But such a society will not consist of Christians, but of non-believers, or at least of mixed faiths and beliefs. In this last case, of course, it would be very harmful for one party, having seized political power, to crush others, as in Austria. But such a state, artificially or forcibly cobbled together from different religions and, consequently, from different popular consents, tending by their nature to be mutually destroyed and, therefore, to disintegrate into various original structures - such a state cannot have claims to harmonious normal development. All its dignity must be limited by its negative character, so that the less it exists as a state, the more it achieves its goal, as in England. In such a state, citizens can look very indifferently when Jews sit in their legislative chamber and make laws for them 89 . But where a people is bound internally by the same convictions of faith, there it has the right to desire and demand that its external connections - family, social and state - agree with its religious inspirations and that its government be imbued with the same spirit. To act hostile to this spirit means to act hostile to the people themselves, even if these actions bring them some earthly benefits. Letter to A.I. Koshelev 90 In order for our discussions to have any reasonable consequences, we must constantly fulfill two conditions: 1) not for a moment lose sight of the very grain of the subject about which we are arguing. Otherwise, we will scatter to the sides and will not be able to collect everything we have said into one general result; 2) we must not forget for a minute why we are arguing. If you want to have the pleasure of challenging each other, then it’s better to learn to play chess, and let’s argue on the chessboard. If we argue in order to agree, then this goal is worth the effort of writing. But for this we need to look in each other’s thoughts and words not for what disagrees with our thoughts, but, on the contrary, for what we have in common regarding the subject of the dispute. From this generality we must try to draw conclusions that would be accepted sympathetically by both sides. Then the subject of disagreement will be resolved by itself, attached to these conclusions. If, instead of what is common and in agreement with it, we look in the words of the enemy for something with which we can argue, then neither our dispute will ever end, nor will we draw any conclusion from it. I wrote this dissertation because, it seems to me, you were too argumentative in your response to my letter and I myself am afraid of becoming infected with your manner. What is the use, for example, of us discussing what meaning the word Chineseness should have? Does it mean to consider one’s particular concepts as the only universal ones, or does it mean to stagnate in the old and resist the new? In any case, reasoning about this and similar things can only lead us to the result that you use this word correctly, and I wrongly; but what follows from this? What is important to us here is not how I reason or how you reason, but only the subject of our reasoning is important to us here. Re-reading your letter, I can hardly restrain myself from arguing about each point separately. However, this desire of mine - to prove that I am right and that you are wrong - completely disappears in me when I listen with my mind to another desire - to agree with you in unanimity. Before I argue, I will try to find what we agree on in order to thereby remove the causes of misunderstandings. When I say that the statehood of a people should be imbued with its faith, that is, the Church that it professes, this does not mean that the state should patronize the Church. They patronize the inferior. You can only serve the Highest and, while serving, protect, but only according to his will. If you say that under the pretext of protection the state sometimes seeks to dominate the Church, then abuse does not destroy the possibility of good use. The first (abuse) must be noticed, revealed, exposed to general view and thereby destroyed. But the second (the correct use of state power in favor of the Church) cannot but be considered a good deed. I also do not consider it a good thing for the state to serve the Church in an inquisitorial manner. The Inquisition corresponds logically only to the Roman Church, mixing temporal and spiritual power into one non-Christian dominion. But in the Orthodox Church, the inquisitorial mode of action should be considered heretical, like monastic orders of knights, cavalry bishops, etc. Therefore, in Orthodox lands, inquisitorial actions harm the Church; in the papal states, on the contrary, the Inquisition maintains the church building. In Southern Europe after the 16th century, only the Inquisition could maintain the Roman faith and strengthen the Reformation. In our country, on the contrary, schisms were born directly from inquisitorial measures and, perhaps, are still being strengthened by them 91. I also consider it contrary to the Orthodox Church to forcibly compel citizens to accept grace, the mysterious Gifts of God. The Church, on the contrary, at all times was afraid to betray the Sacraments to the unworthy, as if to hand over a shrine for desecration or to tell the secret of the Lord to His enemies 92 . If this is done, it is done as being contrary to the Church, and not as being in agreement with it or useful to it. It is also not useful for the Church, but disgusting for it, when it is used as a means for state or worldly purposes, abuse of the oath, etc. It is also disgusting for the Church when it is made to be in any way dependent on the worldly structure of states, when the clergy turns into bureaucrats, etc. But all this is disgusting to the Christian Church only when it is in all the purity of Orthodoxy. For the Roman Church, as I said, this is not only not disgusting, but is directly required by its secular-spiritual character. From it, from the Roman heresy, these mixed concepts, along with many other errors, spread in some Orthodox countries. But zeal for the purity of faith must require, along with many others, the purification of these concepts concerning the relationship of the Church to the state. And now the time has come when this cleansing of our concepts from heretical impurities is especially necessary, because the onslaught of heterodoxy and unbelief is so strong that there is almost no social, political, moral, legal or even artistic thought left that has not been more or less soiled and crushed by the non-Orthodox hands in which it has been. Therefore, if from this point of view we consider the book Vinet, that is, as a counteraction to those false concepts about the relations of Church and state that spread from the Roman Church, even to many people of the Orthodox confession, then, of course, one cannot help but say that in this regard, reading this book can be very useful. Also, I think, reading this book can be very useful for us because it will arouse in our minds a question that is sleeping and for which it is high time, it is high time to wake up. But this should be the end of what I can say in favor of Vinet. It seems that this is not enough, and you can be satisfied. I hope that you, seeing how willingly I give justice to your friend regarding practical application, will want to give me justice in the fact that I cannot agree with him in those fundamental principles from which he derives his demands. Or, better to say, I cannot agree with him, not because his basic principles contradict mine, but because I don’t find any solid, definite, clearly consistent fundamental principles in him. I find in him a mixture of all sorts of principles, depending on what seems more effective to him for his recitation at that moment. Thus, without providing a clear definition of either the Church or the state, as I said in the last letter, he sometimes speaks as a general Christian thing of something that may relate to one type of Protestantism. Sometimes what can be attributed only to a state cobbled together from heterogeneous pieces, like the United States, is classified as a state in general. In many places he declaims about how faith should penetrate all relationships of people, and then, next to these exclamations and, as if forgetting them, he declaims against the state being in any definite relationship to the faith that prevails among the people. You, defending him and refuting me, make your own construction of concepts about the relationship of the state to the Church, but also, following the example of your friend Vinet, you speak very passionately, often witty, but you do not look for solid material for your construction. You say: “The state is not the structure of society, but society itself.” And, having said this, you immediately reproach me for Louis-Blancism 93 and ask: “Is the state obliged to provide me with bread, wealth, information - in a word, everything necessary for earthly life?” This is followed by a joke that “the state should not be entrusted with fatherly, mentoring, or any kind of managerial responsibilities in relation to citizens.” I will not argue against this trick, but I do not know how to reconcile it with the proposition that the state is not a known structure, but society itself. “The Church,” you say, “is not the structure of society, for the social element enters into it as a secondary one. The first thing in it is a person, i.e. face. In the state, everything is society; in the Church everyone is human.” But if for her a person is everything, if she embraces him completely, then how can she do this without determining the nature of his relationship to society? Will a society of Mohammedans or Jews really have the same morals as a society of Christians? Or does the Quaker society have the same morals as the Latin society? If Lutherans, Latins, Calvinists and Anglicans had organized their lives - each - completely consistently with their convictions, then would not each society have its own special morals and customs, consistent with the peculiarities of its convictions? An Orthodox society would be different from all of them, i.e., of course, in agreement with its basic teaching. But if the faith of a people is so closely connected with its morals and customs, then how can its laws have nothing to do with them? Of course, by conquest or some similar unfortunate circumstances, laws can and for the most part actually are imposed on a people that are inconsistent with their morals, customs and faith; but is what happens a law for what should be? Against this relationship of the state structure to the morals and beliefs of the people, you say: “Where is such a state (where the people are bound by the same beliefs)? Not only does such a state not exist and never existed, but you cannot even create it in your imagination.” But I think that until the 16th century 94 all the states of Europe were such that the people in each were of the same faith. But especially ancient Russia in this regard can serve as an example of the unanimity and like-mindedness of the people, embodied in the morals and customs of the people and, if not able (due to external historical conditions) to be expressed in its governmental statehood, then at least expressed its demands in many respects of state legislation. However, I also think that even now no one has the right to look at Russia other than as an Orthodox state, and if Biron or any of the Germans ever looked at it differently, they never dared to admit it. Empress Catherine, in her manifesto, with which she announced the overthrow of Peter III and her accession, says that Emperor Peter III went so far as to even intend to make the Lutheran faith the dominant faith in Russia, which is why every loyal subject of the state had to think about shedding his blood. Of course, I cannot approve of her words, but they nevertheless show how she understood the unity of Russia and her faith; and although she herself was an unbeliever, she never dared to admit it. And how can the character of Orthodox Russia change because it has brought under its rule several million Catholics and several million Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans and a large number of pagans? If they had conquered Russia, only then could she have lost the dominance of the Orthodox spirit in her legal system and in her government. If, God forbid, something happens in Russia that is contrary to Orthodoxy, then it will still be as hostile to Russia as to its faith. Everything that hinders the correct and complete development of Orthodoxy, everything hinders the development and prosperity of the Russian people; everything that gives a false and not purely Orthodox direction to the people's spirit and education - everything distorts the soul of Russia and kills its moral, civil and political health. Therefore, the more the Russian statehood and its government are imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the healthier will be the people's development, the more prosperous the people, and the stronger their government, and, at the same time, the more comfortable it will be, for government improvement is possible only in the spirit of popular convictions. If it is not in the spirit, then it will certainly constrain its free expression in life and word under the pretext of tolerance and, constraining it, it will itself be embarrassed by it and assert itself against it only by force, fearing every shadow of the social spirit, like a ghost from another world. You say: “Church and state are one and identical only in man, and then only in his mysterious center. In their manifestation in the world, they are completely different and have nothing in common.” But we have now seen what they have in common - the morals and customs of the people, which stem from their convictions, faith, and with which their legal structure must be consistent. But, in addition to the morals and customs of the people, all its social relations also constitute a common middle ground between the Church and the state, emanating more or less from one and demanding from the other a public affirmation or at least free development, not constrained by contradictory laws. “The Church,” you say, “is a guest on earth; the state here is the resident, the ruler.” But if the Church is an invited guest, then it is precisely she who should be treated so that she does not leave the owner who does not care about her! “Its entire goal is the Future Life, its rules are eternal and unconditional.” This is true, but that is why she cannot submit to the demands of life here, and that is why the state must submit to her, whose “goal is life here, and the rules are temporary, conditional.” Is it really bad to arrange life here in accordance with our concepts of the Future? “Faith,” you say, “is a gift from above and, at the same time, the freest, most original action of a person, therefore it cannot be transferred to the state; therefore, how can a Christian state be Orthodox?” But how do you understand this? The state can be pagan, maybe Jewish, Mohammedan, but can’t it be Christian? “For the state,” you say, “public opinion serves as faith, which is the sum of human faiths in their mediocre, temporary manifestation.” Why do you want the state to conform better to this temporary, often erroneous manifestation of popular beliefs, and not to their very source? Moreover, when you say: “Sum of Faiths” and not “Faith,” you certainly want to understand by the word state either the United States or Austria, that is, a random or violent cast of discordant nationalities. But such a combination of differences, which fight when they meet each other and try to break apart at the first opportunity, cannot serve as an example of a harmonious structure of the state. You continue: “Public opinion establishes public morality, which is essentially temporary and conditional - the only rule for the state; therefore it must be moral.” I don't understand the syllogism here. Why should the only rule for the state be only temporary morality, arising from random and temporary public opinion? Why not that - not temporary and not accidental - morality, arising not from the random whim of public opinion, but directly from the faith that dominates the state? It may be, however, that this is precisely where the whole difference between our opinions lies, at least in relation to their practical application. For you, the main basis of the state, the reason for its such or such direction and formation - in a word, its soul - is public opinion, or the opinion of the majority. For me, the soul of the state is the ruling faith of the people. But think: the right of the majority to rule will not, in the final result, be reduced to the right of the strong? Of course, both your and my concept of the state must assume in it the possibility of such a turn of affairs in which brute egoistic force dominates the mind and beliefs of the people. But under my assumption, this can only happen by deception or obvious violence, that is, lawlessly. Under your assumption, this will be the legitimate dominance of the party superior in number or strength. As a result of this, it will inevitably be necessary to recognize Hegel’s concept that every government in a state is equally legal, as long as it stands, and every revolution is equally legal, as long as it succeeds, and that government is lawless, which is overthrown, and the revolution is lawless, which does not succeed. It was these immoral convictions that led Europe to its present situation. But on the question of the relationship of the state to the Church you go much further than Hegel. He sees a close connection between them that you do not recognize. You end your letter with the words: “In the real world, between these opposites (between the Church and the state) there is no reconciliation, so to speak, a bridge; and therefore they cannot sit together on the same throne, nor subordinate themselves to one another.” Do these words not contradict what you yourself said just now that public opinion and public morality serve precisely as these conciliatory bridges between faith and the state? First you say: “For society nothing is eternal; everything for him, like himself, is temporary and accidental; eternity exists only for man - not as a citizen, but as a person. A state that wants to serve eternity must accept either the statute of Basil the Great 95 or another similar institution, but in both cases it ceases to be a state.” I think there is some mistake in your expressions. For it cannot be that you really think that the purpose of the state should only be temporary and accidental, and that everything eternal does not apply to it. Then for him and in him there would be neither justice, nor morality, nor the holiness of laws, nor the dignity of man, nor the spirit of the people, etc., but only what is convenient and useful for temporary purposes. Then, while promoting by all means the development of physical well-being among the people, it must also, by all measures depending on it, suppress spiritual development, as it can sometimes be directly contrary to these temporary goals of earthly well-being. Although there may have been rulers of states who had similar convictions, it seems that no one dared to pronounce them loudly. If you say that against such an oppressive direction of governments, you have protected yourself with another requirement, namely, that the state, as you say, “should provide us with one thing: the opportunity to acquire everything we need for earthly life, and to use this acquisition calmly, i.e. freedom." This is good in words, but why do you think that the state, which exists for some petty earthly purpose, will obey your demand for freedom? The concept of political freedom is a relative and negative concept, and only on it would society be based and for it would exist. How and with what will you maintain this freedom in a structure that does not recognize any other legality than the rule of the majority, i.e. preponderance of power? If we want to put an essential and positive meaning into this relative and negative concept of political freedom and call it respect for moral freedom and human dignity, then such a concept directly comes from religious principles; and if you want the state to recognize it, then it must also recognize the principles that produce it as its legal basis. It is impossible to recognize the holiness of a moral person without recognizing the holiness of eternal moral truths, the source and focus of which is faith. Therefore, only by arising from faith and submitting to it, and being animated by it, can the state develop harmoniously and strongly, without violating the free and legitimate development of individuals and just as freely and life-givingly consistent with the spirit of the people, imbued with the same faith. Here I end my letter, dear friend, but not an answer, for I hope to continue in Kaluga. But this letter reached the point where the first one ended and from which it was pushed back by your attack. Consequently, these three letters (two of mine and one of yours) constitute one half of the question, i.e. about the relationship of the state to the Church in general. The second half will look at these relationships in particular, i.e. which belief system corresponds to which state structure. This is where the real kernel of my thought lies. Therefore, if you write an answer to this letter, do not tell it to me before finishing my letter. I'm staying and stuff... "October - November 1853> Perv. publ.: Home conversation. 1861. Issue. 46. ​​pp. 879–886. Publ. by decree ed. The article was accompanied by a note. Hieromonk Leonid (Kavelin), who knew I.V. Kireevsky closely from the Optina Hermitage and preserved his manuscripts in his archive: “The article about the late I.V. Kireevsky placed in the fourth issue of your “Conversation”, which also mentions a change in his way of thinking that is instructive for our home-grown philosophers, prompted me to report, in confirmation of this, an excerpt from I. V. to N., which, in turn, can be instructive for those who, being carried away by philosophy... intentionally or unintentionally confuse the firm boundaries between Orthodox and two heterodox confessions (I mean Roman Catholic and Protestant); this confusion, unfortunately, is often noticed in places where apparently it should not have any place” (Home Conversation. 1861. Issue 46. P. 879). In the “Explanatory Dictionary...” of V.I. Dahl, a contemporary of I.V. Kireevsky, we read: “Indifferentism (lat.) - indifference, indifference, especially about faith Comp.>” (Dal V.I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. T. 2. P. 44). David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) – German. philosopher, historian and publicist The author of the book “The Life of Jesus...” (1835–1836), in which he denied the Divine-human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, tried to prove that the Four Gospels are a compilation of Greek, Hebrew. and sire. sources. Ed. The book was accompanied by a scandal; it was banned in Russia for a long time. Subsequently, D.-F. Strauss turned to political activity. Martin Luther (1483–1546) – German. religious figure, reformer of Western Christianity. As an ideologist of the Reformation (starting with criticism of Catholicism - with the denial of the power of the Pope, with the condemnation of the trade in indulgences) he came to the conclusion about the need for Communion under both types, translation of the Holy Scriptures and worship in it. language. But at the same time, Luther rejected many dogmas and institutions of the Universal Church that were preserved in Catholicism: episcopacy and monasticism, worship of icons, saints and their relics, the Sacraments of Confirmation, Repentance, Priesthood, Marriage, Blessing of Anointing (recognizing only the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion). In fact, Luther rejected the Holy Tradition, and the only source of doctrine was recognized as the Holy Scripture, the interpretation of which became accessible to every believer. Luther's views, with some amendments, were adhered to by all supporters of the Reformation. John Calvin (1509–1564) – Swiss. religious figure, reformer. He was distinguished by his demands for strict morality, which he proposed to support with administrative supervision. The basis of his worldview was the “doctrine of predestination” - about the original destiny of some people to salvation, and others to eternal destruction, excluding the freedom of human will. In relation to the liturgy, he adhered to the views of Zwingli, and abolished the twelve holidays for his followers. Calvinism became widespread throughout Europe (under the name of the Reformed Church in Germany, the Huguenots in France, the Puritans in Scotland and England). Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) – Swiss. religious figure, reformer. His teaching differed from Luther's in relation to the liturgy, to which he attached only symbolic meaning as a remembrance of the Redemptive Sacrifice of Christ. In the history of the Church, Ecumenical Councils are called meetings of primates and bishops of all Local Churches, convened to confirm the dogmas of Christian teaching and resolve issues of church discipline. This is the only legislative body of the Universal Church, and its decisions are binding on all Christian Churches. The acts of the Ecumenical Councils agree in everything with the Holy Scriptures, apostolic tradition, doctrine and rules of the Ecumenical Church of previous centuries. Ecumenical Councils took place before the separation of the Roman Church from the Ecumenical Church. There were seven of them: I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680–691) and II Nicaea (783–787). Just as the Catholic Church assigns primacy over all bishops to its primate, the Pope, so it attaches the importance of Ecumenical councils to its local councils, numbering only twenty of them. As a result, in the 11th century. The Latin Church accepted as a dogma the doctrine of the Filioque (the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son); in 1564 she declared herself “the mother and teacher of all Churches”; in 1854 the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed; in 1870 - a determination on the infallibility of the Pope. The adoption of new dogmas was preceded by their actual dissemination in the Catholic Church. We find differences between the Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Church in the doctrine of salvation, in the celebration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Communion, Priesthood, Marriage, Blessing of Anointing and in the church calendar. The main features of Protestant doctrines are: 1) recognition of the exclusive authority of Holy Scripture and denial of Holy Tradition; 2) the doctrine of justification by faith and - in connection with this - denial or false interpretation of the Church Sacraments. Both all participants in the 16th century Reformation and their many modern followers are called Protestants. Perv. publ.: Kolyupanov N.P. Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev: In 2 vols. M., 1892. T. 2, appendix. pp. 101–103. Publ. by: Kireevsky I.V. Complete. collection cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 2. P. 256–258. Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev (1806–1883) - publicist, public figure, one of I. V. Kireevsky’s closest friends. In 1823–1826 served, like I.V. Kireevsky, in the Moscow archive of the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs, then moved to St. Petersburg. The main work of his life was the liberation of the peasants; he did this both as an official, and as a practical landowner, and as a public figure. In the 1840s. A.I. Koshelev was a member of the circle of Slavophiles; in 1852, at his expense, the “Moscow Collection” was published, in which he published the article “The Trip of a Russian Farmer to England and to the World Exhibition.” In 1856–1860 Koshelev published the magazine “Russian Conversation” and was published in other periodicals, publishing articles on economic issues. Prepared and published “The Complete Works of I. V. Kireevsky” (M., 1861. Vol. 1–2). Vasily Ivanovich Kireevsky (1835–after 1911) - the eldest son of the Kireevskys, who studied in St. Petersburg, at the Imperial Alexander Lyceum. Natalia Petrovna Kireevskaya (nee Arbeneva) (1809–1900) - wife of Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky. Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea († 379), - Ecumenical teacher, father of the Church, compiler of the liturgy, interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. In the ascetic works of St. Basil the Great contains a theological and pastoral justification for the monastic community; his accusatory writings are directed against the Arian heresy. Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople († 407), - Ecumenical Teacher, Father of the Church, compiler of the liturgy. His numerous works are devoted to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, the establishment of Christian morality and the dogmas of the Church, and the apology of monasticism. Saint Tikhon, Bishop of Voronezh and Yelets, Zadonsk Wonderworker († 1783), became famous for his strict monastic life, compassion for the poor, zeal for the eradication of pagan prejudices and in the conversion of schismatics, and numerous spiritual writings. Among them are instructions to monks and priests, sermons and letters, works “Flesh and Spirit” (1st ed.: 1784), “On True Christianity” (1st ed.: 1785), “Spiritual Treasure collected from the world” (1777–1779). Saint Innocent (Smirnov), Bishop of Penza († 1819), - church historian, prof. Imperial St. Petersburg Theological Academy, author of the two-volume “Outline of Church History from Biblical Times to the 18th Century...” (1817). Claude Fleury (1640–1723) – French. Catholic church historian, author of the twenty-volume “Ecclesiastical History” (1691–1720), up to 1414. Johann August Wilhelm Neander (1789–1850) – German. Protestant church historian. Zd. and below we are talking about his books: 1) “General History of the Christian Religion and Church” (1841–1845. Vol. 1–5) and 2) “St. John Chrysostom and the Church, especially the Eastern, of this time” (1821–1822. Vol. 1–2). See about him: Kireevsky I.V. Poly. collection cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 1. P. 136. August Friedrich Gfrörer (1803–1861) - German. Catholic church historian, author of the General History of the Church (1841–1846). Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy (1796–1846) – journalist, writer and historian. I. V. Kireevsky met Polev in the 1820s, when he became close to the circle of wise men and was a visitor to the salon of A. P. Elagina. In 1825–1834 N.A. Polevoy published the liberal magazine “Moscow Telegraph”, in which he published the best works of European literature. After the banning of the magazine and his own bankruptcy, he was the editor of the St. Petersburg magazines “Northern Bee”, “Son of the Fatherland”, “Russian Messenger”. Polemicizing with the historical concept of N. M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State,” N. A. Polevoy wrote “The History of the Russian People” (1829–1833. Vol. 1–6), which provoked sharp criticism from Karamzin’s admirers. Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1694–1755) – German. Protestant theologian and preacher, author of the fundamental work “Institutiones historiae christianae majores” (1st ed.: 1763). Karl August Gase (1800–1890) – German. Protestant theologian and church historian, prof. Jena University. His work “Guide to the Protestant Polemic against the Catholic Church” (1862) was a response to Mohler’s “Symbolism...” (see below). Zd. talks about “Ecclesiastical History” (1834). Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov (1806–1874) – poet and spiritual writer. Author of “Journey to the Holy Places in 1830” (1830), in which he describes his pilgrimage to Egypt, the Holy Land and Asia Minor. Subsequently, he wrote a number of books on church history and geography, worship and apologetics. St. spoke favorably of A. N. Muravyov’s church and literary works. Filaret (Drozdov) and V. A. Zhukovsky. Zd. We are talking about two books by A. N. Muravyov: 1) “The First Four Centuries of Christianity” (1840) and 2) “The Truth of the Universal Church about the Roman and Other Patriarchal Sees” (1841). Johann Adam Möhler (1796–1838) – German. Catholic theologian, specialist in the field of church history, patristics and church law, prof. University of Tübingen. His book “Symbolism, or an Exposition of the Dogmatic Disagreements of Catholics and Protestants according to their Confessional Writings” (1832) caused controversy in Western theological literature. Zd. we are talking about his monograph “Athanasius the Great and the Church of His Time” (1827). This refers to the work of I. N. Ostroumov “The History of the Florence Cathedral” (M., 1847). Bishop of Vinnitsa Macarius (Bulgakov) († 1882) – theologian and church historian, since 1879 Metropolitan. Moskovsky and Kolomensky. Author of the fundamental work “History of the Russian Church” (1857–1883. Vol. 1–12). While he was a teacher and rector (from 1850) of the Imperial St. Petersburg Theological Academy, he compiled and published “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (1849–1853. Vol. 1–5) – first. in Russian theological science, a consolidated work on dogmatics. Zvernikaw - Adam Zernikav (1652–1692) - theologian, Lutheran, originally from Prussia, educated at the University of Königsberg. Studying the history of the Eastern Church aroused in him a desire to convert to Orthodoxy. He fled to Little Russia, converted to Orthodoxy and lived in Chernigov, working on the work “On the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone” (1774–1776; Greek translation: 1797). Probably, we are talking about a textbook on dogmatic theology (1848), compiled by Archimandrite Anthony (Amphiteatrov) († 1879), rector of the Imperial Kyiv Theological Academy in 1851–1858. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl (†1709), is the compiler of the Four Menaions, the author of theological, anti-schism and spiritual-moral works. On the popularity of the works of St. Demetrius is evidenced by the fact that in the 1840s. the seventh edition was published. his works (1848–1849. Vol. 1–5). In addition to the “Spiritual Alphabet” proposed by I.V. Kireevsky (1st ed.: 1710), to the dogmatic works of St. Demetrius also refers to “The Mirror of the Orthodox Confession of Faith” (1st ed.: 1804). Saint Philaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna († 1867), is an outstanding figure of the Orthodox Church, theologian and spiritual writer. He was appointed to the Moscow See in 1821 with the rank of Archbishop (Metropolitan since 1826). Metropolitan Filaret always cared about spiritual enlightenment: in 1823 he compiled the “Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Greek-Russian Church,” which was reprinted many times. With his blessing, the Slavs were also republished. "Philokalia". His sermons (under the title “Words and Speeches of Synodal Member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow” [1844–1845. Parts 1–3]) were greatly loved by readers and were translated into French. and German languages. I.V. Kireevsky was personally acquainted with Metropolitan. Philaret and deeply respected the Moscow archpastor. Zion is the name of the southern hill of Jerusalem, on which the fortress of King David the Psalmist stood, and later the palace of Solomon was erected. Zion is also called the Temple of Jerusalem and - allegorically - the Heavenly and earthly Church, as the living church of God. This refers to the publication started by A.I. Koshelev and I.S. Aksakov. “Moscow collection” (M., 1852). Perv. publ.: Kolyupanov N.P. Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev. T. 2, adj. pp. 80–85. Publ. by: Kireevsky I.V. Complete. collection cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 2. P. 264–272. Alexander Rodolphe Wiene (1797–1847) – Swiss. Protestant theologian and publicist, prof. University of Basel and Lausanne Academy. His conversations, translated by I.V. Kireevsky’s mother, A.P. Elagina, attracted attention among Slavophiles. A.I. Koshelev sent A.-R.’s book to I.V. Kireevsky. Wiene “An Essay on the Manifestations of Religious Convictions, and on the Division of Churches, and on the State from the Point of View of the Inevitable Consequences and Guarantees of Principles” (1842; English translation: 1843; German translation: 1845). Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev (1806–1864) – poet and literary historian, prof. Imperial Moscow University. He studied at the Noble boarding school at the Imperial Moscow University. Served in the Moscow archive of the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs in 1824–1828. Author of the fundamental work “The History of Russian Literature, Mainly Ancient” (1846–1860. Parts 1–4). His course of lectures on ancient Russian. literature, read in 1844–1845, I. V. Kireevsky dedicated the article “Public lectures of Professor Shevyrev...” (see: I. V. Kireevsky Complete collection of works: In 2 volumes M., 1911. T. 2. P. 109–114). Richard Rothe (1799–1867) – German. Protestant theologian, author of the works “The Beginning of the Christian Church and Its Structure” (1837) and “Theological Ethics” (1845–1848. Vol. 1–3). He spoke about the need for reform of Protestant churches and theology in accordance with historical and material “progress.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) – German. philosopher, author of the universal theory of dialectics. His dialectical teaching is set out in The Science of Logic (1812). According to Hegel, nothing exists unconditionally and completely real except the whole. Extending this idea to knowledge, the philosopher argues that it begins with sensory perception, then, having gone through skeptical criticism of the senses, becomes purely subjective. Finally, cognition reaches the stage of self-consciousness, in which object and subject are no longer distinguished. Thus, self-consciousness becomes, according to Hegel, the highest form of knowledge. In 1830, I. V. Kireyevsky listened to Hegel’s lectures on the history of philosophy at the University of Berlin. Hegel (like Schelling) played an important role in the formation of the historiosophical views of I.V. Kireevsky, since he argued that the principle of the development of history is the national “spirit”. In the state, Hegel saw the most complete expression of the collective will of people, i.e. "objective spirit". However, Kireevsky believed that the intervention of reason in matters of faith led to the creation of a philosophy outside of faith, i.e. that rationalism that found its completion in Hegel. The English (Anglican) Church arose as a result of the reformation of the Catholic Church in England; The reformation began in 1530 with the break of King Henry VIII from Rome. dad. The peculiarity of the Anglican Church is that its head is recognized as English. king. The Reformed Church arose in the 16th century. in Switzerland and spread to many countries in Western Europe; it unites Calvin's followers. The Reformed do not have bishops; the Sacraments are given only symbolic meaning. In 1537, Calvin proposed a draft rules for the church structure in Geneva, according to which church power was separated from civil power and was supposed to dominate over it. Residents who opposed the new church order were expelled from the city. The Quaker sect arose on Tuesday. XVII century in England. Later, there was a massive migration of sect members to America, where in the state of Pennsylvania they established a community life in accordance with their religious ideas. Quakers value mystical experiences above all else, in which they involve the union of man with God. They do not recognize the Church and its Sacraments; they arbitrarily interpret the Holy Scriptures. The Herrnhuters (Bohemian or Moravian brothers) are a Catholic sect that arose in Bohemia in the 15th century. and spread to Germany and Poland. The Christian ideal for the Herrnhuters is the early Christian communities, in imitation of which they organize their lives. Lutherans are those members of the Protestant Church who adhere to the teachings of Luther. One of the doctrinal books of Lutherans, which has the meaning of a confessional formula, is the “Augsburg Confession,” compiled by Luther’s like-minded person Melanchthon in 1530 for polemics with Catholics. In this document, for diplomatic purposes, differences between Protestants and Catholics in doctrine were smoothed out, and demands were made to reform the church structure. The Lutheran Church was governed by a synod, which was convened by the monarch, i.e. in fact, church power was subordinated to state power. Equal to the Apostles King Constantine the Great († 337) - Rome. Emperor, son of Equals, Queen Helen. During the reign of Constantine the Great, the persecution of Christians stopped, Christianity became one of the religions recognized by the state, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea, many Christian churches were built in the Holy Land and in the new capital of the empire - Constantinople. Constantine himself received Baptism only before his death. Due to historical circumstances in the 7th-8th centuries. Rome. The popes acquired enormous political authority in the Western Roman Empire. Since 756, the Frankish king Pepin the Short, the founder of the Carolingian dynasty, transferred to one person - Pope Stephen II († 756) - the administration of the Roman region, which became the beginning of the temporal power of the popes. In the 13th century authority rome The Pope was already indisputable throughout Europe. Until 1870, the popes held state power in the Roman region. Galileo-Galilei (1564–1642) – Italian. natural scientist, follower of N. Copernicus in the doctrine of the structure of the solar system. In 1633 he was subjected to an Inquisition trial, which forced the scientist to renounce the teachings of Copernicus. Henry IV (1050–1106) – Herm, king and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. When the political interests of Henry IV and the Pope clashed in Saxony. Gregory VII Hildebrand was the last to excommunicate the king. The ban was lifted only after Henry IV's trip to Italy, when he, in a hair shirt, barefoot, in the winter cold, begged the pope for forgiveness for three days and promised to fulfill all his demands. Although the North American States gained state independence in 1776, their territorial borders were formed only in 1867, and the United States acquired political weight after the First World War. Already Emperor Constantius II, the son of Constantine the Great (especially the next rulers of the empire - Julian the Apostate, Valens), oppressed Christians, supporting Arianism - a heresy that rejected the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore was condemned at the First Ecumenical Council. Under Emperor Leo II the Isaurian and his heirs - Constantine V Copronymus, Leo IV the Khazars - an iconoclastic heresy was erected, condemned at the VII Ecumenical Council. In the XIV century. in the dispute about the Divine uncreated light, the Church sided with the hesychasts, accepting their teaching as set forth by St. Gregory Palamas, and the Barlaamites - opponents of the hesychasts - were condemned at the Local Councils of Constantinople in 1341–1368. However, state power still supported the heretics for some time. Since the 12th century. The Byzantine Empire was constantly attacked by the Turks and the Crusaders. In an attempt to prevent the destruction of the state, the Byzantine emperors sought an alliance with Rome, an alliance that was only possible through the submission of the Eastern Church to the pope. In 1274, at the Council of Lyons, representatives of Rome and Byzantium signed a union, according to which the Eastern Church recognized the primacy of the pope, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and the Filioque, but at the same time, marriage of white clergy, worship in their native languages ​​and the preservation of Eastern church rites were allowed for the Orthodox. However, the union, officially adopted, was not recognized by the people and was not actually introduced in Byzantium. Equal to the Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir (t 1015) reigned on the Kiev throne from 978, received Holy Baptism and contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity in Russia. Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible (1530–1584) - in 1547, upon Ivan’s accession to the throne, led. book Moscow, the ceremony of crowning the kingdom was performed for the first time and led. book became the first rus. Tsar. At the beginning of his reign, he twice convened Zemsky Councils to make the most important state and church decisions. To combat suspected dissatisfied people and conspirators and to weaken the princely aristocracy, he introduced the oprichnina in 1565. Saint Philip II, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' († 1569), in 1566 from abbot. Solovetsky Zosimo-Savvatievsky Monastery was elevated to the department. For fulfilling his duty of sorrow to Ivan the Terrible for his subjects, the saint was deprived of the rank of metropolitan in 1568, sent to prison and strangled there. The relics of the saint, taken to the Solovetsky Monastery, were transferred to Moscow in 1652 under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and placed in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. In European states, Jews received political rights only after the revolutionary unrest of 1848. Here I. V. Kireevsky hints at the Frankfurt Parliament - the all-German national assembly (which included Jews), elected by universal suffrage and met in 1848–1849. in Frankfurt am Main in St. Paul's Cathedral. Perv. publ.: Kolyupanov N.P. Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev. T. 2, adj. pp. 94–99. Publ. Based on: Kireevsky I.V. Complete, collected. cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 2. P. 273–280. Continuing the previous letter, I.V. Kireevsky simultaneously responds to A.I. Koshelev’s letter dated September 20, 1853 (see: Kolyupanov N.P. Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev. T. 2, appendix pp. 85–94). In order to counter the spread of the so-called Old Believer schism, the government since 1685 was forced to pass repressive laws, as well as limit schismatics in their civil rights. Compare: “Today Thy secret Supper, O Son of God, accept me as a partaker: for not unto Thy enemies do we tell the secret...” (Followment to Holy Communion). Louis Blanc (1811–1882) – French. politician of the Second Republic, champion of the idea of ​​state regulation of labor, production and consumption through a system of public workshops. This refers to Catholic Europe before the Reformation. The rules of the monastic community of St. Basil the Great, set out in his works “Rules, extensively set out in questions and answers”, “Rules, briefly set out in questions and answers” ​​and “Ascetic rules for ascetics in the community and in hermitage”, became widespread in the monasteries of the East. You might be interested in: