Jesus Christ

Contents The Person of the Redeemer, His state and actions, and His relation to the human race About the application of salvation, or about the assimilation of the merits of Jesus Christ by the faithful About grace About the relationship of the visible Kingdom of Christ to the invisible The face of the Redeemer, His condition and actions, and His relation to the human race No matter how much the pagan sages (Socrates, Plato) thought about how to save man from the disasters surrounding him, everything, however, was unsuccessful, and all their thoughts had to end in tears. None of them, as the apostle says, could ascend to heaven to bring Christ down from there. Milton, describing the lost paradise, imagines God among the world of Angels, looking at humanity and then asking the Angels: “Which of you can save man?” The Angelic Choirs remain silent, thereby admitting their powerlessness in carrying out such an important task. Then the Son of God Himself decides to do it. This sacred poetry of Milton is not so much poetry as it is the matter itself. Indeed, only God could help the human race. Because what needed to be done? It was necessary, as the apostle says, to “lead all things” (Eph. 1:10); the world was without a head. Which of the creatures could be this head? All the forces of nature have weakened; who but God could strengthen them? to create order out of disorder? replace evil with good?.. Only God could do this. That is why the Son of God decided on this, as the Holy Scripture expresses this thought: “You did not desire sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings...” (Heb. 10:8; Ps. 39:7). The Father appears to be unsatisfied with anything; the Son goes to satisfy the Father's justice. Such a determination of the Son and such a will of the Father in the Holy Scriptures are generally presented in the form of a covenant that is concluded between the Persons of the Holy Trinity in order, firstly, to destroy the evil caused by the fall, and, secondly, to bestow on people the benefits obtained through redemption (Luke 22:29). What prompted the Divine to save the human race? The fact that It is Divine is the fullness of love. Therefore, the Holy Scripture provides love as the basis for sending the Son of God into the world. “For God therefore loved the world” (John 3:16; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 5:5). What is the plan for this great undertaking? His plan is that the second Person of the Holy Trinity decides to take on the image of man and, by fulfilling the will of God, satisfy God's justice and earn God's mercy for man - thus destroying death and acquiring life. To better see this plan, let us pay attention to the following: 1) on the Face of the Redeemer - Who is He? 2) on His condition and actions - what did He do? 3) on His relationship to the human race and on our relationship to Him. But before we begin to consider these points, let us take a look at other means that God used to correct the human race. The goodness of God, excited by love for the human race and changing the punishment of eternal death to temporary exile, found in itself a means to restore man. She determined to save the human race through the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Human wisdom did not know this plan and would never have known it. If the human race were left to draw up this plan, then, probably, it would wish to concentrate all its power in its Restorer - it would wish to see Him glorious, that is, it would do the same thing as the Jews did, expecting a glorious and powerful king in the Messiah. Many would like to see extraordinary wisdom in Him. This is what all wise men would wish for, no doubt. But for Him to suffer and suffer, this did not even occur to the poets. Meanwhile, the wisdom of God found this the best means. She ordered the Restorer of the world to appear in a state of slavery - humiliation. Here's her plan! She determined how to execute it like this: 1) so that this Restorer would not appear suddenly, but after 5508 years; 2) to leave Him on earth in a humiliated form for a very short time, but, meanwhile, to lay a solid foundation during this time; 3) so that He would then ascend from earth to heaven and from there rule the Church until all His enemies were placed at His footstool, and the Church would become a bride, free from filth and vice; 4) so ​​that, finally, all the consequences of reconciliation, and all the power of death and the merits of the Redeemer, will be revealed; then a new world and new people will appear. These are the features of the plan of redemption! Its focus is the Person of the Intercessor, Who must appear twice: in a humiliated form in order to begin, and in a glorified form in order to complete the great work of redemption; more specifically: the focus of this entire matter, the center on which everything in it depends, lies in one minute - in the death of the God-man. His death has a twofold effect, reverse - backward, and forward - forward; the limit of this action is temporary life, but the limit is not final, for restoration extends into eternity, and there it affects people in their past and future state, it acts on the present and future world. That this is so, that redemption embraces everything, both back and forth, both visible and invisible, is clear from the words of the Apostle Peter, who says (1 Pet. 3:18–20) that Christ descended into hell and preached there to the sinners of Noah’s time. Having shown the main features of this plan, let us now look at them separately. Why is the Face of the God-Man not suddenly destined to appear? Why was the enemy of the human race given so much time to boast about the success of his unpunished crime? That in the work of redemption times are strictly distributed, there are very often indications of this in the Holy Scriptures, and most of all in the Apocalypse, where years, days and hours are determined. And judging in general by the idea of ​​a most perfect Being - the Author of Redemption, one cannot help but admit that the time of the coming of the Redeemer should be wisely managed. Why was such a delay made? The reason for this is revealed by the Apostle Paul when he says about the law that for the Jews “he was a disciple of Christ” (Gal. 3:24); The natural law was the same mentor for the pagans: “The understanding of God was manifest in them” (Rom. 1:19). Therefore, the reason for the late coming of the Savior was the need to prepare people. His appearance and religion must constitute noon in the human race, and noon is always preceded by dawn and morning. Moreover (the second reason) it was necessary for a person to feel his poverty and powerlessness to get out of it, to free himself, albeit from temporary and fleeting evils. Moreover (the third reason) humanity, as we have seen, was created in some kind of spiritual infancy, therefore it needs the development of strength to accept a mature religion. So, the reasons for delaying the coming of the Savior until 5508 years are as follows; first, in the necessity of preparing people to receive Him; secondly, in the need for awareness of one’s own powerlessness and, thirdly, in the nature of frank religion, which is not consistent with the spirit and abilities of infant humanity. Why does the essence of this plan consist in self-sacrifice, in humility? Why is it necessary to save the world through Divine exhaustion? The reason for this is hidden in man’s sin: man sinned with pride, therefore, to destroy his sin, the opposite virtue was required - humility was required. In Divine healing, two methods are combined: the method of similarity - for the Redeemer in everything except sin was like men; and a way of dissimilarity, opposition, for the human race is redeemed by self-sacrifice, by fulfilling the will of God; therefore, a way of life that is opposite to the ordinary life that people live. The God-man - this great warrior - must have the greatness of suffering, the greatness of patience; no other greatness came to Him. “It is fitting for Him to suffer much” and thus enter into the joy of God and lead others, says the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 9:26). But this greatness is revealed in Jesus only to the high eye. Jesus, the sufferer on the Cross, is an ideal that reason cannot invent better; in His Person the creature has reached such a degree of exaltation that it is impossible for it to go further!.. Why did the Savior appear for a short time and then hide in heaven? Why did He perform only the office of a priest on earth, but He performs the office of a king, a ruler, in heaven? The apostles do not speak about this anywhere; they only say that it should have been so - “befitting”. However, the reasons for this must be sought in the state of the human race. This means that it was indecent for Christ to reign on earth, but it was better to be a King in heaven. First: in order to be able to reign on earth, it would be necessary to change the entire social structure; it would be necessary for the entire human race to be under theocratic 1 rule, but much is still incompatible with theocracy on earth. The second reason for this can be attributed to the fact that there is an insignificant part of the human race on earth; a much larger part of it is in the depths of nature and beyond the grave. Consequently, the Restorer had to, having appeared on earth, hasten to where most of the people were, and be King there. The Apostle Peter has a hint about this: “For Jesus Christ,” he says, “in the most precious moments, during His stay in the tomb, descended into hell.” Having made a general overview of our restoration plan, let’s turn to the specifics. And, first of all, let us ask how was humanity prepared to meet the Lord? This preparation, even in paradise and before the flood, was common to the entire human race; the same thing happened after the flood, before Abraham. But since the time of Abraham it has been divided into two types: one for the Jews is special, and the other for the pagans is more ordinary; there it is more miraculous, and here it is more natural. Such was the course of preparation for the human race. What should the preparation consist of? In general, and mainly, it should consist in recognizing the poverty of one’s condition and the powerlessness to get out of it: whoever sees poverty from the physical and spiritual side will raise his hands and eyes to heaven, and as soon as help is presented to him, he will gladly accept it. Indeed, both pagans and Jews were preparing for this. What means were used for this? Natural and supernatural; the former can also be divided into internal and external. The first natural remedy among all peoples and at all times was conscience. Since conscience operates in a person, then with its threats and torment it certainly predisposes the sinner to ask for mercy. That this means could and was used by the pagans is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in the first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. So, conscience is the first universal and most powerful call to heaven; without it, all others will be in vain. The second natural remedy is the lessons of visible nature. It teaches the sinner many things; it also has its own morality, and in some of its phenomena it says the same thing as conscience. That nature is actually used by God for this purpose is indicated by the Apostle Paul, saying that God left the pagans to walk in their ways, however, He did not leave Himself untested, giving them rain, filling their hearts with joy, and so on. To see the reality of this more clearly, one need only turn to history. In it we see how natural phenomena produced religious actions among nations; Thus, fruitfulness, or terrible upheavals in nature, always forced people to make sacrifices to the gods and turn to heaven. Although many superstitions were mixed in with this, religion was the basis of all this. Here is the second ordinary remedy, and an external one at that! In addition to these, there were also extraordinary means. Before Abraham, they were common to the entire human race, and after Abraham, some, in fact, belonged to the Jews, and others to the pagans. In the days before Abraham, these means, then common to the entire human race, generally consisted of revelations and certain private actions of the power of God. We find three main revelations in those days from Moses: 1) in the comforting words spoken by God to Adam; 2) in Noah's blessings on Shem; 3) in blessing the descendants of Abraham. In these three announcements of God the plan of salvation is stated in general and vague terms. But one should not conclude from this that chapters 2 of the people living at that time knew as little as is contained in these passages. With all seriousness it can be argued that they knew more than what Moses preserved in his history. There are many reasons to think this way. For example, we have never seen anywhere in Moses that Abraham saw the day of Jesus and rejoiced; but Jesus Christ speaks clearly about this. This leads to the idea that Moses did not say everything, and that, therefore, the patriarchs knew more than how much he said. On the other hand, the pagans still had traces of expectations of the Messiah, much clearer than those that can be had on the basis of the Mosaic narrative. Meanwhile, if these expectations were based on the story of Moses, they would be weaker. And this should also lead to the fact that these expectations are not consequences of small, fragmentary Mosaic legends, but are the remnants of much more complete concepts that spread between people when they formed, as it were, one family. This circumstance must always be remembered in order to avoid confusion that arises when reading the Pentateuch. When reading it, they usually say: how little the patriarchs knew! To do this, contrary to hermeneutics, they strengthen the meaning of the words of Moses, attributing to them more than what they contain. This is where the tensions in explanations come from, leading to suspicion of theological hermeneutics and giving the frivolous a reason for ridicule. In addition to promises and revelations, some extraordinary actions of this time must be included among the supernatural means of preparation. For example, Enoch’s ascension to heaven: this was important for religion, because through such an ascension to heaven, it was as if the barrier between the spiritual and physical worlds was broken; therefore, a strong sense of faith could arise from this. What is the idea in the first revelation given to Adam in paradise? God says to him: you have fallen, but you will be restored by the seed that will come from the woman; man will participate in his restoration, but the head of it all will be God; for He says: I will “put away enmity” (Gen. 3:15). Therefore, there are three main thoughts in this promise: 1) a restorer is promised to fallen man; 2) this restorer will mainly be God; 3) but this restoration will be accomplished through man. What is the “seed of the woman”? We will interpret it as it is in itself. Simple - it means offspring; Now we know that this seed means Christ, but we already know when the Apostle Paul explained it to us (Gal. 3); and that our ancestors meant the same thing by seed, this cannot be asserted. Thus, this promise is very vague - it does not say how the human race will be restored, when and by whom exactly, and therefore it itself is, as it were, the seed of all subsequent promises. Well, was this not enough for Adam? No, very quite... This could protect him from despair and excite him to repentance, and the uncertainty of this promise - look for clarification and a more precise definition, which, in all likelihood, he found. Moses, having described the fall of Adam, abandoned and seemed to despise everything else related to his life. But during the nine hundred years of Adam’s life, had his strength really not developed? Could it be that God, who appeared to him when he was in all his sin, did not appear when his sin had already been somewhat washed away by repentance? We see that Adam's children - Cain and Abel - make sacrifices. No matter how one judges all this, one must admit that they were taught this from above, either from the Angels, or from God Himself: for the essence and power of all sacrifices depends on one, which was offered for the sins of the whole world, Jesus Christ. It cannot be that Adam and his children, not knowing about this great sacrifice, began to sacrifice. So, in all seriousness it must be assumed that Adam and the patriarchs knew more than how much the first promise of Moses contained. The same assumption should be made about other patriarchs. Thus, Enos and Enoch are said to have walked with God. Although one can understand here the moral walk, one cannot eliminate the physical one, which must consist of Epiphanies. But Moses says nothing about this, and therefore this constitutes a new confirmation of our truth. Noah also had several Epiphanies; meanwhile Moses does not speak about them. In general, the antediluvian patriarchs had much more concepts than Moses tells us. The memory of this remained with the Jews and served as the basis for counterfeit books: “On the Wisdom of Adam”, “On the Prophecy of Enoch”, “On the Laws of Noah” and others. All these legends are disfigured, but with all this they are an echo of the antediluvian world, from which the expectations of the pagans originate. Indeed, without admitting this, how can we explain what is said in the ancient Persian book about Ormuzd, who must appear in the form of a man to fight Ahriman? This face appears from two sides - from the glorious and suffering side; hence some represented him in two persons, like the Jews who recognized two Messiahs. There is a remnant of this teaching not only among the Persians, who, having remained at the place of the first residence of people, could conveniently preserve it, but also among the Indians and the Romans in the predictions of their Sibyls, according to which, in order to return the golden age, some great man must be born. Virgil also speaks about him in one of his eclogues. These expectations could not be the fruit of the brief Mosaic legend, but are the remnants of complete and more definite oral legends. True, one could call them degenerates of the religious instinct, that is, the product of the silent, unconscious self-action of our forces; This is why the following saying is established: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” But although it cannot be denied that dumb consciousness did not act in this case, for it was also used by Providence as a means of preparing the human race, that is, nature itself with effort demanded Christianity; however, everything that is in these expectations cannot be derived from this one source, but their historical origin must be recognized. For, firstly, these expectations have been very strong and clear since ancient times; meanwhile, if they were born from instinct, they would at first be weaker and darker; secondly, they are connected with the fall of man and with stories similar to the historical stories of Moses; therefore, drawn from the same source from which Moses borrowed them, that is, from primitive revelations. The consequence of the first promise and others was the resulting expectation of a personal Restorer - as a Person. There are two hints to this from the patriarchs - Adam and Lamech. Adam says about his first son: “man’s acquisitions by God” (Gen. 4:1). Of course, he could say this out of joy: for him, his first son was almost like God. But, despite this, in this exclamation one can see, although not entirely clearly, hope for the seed of the woman as a Savior, for in it one can see a religious tone and some kind of attitude towards his misfortune. You can see a similar hint even more clearly in Lamech, who says about his son Noah: “He will give us rest from our deeds and from the sorrow of our hands, and from the land that the Lord God has cursed” (Gen. 5:29). What kind of waiting is this? Some say that he was named after this because he invented the plow. But what kind of rest is this for the earth? She was much calmer when her depths were not torn apart. No, this must be recognized as the expectation of the Messiah, which over time became clearer and more definite. The second promise was given after the flood (Gen. 9:26–29). From this promise one can see Sim’s high purpose and appeal to God. Therefore, the thought in this place should be that She will become a special subject of God’s blessing. This prophecy is extremely vague; there is only one feature in it - that the true religion will be established in the offspring of Shem. Thus, the restoration of the human race is now assimilated not to humanity in general, but to the tribe of Shem - a branch of humanity, and therefore this promise is more specific than the preliminary one. However, how few traces of clear concepts are there in it! Judging by what is said by its patriarch, who was honored with several Epiphanies and lived already at the end of the first and at the beginning of the second world, we must again accept this story as a small fragment of what, perhaps, was completely preserved in oral tradition. The third promise is given to Abraham: “When I have truly blessed, I will bless you...” (Gen. 22:17–18). From that time on, the preparation of the human race took two forms: in relation to the pagans and in relation to the Jews. This promise may therefore be more specific than the previous one. For this blessing is no longer given to the whole tribe of Shem, but to one branch of it - the tribe of Abraham. “They will be blessed” means they will receive the mercy that they need, that is, they will be enlightened and cleansed of sins: this is the essence of blessing! Some interpreted this to mean that the descendants of Abraham would be very happy and would be held up as examples in this regard, so that instead of saying: this is a happy man, they would say: this is a descendant of Abraham. But such a meaning is forced and not at all natural. Everything else in this promise is simple and clear. This will be followed by two methods of preparation: one among the Jews, and the other among the pagans. The pagans were prepared in the same way as before; but the method of preparation of the Jews has its own characteristics. Let us follow in the footsteps of this Divine economy. The Jews continued to have a series of prophecies; the prophecies given to Adam, Noah and Abraham now became wider, clearer, more tangible, more instructive and, gradually increasing, finally, five hundred years before the Nativity of Christ, completely ceased. We saw that Adam was given an indefinite prophecy - in the seed of a woman: according to this, the Messiah had to be looked for in the entire human race; Noah - more specifically - in the seed of Shem; the origin of the Messiah must therefore already be assumed from one part of the human race; To Abraham - even more specifically: limited to his descendants alone. But in all aspects their image of the Messiah is still indecisive. Then he began to appear more clearly and definitely. Jacob, blessing his children before his death, says to Judah: “Judo, your brethren will praise you...” (Gen. 49:8-10). The features of this prophecy are the following: firstly, the promise is limited and defined by the fact that of the twelve sons of Jacob, only Judah is promised a blessed seed. Secondly, the feature of universalism is added to Jewish particularism: “and that is the desire of tongues,” or: that is the “gathering of tongues” (Gen. 49:10, 28:3). Thirdly, the future Messiah emerges from the indeterminate crowd of humanity, appears as a special, indivisible Being, a Person - in the name of Shilog (Reconciler). Whatever meaning may be given to this name, [however] it all contains the meaning of calm, reconciliation. However, how this Shilog will act, and how the peoples will receive peace through Him, is not yet visible. Several years pass and Moses appears. At the end of his life, He gives the Jews a prophecy in relation to himself, and therefore the Messiah is a prophet for Him: “A prophet,” he says, “the Lord your God will raise up for you from your brethren like me” (Deut. 18:15). This is the new side of the Messiah - the prophetic, which reveals the way in which all good deeds will flow from Him to the human race. since the Messiah is called a prophet, and the office of a prophet is to legislate and teach religion, this means that the future Messiah will benefit people by communicating the law to them and by teaching them knowledge of God and reverence for God. Another prophecy is given through Balaam: “A star will rise from Jacob, and a man will arise from Israel” (Numbers 24:17). Balaam uttered this prophecy involuntarily, and therefore it is dim for him, mixed with the general features of the glory of Israel. From Moses to David, a number of prophecies seem to be lost; but with David new and more definite ones begin. David himself predicts the Messiah and presents Him in various ways: first, as a King placed “over Zion” (Ps. 2:6), triumphant over those who plot vain things (Ps. 2:9); secondly, he sees Him in humiliation and poverty (Ps. 109:22–23, 40:10, 26:8, 9:10, 68:22, 21:11); thirdly, he ascends to heaven and contemplates Him, seated by God the Father as an eternal King, as a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4); fourthly, then he descends to earth and sees Him ruling the nations (Ps. 109:2, 3, 6). In general, David’s Messiah appears from all sides: from the Divine and human side; in a state of glory and distress; He also describes in detail all His benefits... Here, in the prophetic psalms, the Messiah is presented especially as a King and Lord; it also speaks of His eternal and imperishable priesthood; the entire breadth of the prophetic vision is concentrated, one might say, in the seed of David and his son Solomon. Thus, the promised Deliverer is first the son of Adam, then Shem, then Abraham, still further Judah, and finally David. It is noteworthy that these prophecies are all taken from special incidents that happened to David and adapted to them, therefore they have two sides: one relating to David or his son, the other actually belonging to the Messiah (other predictions left by prophets, actually so-called, are of this nature). The prophets who followed David spoke even more clearly about the Messiah; each of them makes some new addition, adding the features of the Messiah not so much external as internal, spiritual. Thus, Isaiah presents the Messiah as suffering (Isaiah 53:1–10), full of wisdom and the Spirit of God (Isaiah 2:2–5, 1:21), as a King of peace (Isaiah 2:4, 11:12, 9:6, 11:6–9), and so on. Joel predicts a gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit due to the merits of the Messiah (Joel 2:28–29); Malachi inspires the Jews that the Messiah is coming to punish the Jews (Malachi 3:1–3). This is an addition to the previous prophecies from the moral side. There are also replenishments from the physical and, so to speak, geographical side. For example, Isaiah adds that the Messiah will come from the Virgin - from the root of Jesse (Is. 7:14); Micah produces Him from Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); Haggai says that He will appear at the second church (Hag. 2:9); Daniel correctly determines the time of His coming in weeks (Dan. 9:22–24). The distinctive feature of these predictions is that they do not contain such adaptation as is evident in the prophecies of David. David takes traits from himself in the circumstances of his life and applies them to the Messiah. The prophets, on the contrary, do not remove features from themselves, but from the fate of the entire Jewish people. Thus, Isaiah speaks of the birth of the Messiah from a Virgin, on the occasion of the attack on the Judah king Ahaz by two hostile kings - Pekah, king of Israel, and Raashon, king of Syria (2 Kings 16:5). Five hundred years before the birth of Christ, the prophecies about the Messiah ceased. The reason for this is that through this the Jews were given time to comprehend these prophecies themselves, discuss them, compare them with each other and, thus, morally prepare to accept the Messiah, to which John the Baptist subsequently encouraged them. So, the first preparation of the Jews consisted in prophecies. This series of prophets, appearing over the centuries, can be likened to a series of predecessors heralding the coming of kings; each of them proclaimed the same thing that John the Baptist finally proclaimed: “He who comes... strengthen me... repent, for the kingdom of heaven is drawing near” (Matthew 3:2, 11). This preparation produced its effects, but had more perverse effects, that is, the Jews rejected the Messiah, and most of them were based on prophecies, on the concept of a sensual Messiah drawn from them. Doesn't the blame for such a misunderstanding of the Jews fall on the prophecies? Was it not necessary, as a result of the prophecies, to represent the Messiah sensually, as the Jews have been doing until now? The question is very important, because its misinterpretation resulted in terrible phenomena: the death of the God-man and the fact that an entire people remains in disastrous bitterness to this day. But is there anything true in the complaints made by the Jews about the prophecies? Isn't the Messiah depicted by the prophets as an earthly king? And this image, if it exists, is it such that the Jews could still expect such a king? It is true that the Messiah in some places of the prophecies is presented in sensual terms, for example, as a king and conqueror (Ps. 2:3–8, 45:18, 71:8–11. Mic. 5:7–8; especially Isa. 60:6, 61:5), as a benefactor of one Jewish people (Is. 60). But should the Jews have limited themselves to these prophecies? No! they are indecisive. There are places in which the Messiah is presented, firstly, to those who suffer (Isa. 53:2–5); secondly, rejecting most of the Jews and bringing prosperity only to a certain pious remnant of the sons of Judah (Isa. 61:1-7), a king of peace (Ps. 2:6, 2,4, 5), a priest of Jehovah (Is. 45:23, 56:7). Although there are fewer of these features, they are clear and decisive. Especially the last prophets speak clearly about the rejection of the Jews: Malachi predicts that the Messiah will make an analysis and then shower blessings on the worthy. When there are such features in the predictions that are opposite to the first, when the prophets speak about the sufferings of the Messiah, which are not consistent with the concept of Him as an earthly king, when they predict the rejection and judgment of the Jews, when the coming of the Messiah is recognized as beneficial for all nations, then the Jews should have made a set of all prophecies; it was necessary to agree among themselves those of them that were opposite to one another. They themselves felt this, but they did not reconcile it as they should; for their agreement they allowed two Messiahs: the humiliated and the glorious. But they would reconcile them in the best possible way if they recognized two states in one and the same Person: humiliated and glorified. The particularism 4 of the Jews with the universalism 5 of the entire human race can also be reconciled by the fact that those of the Jews who accepted the Messiah actually received an advantage over other nations, for Jesus Christ appeared among the Jews; of them the apostles, of them the first Church - a very important advantage! From the sensory side, the Messiah was depicted more often and more clearly because the condition of the Jewish people required it; in addition, sensory benefits were among the benefits He provided to the human race. This followed in Christianity, although not quickly. Now we see clearly that Christian peoples have become dominant and rule almost the whole world. If powerful peoples now exist outside of Christianity and remain unconquered by Christians, it is only because of the condescension of these latter towards them. Thus, the sensual side of the prophecies about the Messiah came to fulfillment. Of course, Christian powers owe their power and prosperity to other reasons; but one cannot reject this, one cannot help but prove with one minister of France that the power of states is largely lent to Christianity. True, this duality of the Messiah gave rise to sensual concepts about Him, but it is inevitable for the reasons we have given above, and does not give the Jews any right to excuse themselves and justify the fact that they did not accept the Messiah, nor to complain about the prophets, or Jehovah. It does not give them the right to the latter because, judging by their mental and moral state, it was impossible for them to understand 6 the image of the Messiah as the King of the moral and spiritual kingdom, and that therefore a prophecy of this kind would not have a beneficial effect on them; does not give the right to the first, because according to more than one prophecy they were supposed to accept the Messiah. His life and deeds should have aroused faith in them, for the prophets predicted that the Messiah would work miracles. In the current state, it is even impossible for the Jews to judge the Messiah by prophecies, for where is now that second church at which He should appear? The tribe of Judah, from which He was to come, mixed with the others; the scepter and the lawmaker have already been taken away; There is no longer any trace of Bethlehem. Even before it was difficult to judge by prophecies alone. For example, it was said that the Messiah would come from the tribe of David, but the tribe of David was numerous; How can a Jew recognize the Messiah from this prophecy? The Messiah will come from Bethlehem, but there were many people in Bethlehem; will come from Virgo, but from which one? Again, the Jews could not recognize the Messiah from this prophecy. So, in vain the Jews rejected the Messiah, recognizing His miracles as the action of Beelzebub; It is in vain that they continue to harbor political dreams about Him. If only these dreams had taken place when the Jews had not been rejected. For it would have been completely different if they had accepted Jesus, and it was not impossible to accept Him. Then, at least partially, the sensual expectations of the Jews would be realized. Jesus Christ, entering Jerusalem for the last time, cried: “Oh, if you, Jerusalem, knew the day of your visit,” He said, “then how many benefits you would receive!” What are these benefits? Without a doubt, sensual, for they are opposed to sensual troubles: there will not be left one stone upon another, said the Savior; enemies will bypass you and besiege you, and so on. Consequently, the first good would be that Titus and Vespasian would not approach Jerusalem, and the Jews would be free from Roman slavery; and this would give everything a different, better look. So here is the first preparation, consisting of prophecies! Here are his actions on the Jews and the consequences! The second preparation consisted of transformations. Providence decreed that all almost famous Old Testament figures prefigured the Messiah and made the 7th series of preparations. Were there really transformational figures in the Old Testament? There were and are many doubts about this issue. But the basis for this kind of preparation lies in the very nature of things. Jesus Christ is the ideal of all humanity; in Him, in a small form, everything that was and is best in humanity was expressed; As a result of this, kings, prophets and other Old Testament men bore on themselves in parts those traits that should all be concentrated together in the future Messiah. Thus, the suffering David represented the suffering Christ, and so on. Providence arranged this series of transformations, these incidents and circumstances of persons on whom the fate of the Jewish people depended in such a way that there was exact harmony between them and the future Messiah. So, the prophet Jonah was swallowed up by a miraculous whale, or in some way; he could have been in it for one day, three or more, but Providence decreed that he was there for three days. From this came the transformation of Christ’s three-day stay in the tomb. A similar feature is found in the institution of the Passover lamb, which formed the center of all Old Testament rites. One way or another, preparing it, boiling or baking it was a completely random matter. But Providence decreed that this lamb clearly express the great Lamb - Jesus Christ. The command not to break bones is clearly an intentional feature, for this deviates from the usual way of eating meat. Thus, this is the basis of prototypes! This is the way in which Providence arranged everything on this basis. In fact, he is assured by Jesus Christ Himself and the apostles, who often reveal the characteristics of the Messiah in many Old Testament men. This preparation, of course, did not have the same effects as the one that preceded it, and the one we will immediately talk about, that is, what the prophecies of the religion itself, or the very Covenant of the Jews, had. However, his actions were not small. If those persons who typified Christ knew their purpose by revelation, then how many incentives could flow from here to lead a life consistent with and worthy of the Prototype! The sacred books do not tell us that these persons should know this, nor do they tell us that they should not know. But since these persons in the Old Testament knew a lot of things that are not in the books, they knew this too. The third, most important preparation of the Jews was the religion given to them, or the law itself. This law was divided into moral, ritual and civil, which were all given by God. Therefore, the religion of the Jews was closely connected with politics. God Himself was their Ruler and Lawgiver; hence the government under which the Jews were was a feocratic government. How did such a religion prepare the Jews to receive the Messiah? And, firstly, how did the feocracy itself serve as a preparation for this? Theocracy brought the Jews closer to God; through such a rapprochement, she disposed them to accept greater revelation and promises from Him, and, thus, served as an instrument for their preparation. It would be completely indecent for another people, who did not have such special rights as the Jews, to communicate such information as was communicated by God to them, for they would not have expected it, and therefore would not have been disposed to accept it. The prophets presented the Messiah to the Jews in the form of the Vicar of Jehovah, Who was invisible even in the tabernacle. And therefore, the Jews, having become acquainted with this Viceroy in advance, could easily recognize Him later. This is how the feocracy and its composition prepared the Jews to receive the Messiah! How did the law itself prepare them? For example, how did the moral law prepare them? He was very strict and threatened with death for non-compliance: the Apostle Paul often talks about this in his epistles. But man could not fulfill it on his own. And therefore, realizing his powerlessness, he decided to seek external help. This law served man as a mirror in which he saw his ugliness, his shortcomings and, thus, was disposed to search for a means to compensate for his shortcomings. But this means is in God alone. True, he found this means in another law, in the ritual law, which therefore served as an addition to the moral law. For failure to fulfill the moral law, he demanded a sacrifice and apparently blotted out the crime. Consequently, the ritual law interfered with the moral one? No! He only calmed the Jews somewhat and made the path along which they walked easier. The Messiah was far away, and the moral law thundered with punishments and curses; to reduce the fear arising from this, the Jews were allowed to make satisfactory sacrifices for some crimes, and some crimes were punishable by death. Consequently, guilt remained under this law. And he could not completely calm the sinner, and therefore had to lead to the same thing that the moral law led to: his sacrifices had to resemble the great sacrifice - Jesus Christ. In every person who was at all reflective, he awakened the thought: “How does our Jehovah, a spiritual, pure Being, forgive sins for a goat or a sheep? It’s incredible that animals have such strength.” This thought awakened others and immediately led to the following conclusion: “It is true that the power of the sacrifices made by people lies in something higher - in the prophetic promises about the Messiah.” Thus, the ritual law, on the one hand, seemed to weaken the search for higher help, and, on the other hand, it led people to Christ and was, as the Apostle Paul says, a mentor to Him. In addition, since this law was very detailed and patterned, and since this patterned fabric had sides that had a hieroglyphic sign, the thinking person saw in these hieroglyphs the special intentions of God, and therefore was excited to seek the development and explanation of them in something higher. The most important thought, or idea, of the ritual law is personified in Christianity. The basis of the ritual law of Moses is the idea of ​​reconciling a person with God through the merits of others. All of Christianity is based on this idea, and it is the reconciliation of humanity with the Divine - through an external means, through the merit of Jesus Christ. How much, therefore, did this thought dispose the Jews to accept the Messiah Christ! Hence, to convince those of the Jews who, although they reasoned little, little was required. To achieve this goal, the Apostle Paul considered it necessary (in the Epistle to the Hebrews) to do no more than [draw] a parallel between the ritual law and Jesus Christ. So, perhaps, it was not so much the moral law and the feocracy, or the political law, that prepared the Jews as the ritual law that prepared them. If through his sacrifices the idea had not spread that the human race would be redeemed by sacrifice, then how strange it would be to see the Redeemer sacrificing Himself! This is how the Jews were prepared! They will say: but they did not prepare, and therefore the education was imperfect, insufficient. What can I say against this? No! the education was sufficient, because its goal was achieved. The purpose of the special education of the Jews was mainly for the entire human race - to preserve religion through the Jews in the form it needed so that the Christian religion could naturally degenerate from it. This goal has been achieved: Christianity naturally degenerated from Judaism, like a fruit that has ripened, fallen off and been put to use. The Jews served their time in the best possible way, and thus the glorious goal of Jewish education was achieved. But in relation to the Jews, the goal of education was also achieved. For the best part of the Jewish nation followed Christ. That the other part remained stubborn is their own fault; Moreover, the worst part remained here: the Caiaphas, Annas, Sadducees remained in their error, but some of them converted to Christianity. Therefore, the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans noted that “not all Jews are Jews” (Rom. 2:29). Thus, the main goal of this education in the human race has been completely achieved, and the secondary goal in relation to the Jews has also been achieved from its best sides, for it was not the pagans who first accepted Christ, but the Jews. Even if we call it unsuccessful in the last respect, then this failure is inevitable, as a condition for perfection. The worst part of the Palestinian Jews did not accept the Messiah, being blinded by their sensual concept of Him. This is a flaw, but it served as a source of perfection. Even if the prophets had not presented the Messiah from the sensual side, would the Jews have begun to wait for Him with such impatience? No! A sensual people would not pursue the spiritual, while the sensual idea of ​​the Messiah was a strong incentive to expect and desire Him. Thus, the destruction of the Jews was, as the Apostle Paul says, salvation for the pagans and for themselves. Let us turn to the pagans: what happened to them? How were they raised? They have preserved, but in some parts disfigured, all the means of universal education of the human race that were in use before Abraham. For example, the pagans preserved sacrifices and became the focus of their religion and worship. Their sacrifices contained the idea of ​​the Messiah. Now, if we assume that these sacrifices passed to the pagans from those who connected this lofty thought with them, then with the transition of the sacrifices a certain, albeit dark, concept of the Messiah, of the highest goal of the sacrifices, should have passed to them, as was expressed by the Greeks in their Dionysian sacrifices. But let us suppose that this has become obscured in the minds of the pagans; the sacrifice itself, simply without anything else, contained the teaching about the Messiah, for it prepared people to accept Him in the form of a sacrifice. True, the Apostle Paul says that Jesus Christ crucified seemed madness to the pagans, but He would have seemed even more madness if the pagans had not been prepared for this through sacrifices. Here the Cross seduced them, and the teaching about the Redeemer as a sacrifice was theirs; that is, it was difficult for them to understand how the Redeemer appeared in such a humiliated and pitiful form? They would rather see Him among the clouds on the throne, following the example of Philo. In addition, all pagans derived their religion from above - from God; This thought disposed them to accept revealed religion. If the pagans were not led by this thought, then it would be more difficult for the preachers of Christianity to teach them a new, revealed religion, while here, with such a thought, the apostles could only graft the concepts of the new teaching onto the concepts that were already ready-made. The remainder of the first traditions - the traditions preserved from Adam and other patriarchs about the restoration that would be accomplished through the Son of God - became part of the pagan religion in the form of sacraments and formed some analogue with the Christian Sacraments. Therefore, their apostles could only instill their preaching into the dark faith. Thus, the doctrine of the end of the world, which would take place through fire, had only to be instilled in the faith of the pagans in a similar teaching of their traditions and philosophers; the doctrine of the descent of Christ into hell was not inconvenient, but it was not inconvenient to attach it to the belief about the descent into hell of Dionysus, Hercules and others. Thus, all the perversions of the beliefs of the pagans served as an echo of the Divine calling and predisposed them to accept the Sacraments of revealed religion. One of the most effective ways to prepare the pagans was their wisdom - pagan philosophy, which, according to the remark of Justin Martyr, led to Christ. How? Revealing the truth and disposing for good. Moreover, since Jesus Christ is, in the words of the Apostle, God’s power, wisdom and enlightenment, then everything that led to God’s power, wisdom, and so on, also led to other spiritual things, of course, moral; consequently, philosophy led to him in the same way. The most particular service of philosophy in this regard is the following: it undermined idolatry so that idols, especially before the coming of the Savior, were supported only by their weight, and only one breath was required to overthrow them from their pedestals. For it had already reached such a point that in Rome the gods were publicly ridiculed in theaters. True, she did it badly, for, taking away the ancient gods, she did not give new ones; but, despite this, she rendered an unintentional service to Christianity by forcing the peoples to expect and seek something better and more perfect, which they found in Christianity. In addition, philosophy, overthrowing old teachings and finding new ones, but not being satisfied with them, thereby convinced people of their powerlessness and turned them to God's power. One cannot read the expectations of some philosophers (for example, Plato) without surprise; one cannot help but be surprised how philosophy, moving from subject to subject, from method to method, did not find peace anywhere, and therefore finally reached the point where it assumed a theurgic character (Alexandrian philosophy); having experienced everything, she concluded her career with dreams of delights, of visions, about which there are entire treatises in Iamblichus, Porphyry and other Neoplatonists. All this showed the person his powerlessness and encouraged him to accept help from above. Philosophers who converted to Christianity, for example, Justin, vouch for the correctness of this conclusion. This is how pagan philosophy led to Christ! Didn't the pagans have prophets? They also had a kind of messengers, who, due to their influence on the fate of peoples, also bear the characteristics of prophets. Such instruments of God were the legislators - Zoroaster, Trismegistus, Confucius and others. Justin Martyr recognizes them as the same for the pagans as the prophets were for the Jews. Some of them pretended to be prophets and believed that they were sent from heaven. No matter how you judge, you must accept this as the truth. If God testified about Himself through rains and fruitful times, then much more should He testify about Himself through kings and teachers of the law. These are more decent tools: animated heralds are better than soulless ones! Therefore, it must be assumed that some persons among the pagans communicated with the true Divinity. This thought will not seem strange when we remember that the Holy Books are also revealed among the pagan prophets in Melchizedek, Job, and Balaam. There is no obstacle to suggesting such prophets even after, although the Holy Books, which contain the history of one Jewish people after Abraham, do not mention anything about them. For example, what are the faces of the Sibyl, the origin of which has not been found, and only some of their verses remain? The Fathers of the Church recognized them as visionaries who had revelation from above. The Magi who came to Christ, who were they brought by? Who are they? Is this not the last link in that chain of pagan prophecies, the continuation of which we do not see? The pagans themselves also do not say anything definite about this, because heaven was pleased to hide it from their sight. But, delving into the history of peoples, we find similar people among the Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, and other peoples; and as a result of this, we naturally come to the idea that all these peoples had their own prophets. It is noteworthy that five hundred years before the birth of Christ, the special education of the Jews ended, and they became on an equal footing with the pagans. The plan for universal education has begun again: the two former departments - one larger and the other small, in time, but also larger in spirit - have changed. Providence scattered the Jews everywhere, and they began to introduce religion to the pagans, and the pagans began to acquaint them with the sciences, arts and their religious concepts. Thus, the method of mutual education and training has now arrived. The success of the pagans in this matter turned out to be greater than the Jews. The Messiah was accepted by the pagans, and the Jews (here it is inconvenient to always mean the Palestinian Jews) rejected Him. This is what destroys the objection: why did Providence from Abraham to Malachi take special care of the Jews? For experience has shown that the pagans were just as prepared as the Jews, therefore, there is no partiality with God. God acted in this case like the wise Vertogradar. Since the time of Abraham, winter has come in the human race, so the Heavenly Vertogradar created a greenhouse from the people of Israel in which the seeds of faith could be preserved. When the winter passed, the greenhouse was deemed unnecessary and destroyed. Here is a general and superficial look at the ways of preparing the human race to receive the Messiahs. Superficial, I say, because so many means were used for this purpose that we cannot even guess about! In the hands of Providence, everything becomes a means, and we judge only by the successes and actions that are tangible to us. It is remarkable that the apostle calls the time of the Messiah the time “predestinated,” and in another place “the end of the age.” What determines this end? Without a doubt, the sufficiency of preparation, for this period was a period of preparation. When could the human race be considered prepared?.. Then, when it was ready to accept the appeared Messiah, and at the same time His religion; but he was ready after he had spent a long time under the tutelage of ritual, moral and other laws that protected him. Let us consider, in particular, the prophecies, and apply them to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, for in His Person all prophecies were fulfilled. The main signs of the Messiah: some relate to His Face, others - actions, others - the religion He brought and the kingdom founded on earth. Signs relating to the Person of the Messiah: He is, as the Evangelist Luke narrates, the son of Adam, the son of Abraham, David, and so on, descended from the tribe of Judah, from the tribe of Jesse, in the city of Bethlehem, from the Virgin; therefore, in His origin He fulfilled all the features of the prophecies. He also fulfilled all the features concerning His destiny, for he was baptized in the Jordan, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, who cries: “Rejoice, thirsty desert” (Is. 35:1), His path was smoothed and proclaimed by the Forerunner John, who calls himself in the words of the prophet: “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Matthew 3:3); He was subjected to the hatred of the people, despised and humiliated - traits found in Isaiah and in the fate of David. In the last days of His life, all the features of the prophecy about the meek King riding on a donkey and colt are especially highlighted. One cannot help but be surprised at the accuracy and, as it were, the art with which this prophecy was fulfilled. It had a political tone, and at the same time it came true in such a way that it did not arouse suspicion in the Roman government. Further, it is consistent with the prophecies that the disciple sells Him, and, moreover, for thirty pieces of silver; they cast lots for His clothing, on the Cross he drinks vinegar and, no doubt, unintentionally utters the words of David: “O God, My God... you have forsaken Me in everything!” (Ps. 21:2; Matt. 27:46). Then, according to the prophecies, he stays in the heart of the earth for three days; resurrects and finally ascends to heaven. Thus, the prophecies foretelling the fate of the Messiah were fulfilled in Christ. In actions, the main feature related to physical power also came true. Jesus Christ performed so many miracles and such that the Jews themselves placed Him in their Talmud, and among the pagans, the worst enemy of Christians - Celsus - could not remain silent about the miracles of Jesus. The other side of His actions was revealed in the extraordinary spread of the light of the Gospel among people. The kingdom of Jesus Christ, according to the prophets, has fulfilled and is fulfilling everything. The Lion of the tribe of Judah conquered all nations. Christianity apparently becomes a source of blessing for all people and, according to the prophecy of Balaam, captivates all the sons of Moab; This means that earthly promises are included in the number of blessings brought by the Messiah to the human race, because they too have been partially fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled. So, in Jesus Christ all the predictions of the prophets were fulfilled; Only the infantile expectations of the Jews were not fulfilled, which with their sensuality and rudeness would clearly disfigure the face of the Messiah. The most decisive evidence against the Jews is borrowed from Daniel’s prophecy about the weeks, which, no matter how time is counted, must all be recognized as having ended long ago, also from Haggai, who says that the Messiah should appear at the second church. In general, the stubbornness of the Jews is already punishing itself. Since it is no longer possible to apply to the Messiah the true signs indicated by the prophets, for there is no longer either a church or a known tribe, but everyone is mixed up, the Jews have already come to the idea that in the writings of the prophets there are no signs of the Messiah, and that they spoke only to caress the people, that is, they renewed the thought of the ancient Jewish atheists. This idea was recently solemnly discovered by the Berlin Society of Jews and decided to turn to the ancient Abrahamic religion - to deism. There are three questions to consider regarding the Person of the Redeemer. First, Who is He, or what is He? What is this face like? This is where the doctrine of two natures in Jesus Christ and the manner of their mutual union comes from. Secondly, what about Him? In what form did He appear on earth and in heaven... What is His destiny? From here, secondly, follows the doctrine of two states - humiliated and glorious. And thirdly, what is the relation of this Person to the human race? From here arises the doctrine of the three offices of Jesus Christ: prophetic, priestly and royal, actually about His activity. These questions and aspects completely cover the whole matter, namely: the real fate of the Redeemer, or His condition; His being is Divine and human, and His activity is in all forms. Which of these three questions should be asked first? Usually the first question is: what kind of Face is this? That is, first they talk about the natures of the Redeemer, then about His state; finally, about three positions. But, it seems, the second question should be put in place of the first, that is, it should precede the teaching about the fate of the Redeemer, because this is the external side, and the external is always visible before the internal. The doctrine of two natures is metaphysical; about two states - historical, and about three positions - historical-dogmatic. And therefore, let's start with history, with what is the fate of the Redeemer, that is, in what form did He appear on earth, continue His stay on it, and in what form did He go to where he came from, that is, to heaven to the Father? I. The fate of Jesus Christ is well discussed in Church History. However, there is something dogmatic that we will consider. Jesus Christ is the Divine Person: He must therefore always be in a state of glory; Meanwhile, He is both in glory and in disgrace, and the latter state precedes the first. This contrast is well represented by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians: “He who was in the form of God was not equal with God by admiration; but he made himself a little less, and took on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6–11). This is a description of humiliation! “In the same way God has exalted Him and given Him gifts” - this is a representation of the state of glorification! What is the basis for this dual state? The height of Jesus Christ, the physical-Divine height, served as the basis of glory, for glory certainly belonged to Jesus Christ according to Divinity, as the Apostle notes: “in the form of God, not by admiration, to be equal to God”; and moral and human height served as the basis for humiliation, for this is the innocent physical state of man. Jesus Christ endured different kinds of torment. Who subjected Him to this? He Himself. True, God’s justice ordered Him to go through the path of sorrows. The Heavenly Father demanded this, however, non-violently; Jesus Christ Himself volunteered for this: “He humbled himself.” How long did the state of humiliation last, and where does the state of glorification begin? Usually this limit is placed at the tomb: some end the state of humiliation with burial, while others end with a descent into hell, after which the state of glorification begins. This is how they usually divide, and this division has its basis. For with the death of the Savior the series of torments and humiliations truly ended. But, strictly judging, we see that the time of humiliation was sometimes a time of glory, and the era of glory is connected with humiliation. The only difference between them is that in the first state there is less glory than humiliation, and in the second there is less humiliation than glory; but there is an unequal mixture of both. For example, the conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the Virgin is a feature of His humiliation, but here His glory also appears, for the Archangel proclaims it. Jesus Christ is humiliated by being born in a manger; but at the same time it is famous for its Angels and Magi. He accepts Baptism as a low sinner, but at the same time the Heavenly Father calls Him the Beloved Son. He is brought to the church according to the law of purification, but immediately Simeon prophesies about Him as the glory of Israel. He especially demonstrated His glory in a state of humiliation through the miracles He performed. And therefore, if He said to the Father: I glorified You, then the Father could say the opposite: and I glorified You. This confusion of glory with humiliation was especially revealed at Calvary, when the moral world humiliated the God-Man, and the physical world glorified Him. Humiliation passed into a glorious state. This idea has not yet been confirmed, but it must have a basis. That traces of humiliation remain even in the state of glory is evident, firstly, from the fact that He ascended into heaven with our body, and, moreover, with a wounded body, for even after the Resurrection the wounds remained on His body. True, his body is glorified, but this glory is great only for man, and for God it is not glory; secondly, this is clear from the fact that another body belongs to Him - the Church; this body belongs primarily to Him. But how much He suffers from him and will endure even until the end of the world! However, despite this confusion of glory with disgrace, there must be a limit by which these two states are noticeably separated. This limit, in all likelihood, is a descent into hell, at least this is an event in the life of the God-man in which these two states came together and then separated. Why did the humiliation follow? For the same purpose as redemption itself, that is, in order to pay for pride with humility and together present an example to follow. What types of this humiliation? The main points are as follows: acceptance of human nature: “I have humbled myself,” says the apostle, “and have received the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7); birth: Jesus Christ could have been born differently: not in a manger, but in the royal palaces; Meanwhile, Providence gave, so to speak, features that would express humiliation; circumcision: here again Providence ordered that the Messiah be born of a Jewish woman, in order to give a new feature of humiliation; being brought to the church in such a state that the parents did not have anything to sacrifice; engaging in a craft that required a lot of labor and sweat; disadvantages of life and persecution; These are types of physical humiliation; He was just as humiliated on the moral side. Thus, the Jews represented Him as a friend of Beelzebub, and the relatives themselves said that He was out of his mind. Therefore, it was impossible for the greatness of His soul to develop; therefore, He did not reveal himself to anyone as much as to the Heavenly Father in His prayers. The extreme of the humiliated state was mainly expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He struggled with a tempting and difficult thought. Preparing for death and reflecting on it, He came to the idea that the wisdom of God could redeem the human race in another way: “If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matthew 26:39). This thought, so to speak, overwhelmed Him; Meanwhile, Judas came; what to do in this case? This is where the final degree of exhaustion must be expressed. The state of mind must have been the most terrible! What can we say about that event, which some attribute to humiliation, and others to glorification, but which in fairness should be placed in the middle between these two states - that is, the descent of Jesus Christ into hell? Little is known about this incident, as an event from another world. The Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 3:18–19) speaks about him, but not directly and unintentionally. Therefore, it was variously disputed 10. Some, even among Russians, did not allow it, understanding the words of the apostle in an allegorical sense, that is, interpreting this passage as a story about the illnesses of Christ on the Cross, presented for the common people in a picturesque form. Some fathers also had such an explanation in the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila. The Apostle Peter speaks of the Savior’s descent into hell to console suffering Christians; and therefore he speaks not intentionally, but on occasion. The reason for this lies in the property of the object itself, which is not necessary for salvation. For living faith in the merits and death of the Redeemer is possible even without knowledge of this subject. They will say: so be it, but everything had to be reported as a very important incident in the life of the Redeemer. This is true, but for this it could have passed down in tradition from the times of the apostles, in which it was very well known, probably because the Jews still kept it with all its details. But do the words of the apostle clearly contain the teaching about the descent of Christ into hell? In the original it is contained in a vague and ambiguous manner. Εγ ω - “about Him” - can be explained as follows: about Him, that is, the Spirit, whether His own or the Holy Spirit - the Person of the Holy Trinity; from here, if we understand the first thing - the spirit of Christ - then it turns out that the Savior descended into hell with His soul; if we understand the Holy Spirit, then it turns out that Christ, animated by the Holy Spirit (Ζοωποιηθεις), descended into hell. You can also - εγ ω - give the meaning of the reason - “why”. There are so many bewilderments due to the imprecision of the language! The Apostle expressed himself simply, and therefore it is difficult for us, who are guided by rules, to understand the real meaning of his words. Jesus Christ was revived or resurrected by the Spirit of God, in whose power he descended into hell - Catholics admit this, and we, on St. Thomas Week, have something similar: “He descended into hell in the flesh...”. However, the true opinion of our Church on this subject is expressed in the following Sunday troparion: “In the grave carnally, in hell with the soul...”. This thought of our Church is already confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ descended in His spirit, and His flesh was at that time in the tomb. However, whether one accepts one explanation or another, everything remains true that Jesus Christ was in hell. Why did He go there? To preach, as the apostle puts it, but what He preached there is not clear from the words of the apostle. But, as far as can be reached by consideration, it must be assumed that He preached about repentance and ways to achieve eternal bliss... This thought can be confirmed by the further words of the Apostle, who says: “For this reason the gospel must be preached to the dead, so that they may receive judgment” (1 Pet. 4:6). This means that the purpose of the sermon was so that sinners, if they do not repent, would remain completely unrequited at the Judgment. Who did you preach to? Contemporaries of Noah. Why are they only mentioned, and was it only to them that Jesus Christ preached? The apostle has no answer to this, and to explain this we must turn to the teaching of the Jewish Church. The Jews taught in detail about the descent of the Messiah into hell: they said that He would descend into “Sheol” and bring out from there all those who died during the time of Noah. That is why the apostle speaks in relation to this teaching. In addition, around the time of the apostles, the idea became stronger that some of Noah’s contemporaries were good and were innocently swallowed up by the waves of the flood. This thought could also prompt the apostle to present as listeners the Savior who descended into hell, mainly those who lived in the time of Noah. But judging correctly, it must be said that He preached to Noah’s contemporaries, to the Jews, and to the pagans - to everyone who needed preaching. Noah’s contemporaries, since they were taken as examples of wickedness, are taken here as an example of the listeners of the Savior’s last sermon. So, the passage of the Apostle Peter that we have considered about the descent of Jesus Christ into hell should be understood in its own sense; the time of this descent should be set immediately after burial; his purpose was to preach; and the purpose of the sermon is to bring salvation and eternal bliss; Noah's contemporaries are presented as an example, although everyone who needed it listened to this sermon. Whom did the Savior bring from there when he descended into hell? There are two opinions regarding this. The first claims that Jesus Christ descended to deliver the righteous souls of the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, who until now had been in hell, for heaven became available after the Resurrection of Christ. This teaching has entered our Church, as can be seen from church books. For example, it is in the service on Lazarus Saturday, where Lazarus the righteous is presented in hell; It is also found in the service celebrated on Holy Saturday, for here it appears that hell is being destroyed and the righteous are emerging from it. The Fathers of the Church also have it; from them it was included in the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila and in all our catechisms, and in the newest “Catechism” it is said that Jesus Christ brought the righteous out of hell. So, this belief is, as it were, a dogma of our Church. Another opinion believes that it is impossible for the righteous to be in hell and is contrary to God’s justice. For they also believed in the future Messiah, just as we believe in the present, and were saved by faith in His merits, just as we do. This opinion is well defended by the Hieromartyr Irenaeus in his treatise “De purgatorio”. Catholics believe there are two places for the souls of the dead: limbus infantum et limbus patrum. Catholics say that Abraham's bosom in the parable (Luke 16:19–26) is represented in the same place as the rich man. But it is also said that between them “the abyss is great and established.” Catholics also contrast the words of the patriarch Jacob (Gen. 36:35). But against all their objections we can say what we have already said, that is, firstly, that the bosom of the fathers is nowhere in Scripture, and secondly, that grace acts equally on both the New Testament and the Old Testament righteous. The last thought was confirmed by the Apostle Peter: “by the grace of God we believe that we will be saved, just as they were” (Acts 15:11), the Old Testament men. In this the apostle even gives an advantage to the ancients, for their salvation is certain (1 Cor. 10:4). Here is a difference of opinion about the removal of souls from hell. Which opinion is more correct? Is there anything in Scripture that the souls of the Old Testament righteous were kept in hell before Christ’s descent into hell? Jacob says: “I will go down to Sheol.” But "Sheol" has many meanings. It means the coffin and, in general, the state beyond the coffin, another world, and in general everything that follows death. And therefore, the Jews, instead of saying in our way: “I will die,” they said: “I will go to Sheol,” that is, to another world. This is what Jacob also said, and this is how, in fact, his words should be understood. The decision on this 11 made by the Right Reverend Irenaeus (p. 258) is unfair. The author, apparently, did not know Jewish terminology. The Jews' concepts of eternity, or the state beyond the grave, were dark, unsteady and mixed. As a result of this, they generally called this state “Sheol,” without believing in it any distinction of places and degrees. Thus, even in the psalms it is used indifferently to the meaning of the state of good and (to the meaning of) evil. Then, when their concepts about this subject developed somewhat, they began, however, in the same Sheol, to distinguish between two states: good and evil. Such a distinction of degrees in Sheol followed already from the time of the prophets. At this time, the mind of the Jews had already quite developed, and therefore, reflecting on the future state, known to them as Sheol, they began to distinguish in it paradise, Gehenna, the bosom of Abraham, and so on. In relation to this concept of the Jews, Jesus Christ speaks in a parable, which, by its very nature, does not require historical accuracy. Further confirming that the souls of the patriarchs and prophets were in hell, they cite the words of the Apostle Peter, which contain the teaching of the descent of Jesus Christ into hell. But they are indecisive, and in general such an objection is not important, for it shows a clear deviation from the words of the apostle, which contain only the fact that Jesus Christ went to hell and preached there to Noah’s contemporaries; but what he preached is not clear from the words of the apostle, but is deduced by consideration; Whether he preached to anyone else besides those who lived during the time of Noah is also unknown. They also say that Zechariah has in mind the bosom of the righteous when he predicts that the Messiah will bring out his conquered “from the pit that has no water” (Zechariah 9:11). But such evidence does not deserve hermeneutical analysis. “A ditch without water” among the prophets often means the disastrous state of the Jews; We will already attribute a lot to it, if we begin to understand by it the moral state of the human race in general, but it is in no way possible to transfer this name to the meaning of what we are talking about. Finally, Catholics contrast the words of the Apostle Paul: “we have not received the promises” (Heb. 11:13), that is, they say, those who have not entered heaven. But that is not what we are talking about here. The very words: “having died ... not received” - show that they did not accept the blessed promise of heaven, for no one receives this before death, therefore there is no need to talk about it - but did not accept the temporary promises, did not see or touch the Messiah during His temporary appearance on earth. Here is all the evidence of Catholics about the womb of the fathers! There are many of them, but they are all weak, and their opposites are few, but they are very strong. One of the strongest proofs on our side is that Jesus Christ, as the center of both Testaments, applies equally to both. They will say: Jesus Christ opened the doors of heaven when He appeared in another world. No! If we say that the gates of heaven were opened by the death of the God-man, then we mean this in a moral sense, that is, we affirm that after the death of the Savior, the application of His merits became more convenient, and as a result of this, reconciliation itself became easier for us. Where did the idea of ​​fathers being in hell come from? It is ancient and passed on to Christians from the Jewish Church: going through the centuries, one can indicate traces of it. In the Jewish Church, at first there was an opinion that all souls go to Sheol, without distinguishing evil from good, for Sheol at that time generally meant an afterlife for them, about which they had confused (undefined) concepts. Then, as the mental powers of the Jews developed and as the concept of eternity became clearer, they began to distinguish in Sheol the womb of Abraham, Gehenna, and so on, but the previous concepts remained. And therefore, as a result of the concept that was born to them about the sensual thousand-year reign of the Messiah on earth, they imagined that the Messiah, in order to bring bliss to the dead, would descend into hell and not only bring out the souls of their forefathers, but also resurrect their very bodies. For, without assuming their resurrection, it is impossible to imagine how they can share sensory benefits with those who remain on earth for millennia. This opinion, obviously, could not pass in this form to the Christian Church, for it did not recognize the sensory millennium of the Messiah. That is why Christians took only one feature from it: namely, that Jesus Christ would bring the righteous out of hell, but that he would resurrect them, they did not accept this, because there was no reason for it. In this form, this opinion should have passed to Christians: how did it pass? Passed through the Jews who formed the first Christian Church; passing over, it changed in accordance with the new teaching. Its first change is found in the book of Enoch, the appearance of which is assigned around the 1st century: here it is outlined briefly. It is much more extensive in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates back to the 2nd century. Here it is described to us how Jesus Christ descended into hell; how the light spread from Him there, how this light affected evil spirits and took away their power; how the souls of the righteous saw Christ and left with Him from there. Finally, this opinion appears in full detail in the sermon of Eusebius of Samosata on Holy Thursday. There, first, a meeting of prophets and patriarchs is presented, with something preliminary about their liberation. Each of them recalls adventures from their lives. Prophets recall their visions; patriarchs - the events that happened to them and the promises given. Isaiah tells his predictions; Abraham interprets the promises given to him. When this meeting takes place, John the Baptist appears and tells them about the imminent coming of the Messiah. Meanwhile, hell, noticing these meetings, takes measures to destroy them, and for this it enters into a meeting with death and the devil. Hell begins to waver and be confused; the devil strengthens him and reassures him with the fact that Jesus Christ is an insignificant and fearless man. Hell remembers Lazarus and says that then Christ greatly shook his pillars. The devil replies that he recently saw Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, afraid of death. At this very time, Jesus Christ appears, destroys the council of the wicked and plagues the righteous. This is how Eusebius of Samosata dramatically describes the descent of Christ into hell! This opinion spread from these sources. It later appeared in Epiphanius’ sermon on Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday. From the 6th century it was included in church books. The Fathers of the Church held both this opinion and others. About half of them were of the opinion that Jesus Christ descended into hell to destroy everyone there; others limited themselves to persecuting the best part of the people. Here are some opinions. Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer says that the Lord brought out “multitudes” (multitudo) from hell; the expression is vague, but it shows that not only the righteous were persecuted, for there are few of them. Saint Justin thinks that only the Israelites were persecuted, but all of them, and not just the righteous. Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons and Saint Clement of Alexandria say that the purpose of the descent of Jesus Christ into hell extended to all those who died before Christ’s coming to earth. According to Origen, only those who themselves wanted to follow the coming Liberator, and were not attracted by force or coercion, were freed from hell. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem limits the number of those liberated from hell to the righteous alone, without determining their exact number. Saint Epiphanius says that Christ descended into the underworld in order to grant salvation to those who died before Him, that is, to the holy patriarchs. According to St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian), Christ descended into hell in order to bring out the souls of the dead. This means that the purpose of Jesus Christ’s descent into hell, in his opinion, embraced everyone who was there. Saint John Chrysostom held the same opinion. Tertullian, in his opinion on this subject, approaches partly to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, partly to St. Epiphanius; in his opinion, Christ brought the souls of patriarchs and prophets out of hell. St. Ambrose of Milan, in agreement with the opinion of St. Irenaeus, thinks that the Savior descended into hell in order to call to new life the souls of those condemned to death through the wiles of the devil: this means that he also extends the effect of the descent of Jesus Christ into hell to all those who were there. Blessed Jerome says: “The Son of God descends into the depths of the earth and ascends above all heavens not only to fulfill “the law and the prophets,” but also some other incomprehensible economy, which is known only to Him and the Father. For we cannot know how the Blood of Christ was shed both for the Angels and for those who were in hell, although we cannot help but know that it was shed. He descends to the underworld and ascends to heaven, so that he may fulfill those who are in those places to the extent that they were able to receive.” The opinion is quite remarkable: it shows the most extensive and deep view. These are the opinions of the fathers, partly passed down to them from the Jews, and partly their own. There is disagreement in them, which clearly leads to the idea that this is not a dogma. This difference of opinion is inevitable because this teaching is not defined by Holy Scripture. On the one hand, it seems that the merits of the Redeemer are magnified if we imagine that the prophets and patriarchs before His coming were in hell and were brought out from there by Him; but, on the other hand, this exaltation is humiliation, for through this the action of His merits is too limited by place and time; it is better if it extends to all times and to all people. The New Testament has other advantages. It has an advantage over the Old Testament, firstly, in clarity of vision: the patriarchs from afar only saw and kissed what is now before our eyes; secondly, by the sublimity of morality, for example, New Testament Christians deny themselves so much that they do not allow themselves to be married; the very righteous people of the Old Testament, on the contrary, practiced polygamy. From these and other similar points of view, the New Testament is superior to the Old. Hitherto we have spoken only about the letter of this event; Let us now delve into his spirit. This subject is not important in letter, but in spirit it is very important, and priceless for a thinking theologian. Without it, the most important questions of the Bible will remain unresolved. How, for example, will millions of people who have not heard the Gospel preaching, who did not know Christ and have no idea about Him, participate in the bliss He brought to the human race? And their participation cannot be prevented - this thought, if not resolved, would suppress everything; meanwhile, the revelation of the descent into hell resolves it in the clearest way. For from it we see that these peoples saw the Savior, heard His preaching and were witnesses of His merits. Therefore, from this point of view, the doctrine of the descent into hell is very important. It also says that the application of the Redeemer’s merits is not limited here, to this life, but is also possible for the dead who have not heard the Gospel preaching. Is it also possible for Christians to die without repentance? This is another question. It cannot be concluded from this teaching that it will be preached to Christians in the future life. That Noah’s contemporaries are presented by Peter as an example is clear from the fact that the Apostle Paul, speaking about this, no longer points to them, but to the Angels: “God appeared in the flesh (points to birth), was justified in Dus (to the resurrection), and appeared to be an Angel” (1 Tim. 3:16), was, as Peter says, quickened by the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18), - this trait cannot be compared to anything else. attributed to the descent of Christ into hell. What can we say about the power of this last sermon of the Savior? The power of this sermon should have been extraordinary; here Jesus Christ should have revealed the full power of Heavenly Majesty. On earth He could not do this, for here there is a small part of people, and, moreover, one that could not understand Him. There, behind the grave, the last member is smarter than all of us, moreover, the shortness of the Savior’s stay in hell demanded that His preaching be strong. Judging by this, it must be assumed that many accepted this sermon. Centuries-old conclusions have brought them to their senses, and therefore one cannot but agree with one father who says that “hell was empty after the Savior’s preaching!” The doctrine of bringing the righteous out of hell can have its own meaning and can be accepted with pleasure only in a certain sense. The religion of the Old Testament patriarchs, in accordance with their spiritual age, was imperfect; consequently, their life was not entirely pure, at least not like the life of the righteous of the New Testament. Moving to another world, they undoubtedly perfected themselves there, for it is impossible to allow their souls to remain there in a state of rigidity or numbness. When Jesus Christ appeared, they were already quite perfect, but the appearance of the God-Man and His preaching added to their perfection; they have improved both from the moral side and from the physical side - this change is the transition from a worse state to a better one, it is the removal of the righteous from hell, which is accepted by many. In this form it is truly worthy of acceptance. Further types of glorification of Jesus Christ are His Resurrection from the dead, His Ascension into heaven and His sitting at the right hand of God the Father. The Resurrection is a form of His glorious descent, for He decisively proved that He is the Son of God. This thought is clearly expressed by the Apostle Paul (Phil. 3:21; Col. 2:9). God the Father often called Him Son - at Baptism and Tabor; but these names were not heard by everyone, but this was heard by everyone: after this, the apostles immediately went to preach. Ascension is also a type of glory, for who and when was so exalted? Here there is clearly a triumph of the spirit over the flesh. Finally, being with God is associated with great glory and power; What is missing from glory is only appearance—universality. That graying this metaphorical sign means glory equal to God the Father - there is no need to talk about this. This is the fate of the God-man! These are the sights of His glory and humiliation! So, we have seen two sides of Jesus Christ - humiliation and glorification; We also saw the basis of this duality in degree and purpose. Let us make a few more comments regarding this subject. The Restorer of the human race appeared first in a humiliated form, and then in a glorious one, and therefore in His Person the ideal of humanity, suffering and glorified, was realized. This ideal was in the minds of some thinking men. For example, Plato ascended to him when he described his righteous man as suffering, slandered, tormented, when he depicted an unrecognized and innocently suffering virtue. Likewise, in modern times, this ideal presented itself to Kant’s mind, and he recognized its implementation as the most appropriate and best for humanity; however, he understood it in relation to philosophy - ideally. The freethinkers themselves revered this ideal. For example, Rousseau admits that he was never so eloquent as when he looked at Jesus Christ. There is a well-known saying of his that is worthy of special note. “If,” he says, “the death and life of Socrates are the death and life of the righteous, then the death of Jesus Christ is the death of God.” One cannot help but be amazed at the harmony of all events in the life of the Redeemer. This harmony is seen from various angles. Firstly, it is seen in the agreement of events with the purpose of His coming. 1) Jesus Christ came to cleanse and sanctify sinful humanity. For this he came sinless, born of the Virgin through the influx of the Holy Spirit. Kant also noticed this feature. Apparently this trait could go to the Redeemer, and not; whether He was born of a Virgin, or in the usual way - apparently it makes no difference; It seems it could have been either way. But in connection with the whole work of redemption, this feature - the virgin birth - was necessary. Only He Who Himself is sinless could take away sin; and in order to be sinless, one had to enter the world in a different way, not the way sinful people enter: not through an ordinary birth, but through a supernatural birth - that is, one had to be born not from carnal lust, not from male lust, but from God - from the Holy Spirit. 2) Jesus Christ appeared to reconcile earth with heaven, Jews with pagans, and unite everyone into one. This was revealed at His manger. There were Angels and people, Jews and pagans, pagan magicians. 3) He appeared to testify to people the love of God and His own. He testified to it, for, according to Him, there cannot be greater love than that if someone lays down his life for others; and He really laid it down. 4) He, on the one hand, had to present an example of suffering virtue, and indeed presented it; on the other hand, he had to present the reward. He presented it, for His flesh remained without incorruption. 5) The purpose of His coming, as noted above, was to sanctify the world. But people could not assimilate this sanctification for themselves because of their weakness; For this, Jesus Christ sends the grace of the Holy Spirit. In general, the circle of events in the life of Jesus is the most harmonious and most extraordinary. At one end of the course He traveled there was a manger, in the middle there was a Cross, and at the other end there was a throne. Whoever has reached the middle - to the Cross, will also ascend to the other end - to the throne! Whoever gives everything to the Heavenly Father, to Him the Heavenly Father gives everything! He who accepts everything from Him accepts everything not in order to keep it for Himself, but in order to communicate it to others. Jesus Christ accepted spiritual gifts and all power from the Father not for Himself, but for people. The teaching about the fate of Jesus Christ is very necessary, and, fortunately for the Christian world, it not only entered into theology, but also became popular through Christian worship. For what is our Divine service? Nothing less than the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Almost all of the most important holidays of our Church are dedicated to remembering events from the life of the Savior. In this way, the people become acquainted with the history of the life of the God-man, and therefore this part of the religion is most familiar to them. It is the duty of teachers to clarify in this case only what is contained in the liturgical actions, and to use the analogy that between Christ and the Christian is and should be the strictest. This is the main text of sermons of this kind. For example, regarding the seedless conception of Jesus Christ, which is called the Annunciation, using an analogy, we can say that a Christian is born not from carnal or male lust, but from God - from the Holy Spirit, that the image of conception is also inexplicable, and so on. At the Circumcision of Jesus Christ we can talk about spiritual circumcision, which was well explained by the Apostle Paul; At the Transfiguration, also according to the instructions of the Apostle Paul, we can talk about the transformation of the mind, heart, and so on. All these and similar objects involuntarily flow from the Christian’s relationship to Christ. Excluded from this are certain features in the life of Jesus Christ, which, since they are too private and have a close relationship with the Jewish people, cannot serve as the subject of applications of this kind. This kind of event - the Entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem - has a very close relationship with the Jewish people. True, 12 also gives him moral significance; but it does not have a particularly close relationship to life. From this side, the Christian religion has an advantage over all religions and over reasonable religion itself, and this advantage lies in the fact that its main story is expressed personally - in events. This advantage is very important, especially for people who are not able to understand abstract truths; they are understandable to them only in visible images. Especially death - the most terrible event - the Christian religion was able to express in unusually precise terms and, despite that, not in the least terrible. If philosophy did this, then from this one consideration all its successes would go up in smoke and disappear. Let us remember Socrates talking with his friends about immortality. How much better it would have been if during this conversation he had shown a picture of the resurrection - it would have replaced all his arguments. It is remarkable that this side - the fate of Jesus Christ - was least subject to disputes among heretics. It should also be noted that the teacher of religion should always have in mind the life of Jesus Christ. Let us turn to the essence of the Face of Jesus Christ. Who is it by nature? It was Divine and human. Jesus Christ Himself spoke little about His nature for various reasons: firstly, because it was indecent for Him to talk about it, for the era of humiliation did not allow Him to talk about His glory; secondly, because there was no one who could listen to Him if He began to talk about it. In Him two principles were united: Divine and human; to whom could He reveal this? Jews and apostles? But neither one nor the other at that time was yet able to understand this. That's why He left it without development. However, His few comments about Himself are precious to us: from their collection it is clear that they contain the same thing that the apostles later developed, that is, that Jesus Christ is God and at the same time man. There are few such places. All of them are found in the Evangelist John. There Jesus Christ appropriates to Himself the glory that He had from the Father, “before the world was not made” (John 17:5); assimilates existence to Himself: “before even Abraham was not, I am” (Jn. 8:58), - also some kind of (for He Himself does not define Him) unity with the Father, therefore, assimilates to Himself one Being with God the Father. And therefore His words contain the thought of the apostles that there are two natures in Jesus: Divine and human. This idea was revealed in detail by the apostles after they solemnly received the Holy Spirit. Until now, they did not know that Christ is God: then recognition simply as the Messiah was the top. Peter is called the rock of faith because he recognized Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But the Messiah and God were not one and the same at that time. The Jews had the idea of ​​the almost Divine glory of the Messiah, that He would be like Jehovah, but most thought of Him as a Man, only a great one. Therefore, it must be assumed that the Being of Jesus Christ was revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. How do they represent Him? God and man. They assimilate His Divinity not in general, but as the second Person of the Holy Trinity - as the Word. This teaching is mainly revealed by the Evangelist John and the Apostle Paul. How do they prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ? First, by the Divine names, appropriating to Jesus Christ the name of God, Jehovah. Secondly, by actions befitting God alone, attributing, for example, to Him the creation of the world and so on. Thirdly, by Divine properties, calling, for example, Him Almighty, Omniscient, Infinite, and so on. Fourthly, His natural relationship to the Father, which is impossible without the unity of the Creature with Him. And finally, fifthly, we worship Divinely: and “at His name every knee will bow, those in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10), that is, not only we must worship Him, but also all other created beings - all except God. So, the Divine nature of Jesus Christ, according to the teaching of the apostles, is beyond any doubt. But even less can one have doubts about His human nature. History clearly tells us that He had a body, for He was descended, at least in one half, from the Virgin, although without the participation of a husband; grew up, performed human affairs, was engaged in crafts, suffered needs, thirst, hunger - in a word, he was and seemed to be a man, both a stranger and one of his own. This He Himself assimilated to Himself, and the apostles assimilated to Him. For example, he himself said to the Jews: “Why are you persecuting Me, a Man...” or: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will understand that I am” (John 8:28). The apostles also in many places called Him a man: “the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). That He also had a human soul is clear from the fact that human qualities and actions are attributed to His soul: for example, “he excelled in mind” - that means he had human thinking powers; expressed desires that were fulfilled and not fulfilled, for example, in the Garden of Gethsemane; argued with people; was at times ignorant: for example, he did not know the time of the last day, and in general no one would have doubted His humanity if, over time, some unfounded heads had not cast doubt on this. Thus, human nature also belongs to Jesus Christ, just like Divine nature. Was His human nature the same as ours? Essentially the same, but differed in some properties. So, first of all, It was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not participate in sin; It was pure both in its origin and in its actions - in life. The apostles say that there was no sin in Jesus Christ. How could they know this when sin is a secret action, hidden from human sight? They, no doubt, knew this by revelation. Moreover, Jesus Christ Himself sometimes spoke about His sinlessness. To the Jews, for example, He said: “Who of you accuses Me of sin?” (John 8:46). One can understand here theoretical errors relating to the mind alone, but the word “convicts” generally indicates character, the purity of both teaching and life. This is why Jesus Christ used “sin” - a mutual word; otherwise, if only theoretical sinlessness were to be understood here, then instead of “sin” He would have used “sinlessness in thoughts,” or something similar. So, the first advantage of the body of Christ is purity, or sinlessness in origin and actions. Could it sin? No doubt it could. For the ability to fall is an inherent property of everything created; sinlessness actually belongs to God alone, as Jesus Christ stated in one place. “No one is good,” He said, “but only one God” (Matthew 19:17). But perhaps, as a result of the union of the Divinity with humanity, the body of Jesus Christ was placed in a state of infallibility? This may be so, but we do not know, for the Holy Scriptures do not tell us anything about this. However, the opposite side to it, that is, that even after the union of the Divinity with humanity in the body of Jesus Christ the ability to sin remained, is much more probable: otherwise His virtues would have lost their value. The apostles present Jesus as an example of imitation, but how little would this example be attractive if everything that is exemplary in Him were a consequence of His nature, a consequence of the inability to sin! True, it may seem that the ability to sin for Jesus Christ, the God-man, is humiliation, but, in fact, it is exaltation. For in this way His virtues are conditioned, and the loss of the possibility of falling for a being does not constitute the slightest perfection. The predominant quality of the body of Christ should also be immortality, for death is a consequence of sin; therefore, he who has no sin does not die. And therefore the death of Jesus Christ was, in the strict sense, violent, unnatural. Therefore, from this side, the sacrifice of the God-man seems more valuable. Another advantage of the body of Christ over our body was its improvement. It did not have all the consequences of sin, such as illnesses, disorderly movements, and the like. The last feature of the body of Christ was that it was impersonal. This property presupposes the union of human nature with the Divine. Let's turn to this connection. How were two natures united in Jesus Christ? That they were united, the apostles saw this and told us, but we do not know the method of connection, and no one speaks clearly about it. The apostles have several expressions about this, but they do not have logical definitions, and this uncertainty is not so much in deficiency as in excess, that is, it exceeds, as it were, what they want to say. There are few such expressions. Thus, the Evangelist John says: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). What is the power of this expression? At first glance, it seems as if the Word turned into flesh - became incarnate. But in fact this can mean either that the Word was united with the flesh, or that He appeared in the flesh. This means that from here it is not yet clear how it happened and when; it is only clear that this happened in an extraordinary, inexplicable way. In John's mind at the time he wrote this, the thought could have been that the Word was united with the flesh as we saw Him for three and a half years - during His treatment with us. He expressed this thought in his message. “And we see,” he writes, “and we testify and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us” (1 John 1:2). But he does not describe this as “appearing”: he does not say a word about the metaphysical method of appearance. Probably, this method did not occur to him, as well as to the other apostles. And indeed, only the school mind, or the inquisitive one, asks about him; and a sound mind, known under the name of common sense - (sensus communis) - stops only on tangible signs, on what the Apostle John stopped at - on the testimony of hands and eyes: “and our hands have touched” (1 John 1:1). This is what this Apostle says, without going into logical subtleties! The Apostle Paul repeats almost the same thing. “God appeared,” he says, “in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). This apostle already felt the incomprehensibility of this matter, and therefore, starting to describe it, he exclaims: “Greatness is the mystery of piety!” How can we bring closer the circle of concepts that were crowded in Paul’s mind when he expressed this? Paul did not see Jesus Christ, and therefore could not refer (like John) to his hands and eyes; this important advantage belonged only to John and those who were eyewitnesses of the Word with him. The Apostle Paul had the same thought that we have when we say: in this body there is a soul; or: in this head there is a mind; or: there is a feeling in this heart - that is, he expressed by this the thought that in Jesus Christ God’s presence was so palpable that one could say: God is in this body. But how God dwells in Him, he does not determine this. The same Apostle Paul in another place speaks more definitely: “For in this dwelleth,” he says, “all the fulfillment of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). What is the idea behind this expression? Here is a special concept that contains the idea that in Jesus Christ God dwells with all His perfections, properties and actions, and, moreover, dwells not in a spiritual, invisible way, but “bodily” - visible: this is an expression showing the closest union of the Divine with humanity. However, this is a subject about which more cannot be said. No matter how close the connection is shown by the expressions of the apostles we have cited, and especially the last expression of the Apostle Paul, nevertheless, this connection is closer than how they present it to us. And that there is such a close connection, for this there are all those places in which everything is attributed either to one Divinity in Jesus Christ, or to one humanity: from this it is clear that both constitute one subject - one Person, otherwise, without the inextricable connection of both, it could not stand. There are many such places, for example: who descended from Abraham? God, say the holy writers, while from Him Jesus Christ descended into humanity. Who is crucified? Again God of glory, and so on. From this point of view, looking at the God-Man, one can extend in Him the union of Divinity and humanity almost to the point of indistinguishability of both, and therefore, without exaggeration, the apostles could say: “and our hands touched the Word of the living” (1 John 1:1). Here is the Biblical teaching, which has left all human expressions about this subject far behind, and is itself far removed from being able to accurately express the essence of the matter! It is without logical certainty in accordance with simple sacred language and the requirements of the time, in which it was considered unnecessary. Holding firmly to it, one must look at Jesus Christ as God and, at the same time, Man. The God-man is a contraction of what John says: “God appeared in the flesh.” The Church has used a special way of expression to mean this union: she calls it a personal, hypostatic union. What is the power of this expression, and does it get to the point? A person is a being that thinks and has unity of consciousness. Consequently, this expression affirms that in Jesus Christ there are not two consciousnesses, but one. Human nature cannot be without consciousness, but it knows itself not separately, but in such a way that its consciousness is imbued with the Divine consciousness, and therefore is one and the same with it. This is the thought of the Church. Why did she use this and other similar expressions? Because of heresies, and therefore it is necessary to remember the heretics against whom she directed this. The heresies regarding this subject were as follows: some were directed against the human principle, others against the Divine, and others against the combination of both. They came one after another, and one of the others degenerated. So, at first both sides were subject to doubts. For example, the Ebionites and other sects, degenerated from the Jewish sects, because they previously had a sensual concept of the Messiah in Judaism, and since later, having converted to Christianity, they found little indication in the Gospel of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, they remained with their previous concept - they took away the Divinity from Jesus Christ and considered Him a simple man. Other transcendental sects - the Gnostics and the like - primarily motivated by the origin of the Word from God, argued that Jesus Christ did not take on a human being, but had only visible flesh. Against both, the Church in the 4th century taught that Jesus Christ was incarnate, and that the Divinity was united with humanity in Him personally. Nestorius in the 5th century drew attention to the method of uniting two natures and taught that the Divinity in Jesus Christ was not closely united, but descended upon Him at birth, and then retreated, that is, he taught a temporary influx, and not a permanent union. Contrary to this heresy, the Church affirmed that the Divinity was united with humanity inseparably, unmerged, immutable; inseparably, that is, in such a way that one cannot be separated from the other; unmerged, that is, not as the Monophysites and Eutychians taught; immutable, that is, none of the natures turns into another and is not absorbed by it. Against the Monophysites, the Church affirmed in Christ two natures and two wills. She made another determination against the Adoptian sect, which strengthened in the 8th century, which is a remnant of the heresy of Nestorius, and which, fearing to attribute to Jesus Christ the ability to sin - to choose this or that - ascribed to Him only one Divine will, and according to humanity recognized Him as adopted by the will of the Father. Against this sect, the Western Church, which alone was affected by this heresy, determined that Jesus Christ, in terms of humanity, is the natural Son of God, and not the adopted one. Therefore, the glory of God belongs to His humanity by nature itself, and not by adoption. For He was born of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is also natural to the Heavenly Father, just as the son of an ordinary father is natural to his father. Here is the history of heresies on this subject, and here are their refutations made by the Church! The last heresy is too subtle dialectically. From the entire teaching of the Church it is clear that the two natures are closely united; the method of connection is not defined in Scripture, but the Church has defined it as we have seen. What are the reasons or sources of the above heresies? Why did some disagree with the Church in what she has always taught, that is, in her teaching that Jesus Christ is the fullness of humanity - humanity with all its perfections, except for shortcomings, that is, with what essentially belongs to it without what accidentally came to it; and together the fullness of the Divinity - the entire Divinity with all Its properties, perfections and actions? Perhaps the reason for this was some expressions of the Holy Scriptures. For example, the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians says that Jesus Christ took on “the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7); in the Epistle to the Romans - that He appeared in “the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom. 8:3). But by these expressions the apostle does not mean that Jesus Christ was not full God and full man. “The likeness of a slave” for him means the same thing as “perfect likeness” - exactly like a slave; “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” he expressed that the body of Jesus Christ was like our sinful body; and yet, in itself, it was sinless. So, the sources of heresies must be sought not in Scripture, but outside it; they came from Hindu 13, and they took Scripture as confirmation. Thus, the beginning of those heresies that took away the Divinity from Jesus Christ, or attributed it to Him, but incompletely, is hidden in Judaism. The Jews, at least the majority, had the concept of the Messiah as a simple man. It was easy for the Judaizing Christians to remain with this concept, for they were guided by the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which is hardly the same as the Gospel of Matthew. They did not like the Apostle Paul because he rejected the ritual law, and as a result they did not accept his writings. The Gospel of John, if it came to them, it is already too late. Meanwhile, as soon as these two disciples of Jesus Christ primarily speak about His Divinity, and Matthew dwells primarily on His humanity; and therefore, whoever dwells on it can easily dwell on the fact that Jesus Christ was only a man, just as the Ebionites and other Judaizing Christians did. This needs to be made clear, otherwise it will seem strange how Christians could deny the Deity of Jesus Christ when John and Paul clearly speak about it. What is the source of the sects that rejected or did not fully attribute humanity to Jesus Christ? Heretics of this kind are: the Docetes, who argued that Jesus Christ had a ghost of flesh, seemed to be a man; creationists, such as the Arians, who recognized Jesus Christ as God, but less than the Father in Divinity, properties and glory, and tritheists, who rejected the consubstantiality of Jesus Christ with God the Father; also all the modalists, such as: Novat, Savely, Pavel Samosatsky and others. And they were based on the Scriptures, but their heresy, in fact, originated from Hindus. Their source is found in philosophical speculation, in the concept that arose in the East and had already reached Palestine about the origin of matter from an evil principle. If, they thought, the body comes from the beginning of evil, then how can it be attributed to Jesus Christ - God? It is surprising that Origen and Clement of Alexandria have something similar. Origen, discussing the humanity of Jesus Christ, says that He had a body quasi humanum, and Clement does not call the body of Jesus Christ consubstantial with our body, but says that He was μηομονυσιον. What made these people be careful? Probably their exalted view of the height of the Divine. In the spirit of the Alexandrian school - the place of their upbringing - they imagined small things to be great, and they imagined big things to be already immense, as a result of which they looked at the Divinity of Jesus Christ in such a way that they were afraid to attribute full humanity to Him. Where did the Apollinarians, Monophysites and Monothelites come from? The Apollinarians originated from those philosophical speculations that we have already indicated: they took away the human soul from Jesus Christ because, as a result of their subtle logical considerations, they recognized it as unnecessary. The Monophysites arose because they tried to reconcile the first - the Apollinarians. They attributed one nature to Jesus Christ and believed that humanity was absorbed into the Divinity. The Monothelites were born out of the fact that they tried to reconcile the Monophysites, but the reconciliation was unsuccessful: lies were replaced with lies. When the Church was agitated by previous heresies, some wanted to calm it down and, in order not to outrage the Monophysites too much, they ascribed to Jesus Christ two natures, but one will. The Church did not accept this method of reconciliation and recognized it as heretical, and did well by sacrificing its own peace of mind to the eternal and immutable truth. The source of the latest heresy is hidden in the subtleties of dialectics. This is the Adoptian heresy! The essence of her teaching, which spread only in the West, is known. What did the Church determine against these heretics? She united two natures in one Person. The word “face” is not found in Scripture, but it expresses very well what Scripture says; There cannot be another, better expression in human language. Since “person” means a thinking being, having arbitrariness 14 and unity of consciousness, by this the Church expressed that in Jesus Christ there are, as it were, two Persons - for both the Divinity, considered separately, is a Person, and humanity separately is also a person - united into one Person, and therefore to Him belongs the unity of thinking, the unity of will and the unity of consciousness. Against the Monophysites, the Church, assuming that two methods of transformation are possible: either the method of influence, or the method of application, affirmed that the Divinity was united with humanity unfused, immutable; the same against the Monophysites, against Nestorius - inseparably, inseparably. But is this teaching of the Church broader than the teaching of Scripture? Did she mean to say the same thing, and did she say the same thing that is in Scripture? Did she hope to reveal the whole matter? No! She recognized this subject as inexplicable, just as the way philosophers connect the finite with the infinite is inexplicable: her teaching is more extensive in letter than the teaching of Scripture, but in spirit it is the same, and even in some respects more closely: she explained it one way or another in relation to the needs of the time, to heresies. So, the teaching of the Church on this subject is more extensive in letter than the teaching of Scripture, and the teaching of theologians in the same respect is more extensive than the teaching of the Church. Here you can see all the art of theological logic, extended to the last subtleties. However, the Biblical teaching has the advantage of being inexhaustible in spirit. For example, what an abyss of thoughts can the following expression of the Apostle Paul convey: “God appeared in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). To see how well theologians have processed this treatise, it is worth reading the previous theologians. The essence of this teaching among theologians is that in Jesus Christ two natures were united in such a way that, as a result of this union, communio naturarum, communio idiomatum and communio apothelesmatum, scil occurred in him. operum Each of these three methods of communication can be divided into three special ones, that is, all these three communications can be understood either in relation to humanity, or in relation to the Divine, or in relation to both - in relation to a person. Communio naturarum consists in the fact that the Divinity communicates everything to humanity, considered even in the abstract, and humanity communicates to the Divinity, only considered in the concrete, that is, communicates to that point of the Divinity, so to speak, with which It touches humanity or the Divinity united with humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ, and not to the Divinity in general. Although such a distinction is subtle, it is fair and obvious to everyone. Communio idiomatum vel proprietatum is accepted with the limitation that the Divine properties are communicated to human nature only those that are called active - oregativa, and others, the so-called resting, immanentia, are not communicated to it, because it cannot accept them. Communio (αποτελεσματων) - “communion of accomplishments, deeds” CONSISTS in the fact that the Divinity of Jesus Christ is attributed to what actually belongs to humanity, and vice versa. For example, Jesus Christ performed miracles as God, but they are also attributed to Him as a man; crucified according to humanity, but it is said that the Lord of glory was crucified, and so on. All this can be explained in three ways, that is, one can ask: what in all these three respects does the Divine communicate to humanity, humanity to the Divinity, and both communicate to the person? But these divisions are not necessary. They are relevant only because they serve as examples of theological logic, and especially because with their help many vague terms of Holy Scripture can be explained on this subject. Here are their benefits! Why did the Right Reverend Irenaeus, having first said that the resting properties of the Divine were not communicated to the humanity of Jesus Christ, then ask: was the body of Christ omnipresent? He directs this against the Lutherans and proves it very strongly. Lutherans, allowing transubstantiation, argued that Christ is present with His body in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Catholics argued that the body of Jesus Christ is not omnipresent, and therefore it is not present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but the mysterious transformation of bread into the Body of Christ, and wine into Blood, takes place miraculously through the Holy Spirit. Our theologian also strongly proves this in places of Scripture. For example, Jesus Christ, having heard about the death of Lazarus, says: “for it was not there” (John 11:15); The angel says to the myrrh-bearers: “there is nothing here” (Matthew 28:6). The fact that this our theologian, first (in his main position), said about the incommunicability of the immovable properties of God, then, speaking about omnipresence, seems to repeat the same thing, makes us think that the arrangement of this treatise was not well done by theologians. It is better to put the person of Jesus Christ as the foundation; from it everything else will flow very naturally. We have seen the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the Church and theologians about the Person of Jesus Christ; They saw that the teaching of Scripture on this subject is inexhaustible in spirit, the teaching of the Church is more extensive in letter, and in spirit closer than the teaching of Scripture - the teaching of theologians even seems more extensive, while they, in fact, are narrower than the first two. Let us now see, in accordance with our method, how this teaching appears to the mind? What will it look like to him? Firstly, isn't it contrary to his principles? The doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word seemed disgusting to some elements of the mind. Some saw in it an unnatural elevation of human nature to deification - the assimilation of more to humanity than it can contain; others feared the humiliation of the Divine to anthropomorphism—the conversion of the Divine into humanity. But these fears are misplaced; they stem from an incorrect and exaggerated view of this matter. In fact, anthropomorphism is not introduced, and human nature is not elevated to the point of turning it into Divine nature, for both (Divine and human nature), according to the teaching of Scripture and the Church, remain after the union the same as they were before the union. The humanity of Jesus Christ has the only peculiarity that it does not have its own personality: according to the teaching of the Church, these two natures are united into one Person. But this feature was used by the Church in the way the fathers themselves expressed themselves, in order to somehow express the inexpressible; and they did not then connect with the concept of Person the subtle conclusions that we now draw. Even in the 4th century, the word υποστασις did not have a specific meaning and was sometimes used in the same meaning as φυσις. The scholastics already defined and refined its meaning. So, nothing can be said against the Church, which has united two persons into one, much less can anything be said against Scripture, in which nowhere is there the word “person”. It also seems strange to the mind that the Divinity has moved into humanity. Between Divinity and humanity he 15 represents the extreme opposition, extending to the point of incompatibility. But for the reasoning (philosophical) mind this strangeness diminishes and disappears. It is strange, for example, that it seems 16 to be a union of the Divine with humanity, because the former is purely spiritual, and the latter is one half of its body. But this would be strange if we knew that spirituality is completely opposite to physicality. Now this strangeness should not exist; but we don’t know what spirituality is? Isn’t it, in its essence, the same thing as reality—materiality? Do we also not know that the body is in itself? We say that in Jesus Christ the Divinity dwells bodily. And how does It live in the world, isn’t it? We say, for example, that all things are expressions of the thoughts of God, but the thoughts of God, taken together, constitute the mind of God; and the mind of God is the same as His eternal Word, therefore, this Word really lives in the world, and therefore it was not difficult for Him to inhabit the small world - the human body. Here and there the attitude of the eternal Word remains the same. The strangeness regarding this infusion of the Divine into humanity—the Unlimited into the limited—diminishes even more when we pay attention to the structure of our being. And we have some reflection of what was in Jesus Christ. He united the infinite with the limited: he made the Divinity, as it were, human. Doesn't the same thing happen to every person? It occurs and is clearly seen from the structure of the human spirit. The spirit of a person borders on the body and is closely connected with it - the limits, therefore, are its narrowest, meanwhile, he himself is almost limitless in his thoughts and actions: if the world of his thoughts were realized in another, then he would be almost everywhere - in the whole world. And where is all this? At one point of our consciousness, in our self. Consequently, in us there is a connection of the infinite with the ultimate. This is as it should be, for in us there is part of that reflection of the Divinity Which is in Jesus Christ - Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and all people are sons of God, because the image of God is reflected in them. This means that in each of us, although partially, the finite is combined with the infinite, just as it was combined in Jesus Christ. But the impersonality of the humanity of Jesus Christ - the union of humanity with the Divine, extending to the loss of self-personality, is not this an inexpressible feature in humanity? And this trait is reflected in humanity, if not in the present, then in its future state. What do all the prescriptions of strict moralists strive for? What kind of connection with God do they require from us? Such that humanity is, as it were, swallowed up by the Divine, so that one can say with Paul: “It is not I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). There are people who, in this life, both achieve this themselves and advise others to achieve this union. But our existence here is nothing more than infantile. If even at this infant age we begin to unite so closely with God, then what will happen when we move to another world? This means that in this respect the incarnation of the God-man should not seem strange. Thus, all the strangeness that the superficial mind finds in the Being of Jesus Christ disappears by itself for the deep mind. For him, this teaching does not contain anything contrary or unnatural. Moreover, it has aspects for the reflective mind that are favorable and fruitful with abundant thoughts. God first appeared in the flesh in Adam, for the image of God with which Adam was clothed is nothing other than the appearance of God in him. Then he appeared in the patriarchs and in other righteous people, but in all of them he appeared, so to speak, in parts: in one man there was one trait, in another - another. How good it would be to see the Divinity completely, all His fullness! - the thinking mind could wish. This desire of his came true - all the fullness of the Divinity appeared in one Person. Wisdom, passing through souls and minds, finally stopped and allowed Himself to be seen completely in Jesus Christ, full of grace and truth. Seeing Him, there is no need to ask: “Show us the Father” (John 14:8), - He completely revealed Him in Himself. The Apostle Paul had this thought when he began his Epistle to the Hebrews like this: “Of many parts and manifoldness of old God, who was spoken by the Father as a prophet, in these last days spoke to us in the Son” (Heb. 1:1-2), - in the prophets he was revealed in parts, but in the Son he was revealed entirely. So this is very pleasant for the mind; his desire to see the Divine in its entirety was fulfilled, and therefore he bows and reveres before such a phenomenon. The heart also requires the same phenomenon. His property is to seek intimacy with God. But God is so exalted that it is difficult for the feeling of the heart to rise to Him; and yet we would like to be close to Him, we would like to see and feel the life to which our heart strives: and now it has descended from its height and in Jesus Christ has become perceptible. Conscience also commands us to be like God, prescribes Divine commandments for us to do this, but it is desirable to see how God Himself would fulfill this or that commandment. This thought is terrible for the mind, but the heart can turn to it from time to time. The thought may even arise in him that the Divine prescribes, not in accordance with our condition, prescribes an ideal that is higher than us. It will be a completely different matter if the Divinity Himself fulfills His law. This is what Jesus Christ did: in Him the Divinity visibly fulfills His laws, just like us. The side that is extremely attractive to the heart. Let us add to this the practical consequences that are very important for the Christian religion, let us add to this what religion acquires from the incarnation of God the Word: and this incarnation will appear from even more favorable sides. The doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ puts the stamp of Divinity on everything. By this alone our religion is placed above all religions and even, as the Apostle Paul notes, above the Jewish religion. For we received it from the hands of the Son of God, while all others received it from the hands of slaves. Our Lawgiver is a Person above every person. And therefore, with what confidence does a Christian say that everything he believes was confessed by the One who was in the bosom of the Father! To this Lawgiver it is no longer possible to apply what the relatives said to Moses: “Is the word Lord food for you alone? You don’t say food to us either?” (Num. 12:2). Our God-man is above all people. He will fulfill all promises, no matter how great they are: what He said will be done. How much strength is needed to extract humanity from the abyss of sin and to bless it! But our Savior will have the strength to do this. To do this, it is necessary to recreate the whole world, and He will recreate it, for from His sight the whole sinful earth will flee, everything unclean will be erased and hidden. Thus the practical consequences of the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ calm the mind, conscience and hope, and make it amiable and venerable to the human mind. And what would happen if we presented Jesus Christ as a simple person? How then everything in His religion would change, fall, lose its soul, turn into disorder and contradiction. The beautiful features of holiness would have remained in His life, but they would have produced more pity, for it would have been felt when looking at them that they did not have a solid foundation; separate the Divine and the miraculous from our religion, and everything in it will lose its value, for both are closely connected. And Christian thinkers, who thought to separate one from the other, did not know, like the crucifiers of Jesus Christ, what they were doing. For example, let's point out one of them. Rousseau, looking at the face of the Intercessor, admired His features, could not find words to glorify Him, and his lips, out of the abundance of his heart, despite his mind, said: “This is God!” But the same man, when, carried away by the power of the spirit of the time that was then dominant in France, following the fashion of that time, which did not allow such a way of thinking, recognized Jesus Christ as a man, took away His Divinity, the same man after all this said: “And yet, how many absurdities there are in the Gospel!” - indicating miracles. We can say that his first hand wrote from heaven, and the second from hell. Why is this? Because he separated what God combined; after such a division, everything in Christianity turns into chaos. So, the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, being considered directly, appears to the mind from all sides to be acceptable. How should the doctrine of two natures, or in general about the Being of Jesus Christ, be used practically? In what state is the teaching of the Christian people?.. It is in a bad state. This truth has been shaken in the minds of many. There are people who have retained it in their hearts, although it has wavered in their minds; talking about them, about the consequences of their lack of faith, is not the place here. We touch upon them only to show the shepherd of the Church what he should fear and care about, in order to force him to always remember that this truth is subject to controversy, and that therefore he should become more familiar with its evidence, so that, if necessary, he will be able to say what to say in defense of his Savior. Have these doubts affected our Russian Church? Touched some through the dissemination of “encyclopedic philosophy.” This means that they affected those who are engaged in this philosophy, they touched the upper class, which in relation to religion is almost the lowest. On the contrary, our people are far from such an opinion, and will remain so for a long time. Consequently, the polemical side of this teaching is needed only for a small number of sick people. And therefore our preacher must more closely bear in mind its direct use. This use is important and beneficial. For although the people firmly believe that Jesus Christ is God and at the same time man, they do not have definite concepts about this. And therefore, the shepherd of the Church must clarify them and define them, however, in such a way that this subject remains with him in the half-light in which it is found in the Holy Scriptures; dialectical subtleties are also inappropriate here. For popular teaching, we should primarily choose the practical side of this subject, that is, we should talk about the Divinity of Jesus Christ from the side that we need it for salvation and is beneficial, for if He is God, then from Him we can hope for everything - both help and guarantees in hope, sanctification, and so on. Do we have teachings on this subject? There is, but not much, while it can be the best subject for teaching. We mostly talk about moral subjects, recognizing dogmas as abstract and lifeless. But this is not the method of preaching among the apostles: they have dogmas and morality in close connection, and one follows from the other. That is why there is life in their teachings, for both dogmas in connection with morality have life, and morality with dogmas is not lifeless, while separately both are dry and lifeless. Why is philosophical morality weak and lifeless, while Christian morality is very strong? Because the first is impersonal, not realized in persons; and the latter is personal, expressed in faces. Therefore, it must be preached as it is in itself, not imitating philosophers who demand the fulfillment of written rules, but following the first Christian theologians who paid attention to faces, and especially to the Face of the Redeemer, and from here they drew the rules of morality. II. Let us turn to the third question regarding Jesus Christ. What has He done and will do again? How did he carry out, is carrying out and will carry out the work of restoring the human race, in general, what is His activity? This activity is divided into three types: prophetic, priestly and royal. This division is not based on Scripture, [although] it does not even contain the word “duty.” Jesus Christ mostly calls this a work given to Him by the Father; the apostles also do not have a common name: they have names that for the most part mean one side of the activity of Jesus Christ, and not all; such are, for example, the work of redemption and simply redemption, satisfaction of God's justice, reconciliation with God, leadership, and the like. Why did theologians use such a division? Because these sides saw in Jesus Christ. Do they describe all His activities? Described. Aren't the positions included within each other? Partly included, for example, the prophetic can be combined with the priestly, for the priest not only performs the mysteries, but teaches; the royal can also be combined with the priestly; for the priest is at the same time a steward. Because of this combination of these positions, some found this division unprofitable, and therefore abandoned it, and spoke generally about the activities of Jesus Christ. However, it doesn’t hurt to keep it: from these angles you can more accurately examine this teaching. Who was the first to divide the activities of Jesus Christ into three types? Lutheran theologians in the 17th century, and the first of them was Gerard, then it came into use. There is no basis for such a division, as we said, in the Holy Scriptures, although in parts it speaks about all these positions, for example, the Apostle Paul speaks about the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews: You are a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (cf. Ps. 109:4). In a similar way, the Holy Scriptures mention two other positions - prophetic and royal. How else can this teaching be divided and on what basis? Recovery is determined by the fall. But the fall consisted of deviation from truth and law; this deviation was followed, on the internal side, by the loss of perfection, and on the external side, by the loss of happiness and bliss. Restoration must compensate for this double loss, must return life to the outer side and light to the inner side. Both are necessary, because one cannot exist without the other: life without light and, conversely, light without life. Therefore, two types of activities should be the main ones, and the first are the return of life and the return of light. The Savior almost always points to them in His conversations. For, promising life, He always demanded a change of heart from people. These two main types of activity of the Savior can be divided into parts that can make up the three offices we mentioned - priestly, prophetic and royal. Thus, internal restoration requires purity of spirit, which can be delivered through the imparting of knowledge to the mind, peace to the conscience, and sanctification to the heart; in a word, through replenishing the lack and emptiness of our spirit. From here follows the position of a teacher - prophetic. External restoration requires bringing happiness into harmony with virtue, which harmony can be achieved through repentance of the means necessary for this goal, through the destruction of disorder, vanity, the source of death and death itself, in a word, through doing what philosophers wanted but could not produce. Since for this you need to have autocratic power, then another position of Jesus Christ follows from this - ruling, royal; the position, one might say, is the most important of all others. To destroy disorder, restore order, and for this purpose shake heaven and earth—this is the first task of the Restorer. Therefore, after the resurrection, He was given power over heaven and earth. What can we say about the priestly office? Does it have a place here and what? There is a place and, moreover, a very important one. This is the instrument by which both restorations are accomplished: internal and external; there is a condition without which the first two offices could not exist: prophetic and royal. How was peace restored by the death of Jesus Christ? In nature, says cosmology, the main law is the law of remuneration - the law of duty. The main axiom of this law is the following: as is the action, so is the impact 17 . The action of Jesus Christ in death was the purest and so high that it cannot be imagined higher; This, no doubt, must be the effect. This action was supposed to produce in the forces of nature 18 an impulse opposite to what Adam’s action produced in them. Adam's weakness gave the forces of nature the wrong direction. The power of Jesus Christ should have given them the most correct direction. And this is very possible in both cases. Imagine that all the known forces of nature are concentrated in one - whatever direction the central force takes, so do all the others; Adam's power took the wrong direction, and so did everyone who concentrated in it. The power of Jesus Christ through His death became the focus for all physical forces, and therefore gave them the most correct direction. Although this attitude towards the death of Jesus Christ seems ideal to us, despite the fact that His action was real. So, the intercessory part of the ministry of Jesus Christ concerns the more external world, which also has its own morality, although the apostles rarely pay attention to this side. The Apostle Paul, however, in one place clearly says that everything is reconciled by the Blood of Jesus Christ, “whether it is on earth or in heaven” (Col. 1:20). The image of this reconciliation seems strange to us because we do not see the influence of our thoughts on the physical world. But there is an influence. Firstly, we see it in our body, which is very much influenced by our thoughts. It is also convenient to see it in the outside world, especially paying attention to the moral side of our soul, as did the mystics and theosophists, with whom one cannot but agree in this regard. Indeed, our soul is a magnet that has only lost its poles. Its power is stronger than all other forces. It is she who is destined to have all the physical forces subordinated, which once will be, and is now partly manifested in holy men, to whom the forces of nature are often subordinated. A. In Jesus Christ, according to the remark of the Apostle Paul, two sides are distinguished, that is, Jesus Christ in the flesh (meaning this word in the best sense), as He appeared in this life on earth, and Jesus Christ in the spirit, as He was and is with the Father. From two sides He is also the Enlightener of the human race: on earth - visible, and from heaven - invisibly. He was on earth only three or four years, which are determined by the Passovers of the Evangelist John. But His preaching was clearly not limited to this short time. He was the Enlightener both before and after; He was always, in His words, “the light of the world” (John 8:12) - He always enlightened people, both from within and from without. From within He shone on conscience and mind, for what is conscience and mind? Reflection of something external: our thoughts, like rays, fall from above, and only reflection occurs in us - sensation. From without He shone forth to external nature. Naturalists refuse to explore the beginning of the world; and for religion this light must be a reflection of the light of God. But if nature received a voice, like us, then it would express itself about its light as we speak about ours, that is, it would say that it is from above, from God. This is the first path of enlightenment from without and from within! Without a doubt, other methods of enlightenment were not abandoned, in which human activity took part, illuminated, however, from above. The pagans had kings, legislators, sages, and poets of this kind; The Jews also have legislators and prophets. About all these methods, Justin Martyr says that they are a reflection of the first method - the direct method related to Christ. This method is still used by Jesus Christ in heaven. How did Jesus Christ fulfill the position of Enlightener on earth? Regarding this, the following questions may be asked: Who did He teach? what? how and for how long? Irenaeus says that Jesus Christ preached for sixteen years, and Eusebius reduces all this time to two years; we accept a more general opinion - that Jesus Christ taught for three and a half years, based on the narration of the Evangelist John about the three Passovers and the fourth, on which Christ was crucified. Didn't He teach a little? The consequences showed that enough was enough. He could not remain in an earthly body for long. Therefore, He had to limit His teaching to the formation of disciples who could understand Him and then teach His teaching to others in as pure and clear a manner as possible. This is the main goal of His personal teaching! She is everywhere and visible; Everywhere it is clear that He was engaged in the education of disciples, and spoke to the people as if without desire; True, He does not abandon the people, but He preaches to them not on purpose (especially - ed.), but on occasion. Why didn’t Jesus Christ come out to preach earlier, for example, at the age of twenty? And this time would have been enough for Him to prepare. They believe that it was because the Jews had a custom of teaching the people no earlier than in the thirtieth year of age, and until now they would not have listened. But wouldn’t it be too much to subject Jesus Christ to this law? However, what would be the benefit if He began to teach a little earlier? Only that a larger number of Jews and pagans would listen to Him, but still not all. In addition, although Jesus Christ taught both Jews and pagans, His preaching primarily had to relate to the Jews: “I was not sent,” He says, “only to the lost sheep... to the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), and this time was enough for preaching to the Jews. Why did Jesus Christ limit his preaching to the Jews? Because the purpose of His teaching was not primarily to enlighten the world, but to prepare educators; and for this purpose it would be unnecessary to entertain other nations. He dealt with them, but did it in passing; the disciples were already entrusted with preaching the gospel to everyone: both Greeks and Jews. Jesus Christ also did this because the Jews were especially prepared for this by prophecies and promises. Who listened to Him? Were there not classes among His listeners? Were. Some accepted His teaching willingly and constantly followed Him, forming, as it were, His retinue. These were the twelve disciples who were constantly with Him, with only small exceptions and absences for meetings with relatives and for sendings; Seventy disciples also formed a more permanent circle of listeners, only they appear little and rarely in the Gospel; in this picture they stand as if in the shadows. What teaching did He communicate? What was the subject of His preaching? Is it all religion? In spirit it is all, but in letter only some of its truths. Partly because the nature of many truths required it. Thus, Jesus Christ did not speak about the purpose of His death, nor about His priestly and royal positions, because this was beyond the minds of His listeners, even above the minds of the listeners closest to Him: “The imam has spoken many things to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12), He told the disciples. And the Savior had a rule - to tell listeners as much as they could accommodate. That is why theology accepts many dogmas of faith not from the lips of Jesus Christ, but from the lips of His disciples, although it would be desirable to accept them from the Author and Perfecter of the faith Himself. Did Jesus Christ preach new dogmas? What relation does His religion have to the religion of Moses? Jesus Christ did not teach a new teaching, but revealed, approved, purified, perfected, interpreted and spiritualized the teaching of Moses. This can be seen from His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), where He often repeats: “It was spoken to the ancients so, but I say so.” What is the main text of His sermon? Jesus Christ took the text for His sermon from the Forerunner: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is drawing near” (Matthew 3:2). This means that the main text of His sermon was to teach the doctrine of the need for moral change - repentance, and the need for faith. Doesn't this mean that we talked about two types of restoration and, together, about two types of teaching of Jesus Christ? Repentance is needed for internal restoration, for purity of heart, and faith is needed for external restoration: faith in the power of Jesus Christ is sufficient to destroy disorder. Repentance embraces practice, and faith embraces theory. He revealed little of the teaching about the Church, because the Jewish Church was like an old building tending to fall, and the new Church was still in its infancy. How did He present the truths of faith? For example, what did He talk about more - faith or repentance? More about the latter; He spoke less about faith, but with great power; in it He placed the eternal life. Jesus Christ presented His teaching in two ways: positively and negatively, polemically and without polemics. Thus, in relation to faith, He first destroyed prejudices and superstitions, and then aroused faith in Himself, for which He promised salvation. For example, the Jews had a prejudice that by being descended from Abraham alone one could hope to receive salvation. Jesus Christ stood against this prejudice and opposed this superstition with faith in Himself, supporting it with evidence. He did the same with regard to repentance. The Jews were mistaken in this regard too: they thought, especially the Pharisees, that correction of the heart was not necessary for salvation, and for this they were content with fulfilling the ritual law and descending from Abraham. Jesus Christ seemed to protest against this. Thus, in a conversation with Nicodemus, He recognized as insignificant all the means that he presented to Him. Thus, when the Jews grumbled that His disciples were eating with unwashed hands, not fasting, and ripping up the 19 ears of corn on the Sabbath, He answered them that appearances are nothing. In this way He purified the doctrine of repentance. But the main text of His sermon was a change of heart, combined with faith: faith in Jesus Christ is needed to destroy the consequences of sin, which cannot be destroyed by anything except His omnipotence; and repentance, or cleansing, is necessary in order to be capable of accepting eternal bliss. For to bring bliss to a person who has not changed his heart—to an evil person—is the same as transferring someone suffering from fever to a beautiful garden, or surrounding the stinking wounds of a sick person with fragrances. An essential part of the Christian religion consists of the Sacraments; but since they were still little understood, Jesus Christ touched them little. For the same reason, He revealed the teaching about the perfections of God and about the actions as it is contained in natural religion. Hence the newest lovers of natural religion conclude that the religion of Christianity is no different from natural religion. In particular, Jesus Christ has already made the teaching of many truths clearer in a more direct manner. For example, about Providence. The doctrine of providence suffered throughout the world. The Jews, in relation to him, were dominated by particularism. They recognized God as a King who cared only about them. Jesus Christ exposed this error of theirs with the parable of the prodigal son, in which the eldest son refers to the Jews, and the younger son, who is also dear to the father, refers to all other nations. Among the Jews, Pharisees and Sadducees, the prevailing opinion on this subject was about fate; other peoples did not have, or even had, a dark concept of private providence. Jesus Christ made all this clear. And the passages relating to this subject are the most touching, as if involuntarily attracting the heart. Here are some expressions: “not even a hair falls from the head without the will of the Heavenly Father,” “two birds are valued by one assar, but not one of them is lost without the permission of God,” “who can add even one cubit to his age? or make black hair white?..” “Look at the birds, at the lilies of the field...” It is evident that His soul loved to deal with these subjects. The doctrine of immortality, important for religion, especially for the ancient Jewish one, was expressed by Jesus Christ with force. All doubts about this subject were already eliminated by His actions when He raised the dead. But with words He proved this truth very strongly. Since it concerns the whole world - present and future - and requires God's omnipotence, then all the majesty is visible in its presentation. The view of Jesus Christ in this regard is incomparably higher and more spiritual than the view of any sage, for example, Plato. How did Jesus Christ prove it to the Sadducees? He based His proofs on the strictest connection: on the fact that with God everything is alive. He Himself expressed more than what the Sadducees demanded of Him. For he proved not only that the human soul is immortal, but even that all nature is immortal, and even that it dies for us. God is the God of life; This means that His nature would have erupted, would not have suffered complete death. What exactly was the image of His preaching? Simple and common at that time and, so to speak, casually conversational, systematic in spirit, but immeasurable in expression, alien to sophistication and scholastic subtlety. His distinctive feature is parabolas and parables. Is this a new feature? Around the time of Jesus Christ they liked to express themselves in parables. That is why the parables of Jesus Christ are not new, but new only in the sense that they are better and more excellent than all other parables. Why did Jesus Christ use parables? They think so that they are clearer than a direct image of speech. But from the words of Jesus Christ: “it has been given to you (the disciples) to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom... but to the people (the people) in parables... but those who see do not see” (Matthew 13:11, 13) - it is clear that the purpose of using parables was also darkness - hiding the truth. This means that we must assume that the parables of Jesus Christ had a dual purpose: sometimes clarity, and sometimes darkness. For both purposes, parables have been used before. For example, before the eastern despots they were used to cover up the truth, and in other cases their use was intended to explain the truth. Those parables of Jesus Christ are intended to cover the truths with which He described His Kingdom. And He did this in order not to raise suspicions with the Roman government. In this case, Jesus Christ showed an amazing skill: throughout His sermon He spoke about His Kingdom, and, despite this, the government did not pay attention until the end of His life, although it had its spies everywhere. From this side one can see in Jesus Christ the greatest Divine prudence. For example, the Sanhedrin asks about the decisive outcome: Is He the Messiah – the King? Jesus Christ rejects this question with another tributary question - about the baptism of John: “Where did John’s baptism come from; Is it from heaven or from man? (Matthew 21:25). With this question He destroys the danger, and with another parable about the vineyard He showed them who He is, answering their question. For in the heir He clearly showed Himself to them, and here He revealed the reason why they did not accept Him. This reason is that they want to retain His inheritance - power in the Church. Regarding the particular properties of the image of the Savior’s preaching, it must be said that they are simple and unsophisticated, but very reasonable; and the preacher or shepherd of the Church must especially become acquainted with them in order to know how to teach whom. These particular methods in Jesus Christ are numerous and very different. For example, sometimes He aroused faith by moving away from Himself; Thus, he said to the wife of Canaan: “It is not good for a child to take away the bread and damage it for a dog” (Matthew 15:26). By this denial, He, as if by steps, raises this wife to the very top of faith, so that in all of Israel she does not find such faith. Sometimes He arouses faith with extraordinary closeness; So, Zacchaeus climbed a tree to look at Jesus; Meanwhile, Jesus approaches Him and says: “I must now go to your house!” Zacchaeus was, so to speak, completely embraced by this closeness, and the hard heart of the publican seemed to melt: “Half of my property,” he says as a result of such an unexpected change, “I will give to the poor” (Luke 19:8). Sometimes He Himself called His followers to greater fullness and perfection of faith; So, when he asked Peter: “Whom do men say that I am?” and then: who do you recognize Me as? - then this produced in him what he said: “You are the Christ, the Son” of God! (Matthew 16:15–16) It is clear that such high recognition owed its origin to the proclamation of the Savior, and was not a permanent part of the Petrine faith. For after this we see that Jesus Christ called him “Satan.” Sometimes he allowed faith to grow from some unimportant incident, just as a beautiful tree grows from a small seed and sometimes even from a bad place. So, Nathanael under the fig tree was reminded only of some, no doubt, insignificant act of his, and with this alone he called him to an act similar to Petrov’s act. Sometimes he puts you in a position of reflection: for example, on the occasion of the arrival of tax collectors, he asks Peter: Do kings take tribute from their own? – and thus makes him think. His action with the fig tree shows how He did not value the opinion of His meekness, just to teach others a lesson: and a Stoic, with all his severity and selflessness, would not have done this. But Jesus Christ did this so that the next day the disciples, seeing a withered fig tree, themselves called Him to teach them a lesson about faith: “If you have faith like grain of peas, you will avoid this mountain: get away from here” (Matthew 17:20). No doubt He often gave them such lessons. Despite all this, Judas remained Judas. What did Jesus Christ not consume so that he would not be the son of perdition? The evangelists do not talk about this, but it must be assumed out of necessity. We see only some psychological observations in the evangelists. For example, the last sign of the 20 bread given by Jesus is so obvious that Judas himself flushed and changed his face: “And... Satan came into him” (John 13:27). As was the way of teaching, so was the way of preparing new teachers. Prudence required that some of the students should be appointed teachers and that they should be shown how and what to teach. What did He teach them? As if nothing happened, he walks through villages and towns, talks with them, and heals the sick; but it doesn’t seem to concern what is most important. Despite the fact that experience has proven that His disciples accomplished a lot. In Italy, Pythagoras formed a school in which he wanted to educate teachers for one small part of the earth. And what rules, what golden verses did he not write? But this gold did not withstand the fire of disasters: when a storm of some kind of persecution arose, the disciples scattered, and the teacher himself barely escaped. But Lethe 21, as the Apostle puts it, will not tell us about this subject. Whoever reads the Gospel with attention will find in it many other excellent ways of stimulating faith and preaching in general. The last question regarding this subject, although a school question, however, deserves attention and has not yet been properly resolved, is the following: why did Jesus Christ not set out His teachings in writing? This question is ancient; we see it even in Augustine. It did not arise arbitrarily, but is a consequence of the inner desire of the soul to see religion transmitted in writing by Him who first gave it. Equally, this question is a consequence of the desire to shame those Christian societies that say that the apostles spoiled the teaching of Jesus Christ and did not pass it on intact. How to solve this question? Why didn't Jesus Christ write what he taught? Because, says Basil the Great, only redemption belonged to Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit received the application of redemption. But the communication of religion through writing belongs to the application and is a means of applying redemption. Therefore, there is a work of the Holy Spirit. He testified of Jesus Christ before through the prophets; It was fitting for Him to testify about Him even after that - through the apostles. But in order to solve this question more deeply, it is necessary to turn to a logical topic, that is, it is necessary to look for the reasons why Jesus Christ did not write His teachings, in Himself, in the human race and in the subject itself. First, in Himself; to write the truth of religion was beneath His Face; the justice of this can be felt more than expressed. Moreover, Jesus Christ, in addition to this too ordinary, simple means, had many others. The Holy Spirit could preserve the old teaching and impart a new one. Consequently, He did not need to resort to the means that people use to preserve their teaching. To use writing as a means to preserve religion was even contrary to the plan of Divine economy. God was pleased, according to the apostle, to save the world by the violence of preaching; Writing, which has a close connection with human wisdom, no longer leads to this violence. But they will say: the apostles wrote. They wrote by accident, not intentionally; Providence only decreed that from their random writings something whole was compiled for us, and they themselves did not intend to write a system. Tradition speaks of the compilation and writing of the Apostolic Symbol by them, but this tradition may not be entirely true. The Apostle Paul clearly indicates that he had no need for epistles, and that the epistles were something incidental. “What do we need messages for? - He says. “You yourself are our message, written by the Spirit.” This is what they had as a means of preserving and disseminating the teaching - a heart, a living voice! If the apostles acted this way, how much more so would Jesus Christ. And such a course of action, as the consequences showed, was the most effective, for the philosophical sects with their writings disappeared, and Christianity spread and perpetuated throughout the world. Secondly, in the subject, in religion: the religion that Jesus Christ brought with Him was partly already written by Moses (and therefore it was only necessary to explain it, as Jesus Christ did), partly it was not yet known, for the Death on the Cross - a new and main appendage of the Christian religion, constituting its focus - had not yet been completed, and therefore it was not yet possible to speak and write about it. Thirdly, and finally, in people: the apostles could not understand much, much less other people; Moreover, writing is dead letters, and therefore it could not produce what religion produced with its spirit and life, so that neither death nor life could separate from Christ. Knowing the weak effect of writing, the apostles always reluctantly took up the pen, as can be seen from some of the letters of the Apostle Paul; and there is not a single place where it is clear that the apostles wrote for all ages. They looked at their messages as simple letters, not caring whether they were intact or not. It is remarkable that many false writings were published under the names of the apostles; and under the name of Jesus Christ - not a single one. The correspondence with Abgar must be recognized as genuine, for Eusebius says that he himself found a manuscript in the Edessa Church: why not believe such testimony? B. The second part of the office of Jesus Christ is satisfaction for sins. The doctrine of this - the doctrine of redemption by the death of Jesus Christ - is the most important teaching among Christians, for the death of Jesus Christ is the focus of all Christianity. Therefore, let us dwell on it and consider it in more detail. Let us divide it, in accordance with our plan, into three questions: how, that is, is it contained in Scripture? How does the Church teach about this? and how does it appear to the mind? a) Holy Scripture speaks of nothing so clearly as of the restoration by the death of Jesus Christ. It directly presents this teaching, and under various very expressive symbols. So, although Jesus Christ Himself considered it indecent to talk about Himself, yet He could not remain silent about this part of His office. For example, He said that death was unnatural to Him, and that He dies only for the good of others, but on His own He would never have died (Matthew 20:28). The New Testament, according to the Savior, was established on the Blood, and the Blood was shed (Matthew 26:28) for the remission of sins; this is the purpose of His death. It says here again that Jesus Christ gave His soul, that is, life, in order to save us, of course, from sins. The Evangelist John has the same idea (John 10:11), where Jesus Christ presents Himself as a shepherd, giving His soul - life - for the sheep. Jesus Christ reveals this idea even more extensively in the Gospel of John (John 6:48–51, 53–58), calling Himself the bread of animals. So, the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ was to redeem people from their sins. Jesus Christ did not say much about this, but what he did say very clearly and strongly confirms this idea. Without a doubt, He would have said more, but at that time there was no one to talk to. The apostles still had Jewish concepts - they imagined Jesus Christ as a sensual king, and therefore they did not understand His death and were afraid. But, after the Holy Spirit descended on them, they revealed this truth in detail; and thus, what they were previously afraid of, has now become a favorite subject for them. Thus, the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 3:25) also shows that the Blood of Jesus Christ was a means of cleansing from sins: “cleansing by faith in His Blood, and that the purpose of His death, on the one hand, was the satisfaction of justice: in the manifestation of His righteousness, and on the other, the intercession of God’s mercy for us: for the remission of former sins.” This means that the death of Jesus Christ on one side touched God - it satisfied His justice, and on the other hand - it brought us God’s mercy. The same idea is expressed in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 4:24–25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Col. 1:10–13, 20–22). The same can be seen in the Epistle of John (1 John. 1:7). The Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 2:24) expressed himself, one might say, more powerfully than all of them: “Whose sins were ours,” he says, “he himself bore up in his own body on the tree.” What a terrible burden to carry the sins of the whole world to the cross! Here is the teaching of the apostles on this subject! All of them place the death of Jesus Christ in close connection with our cleansing - with our redemption from sin. But this is a general teaching and a direct one. Let us turn to the symbols in which this part of the office of Jesus Christ is depicted. Firstly, He is presented as a reconciliator who freed us from slavery to sin and the devil through a ransom - at the price of His Blood. People were slaves of sin: “everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin” (John 8:34), and together they are slaves of the devil, who, for this very reason, is called the father of sinners (John 8:44), “the ruler of the darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12). But Jesus Christ redeemed us from this slavery by His death; Divine and human desire alone did not lead to this, but a death ransom was required. To whom was this ransom paid? From the first time it seems that the devil, for his people were in captivity. This can only be accepted in a certain sense. Although the devil himself does not like to act righteously, he would not hesitate to slander God if he noticed a failure to comply with justice: he wants to be treated righteously. So, since the captives must be released by him, so that it was not for nothing that his region was devastated, he demanded a ransom. This ransom was given not to him, but to God’s justice itself, however, in such a way that when paying it, the devil was also in mind: for this, that is, a sacrifice was made to God’s justice, so that the devil could no longer slander God and people; now he cannot point to us as unworthily enjoying bliss; he sees that this bliss is deserved, for the Blood of the Savior was shed for him. I dwell on this thought because in some of the Fathers of the Church, for example in Irenaeus, you will find this thought without any explanation, you will find places in which it is said without any restrictions that the price is paid to the devil. When reading them, one must remember that this price was paid to God’s justice in order, so to speak, to stop the lips of the original slanderer - the devil. The Apostle Peter speaks about this price (1 Pet. 1:18–19): “knowingly, it was not with corrupted silver or gold that your faithful fathers delivered you from your vain life, but with honest Blood.” The Apostle Paul speaks about it: “for it was purchased with the price” of Blood (1 Cor. 6:20). The symbol of the price of blood - for us not entirely understandable and not commonly used, because we can buy a little at this price - for the Jews and in general for all ancient peoples it was the most significant. The Jews redeemed everything precious with blood: according to the law, their sacrificial blood redeemed them from death. Other backgammon had a law, which prevails even today among rude peoples, to atone with blood from fines and punishment. This means that the metaphor - the price of blood - was then very understandable for the whole world and strongly expressed the matter itself. The second symbol is that Jesus Christ was presented to the apostles as a mediator, intercessor, and reconciliator. The action of reconciliation presupposes that peace once reigned between God and man and that this peace was broken by sin; As a result, both these sides became hostile to each other. True, it is only man who is at enmity, and God only does not give - because he cannot give - to the sinner what he would like. Therefore, it was necessary to reconcile these hostile sides: Jesus Christ reconciles them first in Himself, for not only morally, but physically united in Himself the Divinity with humanity so that both were one, then outside Himself - for on the cross the enmity of God with man was killed. How? In the Blood of Jesus Christ the wrath of God is extinguished, and therefore God looks at this Blood as a sacrifice of satisfaction, covering all our weaknesses, and we look at it as evidence of the propitiated and rewarded justice of God. Thus, the Blood of Jesus Christ is both reconciliation itself and evidence of our reconciliation. This is expressed by the Apostle Paul (Col. 2:14): “having destroyed the handwriting against us... nailing it to the cross.” And even more clearly: “having made peace... through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:20). The third symbol represents Jesus Christ as the High Priest, offering a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This symbol was very clear to the ancient world: it was imbued with the idea of ​​cleansing sinners through sacrifice. In this form, Jesus Christ is described in detail in the Epistle to the Hebrews - at first negatively, in contrast to the Old Testament priests, then positively. The need to cleanse one's own sins is separated from Him (Heb. 7:27), and the like. It is affirmatively stated that He had the body necessary for sacrifice (Heb. 10:5): “And this body hath He completed,” that He entered not into a tabernacle made with hands, but into heaven itself (Heb. 8:1–2). The Apostle Peter even says that His Blood was sprinkled (1 Pet. 1:2): and “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Such an indication was made to Him for the first time by the Forerunner: “Behold, the Lamb of God” (John 1:29), indicating this lamb, which the people drove into the wilderness, placing their sins on it, or the lamb that was daily sacrificed. The fourth, and at the same time the last symbol, which depicts the atonement by the death of Jesus Christ, is a reward, the fact that the death of Jesus Christ appears to be local (of that place), raised in place of others. This symbol in its totality is not clearly presented anywhere, but it is there in parts; The bond of reciprocity between us and Jesus Christ is visible everywhere. Jesus Christ endures what we had to endure, and we receive what He had to receive. This reciprocity is clearly expressed in the following verses of the Council Epistles of the Apostles: “Christ has redeemed us... having taken an oath upon us”; “He who knew no sin, made sin for us” (Gal. 3 2 Cor. 5:21). The Apostle Paul speaks about this even more expressively: “If one died, then all died”; similar to this is the following expression: “If you were baptized with Christ, then you were buried with Him - “we were baptized into His death.” Let’s look at these two passages: a) “If one died... that’s all” (2 Cor. 5:14). What is the power of this expression? According to the law, death followed sin; but Jesus Christ took upon Himself all our sins; therefore, if He died, then we all died. Therefore, justice no longer finds anyone alive among us, and therefore does not put us to death, for the dead no longer die, those punished a second time are not punished, b) “For as many as Christ Jesus were baptized, we were baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3). Since we have died to righteousness, we must die to sin; the truth of God finds us dead - in the tomb of Jesus Christ; In this same tomb sin must find us. So, our participation in the death of Jesus Christ is twofold: one for us is the mortification of us for the righteousness of God, and the other for Jesus Christ is the mortification of us for sin. Under these only two conditions, the death of Jesus Christ will be completely beneficial for us. These are the symbols under which Jesus Christ is presented in the Holy Scriptures! He is the reconciler who killed our enmity on the cross; there is a High Priest who sacrificed himself for the sins of the world and thus sanctified the Church; there is a sufferer who endured for us and gave us all His rewards; there is an intercessor who has redeemed us from slavery, sin and death. From this it is clear that everything is centered in the death of Jesus Christ. Truly, this is “greatness is the secret of piety!” (1 Tim. 3:16). This is the teaching of the Holy Scriptures about the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ! This teaching is revealed in the New Testament with all clarity and detail. Let us turn to the historical side of this teaching - to its fate in the Church. This dogma remained untouched in its essence for several centuries - until the time of Pelagius. True, some heretics touched it, but not in significant parts. For example, the Theopaschites, who argued that God Himself suffered. Pelagius was the first to touch him - he stumbled on the Cross of Christ; he was the first to get lost in the reasoning of original sin, the first to enter this darkness in which it is impossible not to wander. He, as a result of his heresy, which he fell into unintentionally, limited the merits of Jesus Christ. After him, this teaching remained undisturbed until the Middle Ages. So, Abelard doubted and began to ask: “Why did God use death when he could do the same through the word?” Bernard answered him very well: “Ask God, but I don’t know - that’s what it’s written.” And indeed, if he had turned to God in prayer, God would have revealed to him. In modern times, the Socinians touched upon this subject. They did not accept what exceeds the mind, and rejected this dogma. They limited atonement to doctrine, and allowed death as a condition necessary for the confirmation of doctrine. Thus, this teaching was little subject to disputes among heretics. As a result, it is short in the Church. The Nicene Creed only says that Jesus Christ died for sins; in the Afanasyev Symbol - too. The teaching about this in the catechisms is also brief. How can we briefly present the essence of the Church’s teaching on the death of the God-man contained in the catechisms? The essence of this teaching is that Jesus Christ died for the remission of sins, for the reconciliation of people with God and with His truth. Thus, the main points of this teaching are: our sins, the requirement of punishment and the satisfaction brought by Jesus Christ, in which therefore lies the guilt of our justification, blessedness, life and resurrection. How does the death of Jesus Christ relate to other events of our redemption? Did God want it, or does it lie in the very nature of things? Its basis must be and is in the nature of things. But how did death correct the shortcomings of the world? This is called a mystery in the catechism. Indeed it is; But is this mystery a complete mystery, or only a partial mystery? The author of the catechism takes this to be a perfect mystery and, in support of this, refers to the text: “the mystery hidden from ages and generations: now he has appeared to His saints” (Col. 1:26). But this text does not express this, judging strictly. This Epistle says that no one knew this secret before; and after that it became known to God’s chosen ones, that is, to the apostles and other teachers and devotees of Christianity. So this is a relative mystery. Moreover, the subject of what the apostle calls a mystery is the legend of wealth and glory: “sowing mysteries among the nations” (Col. 1:27), that is, in relation to the Jews it was a mystery that the pagans also participate in Christianity. How did they get it? - this is what was mysterious and incomprehensible for the Jews. Therefore, citing this text to confirm that the death of Jesus Christ is a perfect mystery is incorrect. This death is not such a mystery. For Holy Scripture nowhere calls it a mystery: it does not speak of the death of the God-man as of His incarnation: “greatness is the mystery of piety.” Moreover, isn’t this such a subject that it is even harmful to consider it a completely incomprehensible mystery? This is the focus of the entire Christian religion; and therefore it would be better if it were somewhat understandable. This is required by the human mind, which has always tried and is trying to penetrate into the death of the God-man and see its relation to our correction. True, it cannot be said that there is no mystery at all in this death; There are mysterious sides to it, but there are also clear ones. Without these latter, the doctrine of it would not have been laid at the foundation of religion. The incomprehensibility in this case mostly comes from the attitude of the mind towards it, looking at it not as it should, and not from where it should. Why is death used, and not direct forgiveness through the word? The Holy Scriptures do not enter into a detailed explanation of this; it does not say why it was not done differently! However, in places it points to features that, when put together, can calm a restless philosophical mind. Let's collect them. Firstly, it is no coincidence that Holy Scripture says that Christ “befits... to suffer” (Mark 8:31). The thought here is this: Christ had to suffer—to die; the reason for this was the strongest, not just the desire of God, but moral need. This need was determined by the need to cleanse us from sins. So, is there any confusion here? That cleansing from sins is needed—the mind cannot help but know this; a stain is always washed away, and sin is a stain on the soul. But couldn’t this stain be washed away otherwise, only by declaring verbal forgiveness to the sinner? The second feature that we find in the Holy Scriptures also resolves this question: from it it is clear that this is the God-Man of an incomprehensible mystery! How many contradictions he finds here! Let us follow him and analyze all his contradictions and objections, that is, we will resolve the last question: how does the mind look at the death of Jesus Christ? All the objections of the mind on this subject converge on one main thing: “Why was this method of atonement used? Why didn’t God forgive people simply, without such a terrible sacrifice?” This ransom seems to the mind to be more than something human, indecent to God, the highest Being. He thinks that for this it was enough to declare forgiveness to people, on the condition of their correction. Exactly, this is the path on which the mind soon falls. But what is better - to forgive without satisfying justice, or to invent a way so that the law is not broken and punishment does not exist? Clearly the latter is better than the former. Kings forgive criminals without satisfying the law, but they do this because they cannot invent a satisfactory remedy, for what royal son would go to the cross for a criminal to whom the king, his father, wants to show leniency? So, the forgiveness that the kings of the earth do out of condescension is their shortcoming, it is a sign of human weakness, due to which people cannot invent such a means so that justice is not violated and the punishment for criminals is not terrible. But God invented this means, and therefore did what was worthy of Him alone. We are accustomed to judging everything by ourselves, and therefore we often apply the feeling of our weakness to God. According to our weak sense of truth, it seems that it is possible to fulfill the law, and not; but in the whole human race this sense of truth is much stronger and more sublime. For why did the entire ancient world make sacrifices, and now all the savage peoples do it? This is the voice of that feeling that strongly demands satisfaction of the truth and cannot leave it unsatisfied. For this alone - because of such universality of the voice of truth - God could not help but demand satisfaction for the violation of justice. But other reasons could not allow moral forgiveness without payment. Such a withdrawal in the moral world would cause damage in the law. Could this damage have been avoided without temptation? Looking at this, we would immediately come to the thought that God will continue to forgive us in this way. Moreover, such forgiveness would not calm our conscience in this life, much less in the future. The memory of the past often in this life greatly disturbs holy people in life; What would happen in eternity, where conscience will become purer and stricter, if this past were not erased? There the memory of him would not give peace, for there the present weak demand of conscience would become a law for it. And isn’t this expressed in the appearance of spirits that have been disturbing for centuries? In general, it must be said that the voice of conscience is the strongest! So, this sacrifice was needed for people - to remove temptation - in this life and to calm their conscience, especially in the future life. But in the Divine world government, in addition to the human world, there are other worlds - Angelic. Although we do not know the degrees of these beings, it is very likely that there are higher and lower ones between them. Their moral goodness did not allow them to forgive a person without satisfaction. True, they are very philanthropic, but their philanthropy does not extend to breaking the law, but to preserving it. And since their conscience is clearer, it is even more unnatural and difficult for them than for us to see the violation of the law dissatisfied. Moreover, what kind of cohabitation would there be between them and us in eternity? And this cohabitation will certainly happen. They could not help but separate us from themselves in their thoughts; could not help but imagine us as criminals, pardoned but unrefined, and by grace alone entered into the Kingdom of Christ. But with such a way of thinking, is a union of equality possible? So, here’s another person for whom the death of Jesus Christ was needed – for the Angels! Let us turn to the very truth of God. What is she like in herself? One concept of it shows that the mind, demanding forgiveness without sacrifice, without satisfaction, does not itself know what it wants. He therefore wants to refuse truth and give place only to mercy; but this is taken from human nature and is crude anthropomorphism (Greek: human-likeness). Our truth can limit itself and change, but this cannot be applied to God. If God demands something, then the basis of this demand lies in His very being. He demands, so to speak, out of necessity, and therefore can the question go to Him: is satisfaction necessary or not? Such duality is not allowed in the Divine mind. God expressed this thought in His law. The law in relation to man is unsteady and avoidable, but in itself it is unchangeable and irresistible. Such is its source - God. Thus, if the Angels had tolerated the violation of the law, then, we dare say, the conscience of God would not have tolerated it; God, by His very nature, cannot and does not have inaccuracy or stains! And therefore God takes revenge and punishes not out of anger, but according to the property of His nature, out of necessity; This is required by His holiness and the steadfastness of His moral purity. So, the basis of death and redemption from sins lies in the demands on the part of man - in his life, present and future, on the part of higher beings and on the part of God, His truth, which cannot remain unsatisfied. In this teaching, reason finds the best resolution of those contradictions or antinomies into which it falls when judging sin and its relationship to God's truth. These antinomies were recently expounded by one of the German philosophers. Man is sinful and God is holy—a great contrast. But there must be an alliance between them. So the mind comes up with ways to reconcile them. The first of these methods is forgiveness of sins. On the one hand, looking at the boundless mercy of God, the mind hopes for this forgiveness, but, on the other hand, infinite justice makes this forgiveness impossible for it: what an antinomy! Therefore, satisfaction is necessary, but from the human side it is impossible. How can he be reconciled with God? Reason predictively says that some sins will be forgiven, and some will be cleansed - partly forgiveness will be announced, and partly punishment, that is, partly justice will suffer, and partly mercy; From this comes an irreconcilable antinomy for the mind! In the Biblical teaching all this is reconciled in the best possible way. In him, love of humanity is given all the place. For God, out of love for mankind, gave His Son to die. This represents God’s love for mankind in a greater form, from a new side, which reason did not expect: this is the heroism of love for mankind! The whole truth is also visible here, with the addition of complete satisfaction and complete redemption of sinners. For the entire complexity of creatures cannot be equal to the God-man, much less can one human tribe be equal to Him, and therefore He did what the entire totality of created beings could not do. If so, then in the Christian teaching about the death of the God-man, truth and love for mankind, according to the Psalmist, kiss each other, and the contradictions of the mind disappear here. Another contradiction of the mind looking at man and God. Reason sees that a person can become pleasing to God through correction of himself, that is, through correction of the forms of the mind and will. If these forms are corrected, if the mind and will begin to act in their lawful way, then God will like the person. This view is based on truth and mercy, and seems right. But on the other hand, the same reason sees that a person, having once become objectionable, can no longer be acceptable in relation to the past; the past impression is unbearable for a person, especially for God; it also disturbs our conscience, and even more so, we dare say, the conscience of God; the nature of God must certainly cast it out. But man cannot destroy it; therefore, it cannot be loved by God; here is a new antinomy, a new contradiction! Reason sees no means of reconciling this; but Christ, according to Scripture, reconciled everything: with His merits He filled in the incomplete future, and destroyed the past. Thus, in this teaching and in it alone we can see perfect harmony between the remission of sin and satisfaction with the righteousness of God. No matter what coherent philosophical theory you present, all the gaps in it will be inevitable. Reading philosophical moral systems and summing them up, we see emptiness everywhere in them; their promises are arbitrary and exaggerated, and therefore cannot be trusted. Christianity, on the contrary, withstands all logical gradualism; in it everything complements each other, and there is no emptiness. It, being understood simply, is satisfactory for the mind and nutritious for morality. It shows the greatest wisdom of God in bringing sinners out of the abyss into which they were cast. How to lime them? Encouragement by announcing forgiveness? But this would make them careless. God uses a means that encourages, but does not allow one to indulge in carelessness. The Christian is consoled by the fact that the Son of God suffered for him, but at the same time he says to himself as a precaution: “If He did not spare His Son, will He spare me?” This one teaching introduces harmony into all the attributes (attributa) of God - an addition most dear to the mind! It says that the bad in man is pursued by God, and the good is accepted by man from God, and that all this is accomplished in one heart, in one conscience: again, extraordinary harmony is visible! Reason insists on the proportionality of bliss to virtue; but, seeing that the past remains unsatisfied, he cannot imagine that this proportionality was possible, for bliss has a greater preponderance for everyone than truth - good. But Christianity maintains perfect harmony in this regard. For the sinner is given bliss, but in such a way that the past emptiness is replenished by the merits of Jesus Christ. It may be asked: how could such an abundance of merit come from one death of the God-man? How could death - a one-time action - destroy millions of sins - multiple actions? This greatness depended on the greatness of the subject or person, and that the face gives greatness to the action cannot be doubted. On the one hand, the source of the Savior’s merits lies in His moral greatness, in His unparalleled heroic self-sacrifice; this greatness gave His merits intensive power (vim intensivam), as the first - extensive (extensivam). Thus, the Biblical teaching, when considered by the mind, does not contain anything contrary. It complements and crowns His teaching about the reconciliation of people with God. There is also a question regarding this: how does the death of Jesus Christ work for the benefit of people? Firstly, it acts on the Divine, calming in Him, so to speak, the sense of truth, that is, that consciousness in which there is no inaccuracy. Secondly, it affects people, pacifying their conscience. Then on nature itself - also on her conscience, which she must have, for there is an analogy between the laws of one and another world, and some are a reflection of the others. It also acts on nature by exterminating evils and delivering it from death. Jesus Christ acts on all this by bringing their nature into harmony and giving them a different direction, opposite to the direction given by Adam. The forces of nature, acting in this new direction, will finally achieve perfect harmony. Or, if it seems too abstract and incomprehensible, then you can imagine another way. Jesus Christ, as a result of His self-sacrifice, received power over all nature: “to Me,” He Himself said, “all power in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). This power is already sufficient (enough) for Him to recreate heaven and earth. Note 1. In what sense was the death of Jesus Christ a mystery and in what sense was it not? It was a secret by the time of its discovery, that is, until it was discovered, no one could know it; and when God deigned to reveal it to the world, then those who wanted to understand understood, for in its essence it is not a mystery. The basis for it is our sins - satisfaction for them. This is quite understandable to the mind - it has always demanded this. Note 2. True, if we want to go further, to explore the very basis of the death of the God-Man, then here too we will reach the mysterious. Where, for example, does the law of such moral inexorability come from, that truth necessarily demands satisfaction? This is already a secret! Note 3. Is such a replacement possible in the moral world so that the sins of one are laid on the other and the truth of one is learned by the other? Just as a tree has its fruits, so a moral being must have its own morality. Bind beautiful fruits to a barren tree: what will happen to it? the same as it was - it will remain fruitless as before. Will not the same thing happen to a moral being when someone else’s morality is adopted? That is why Kant rejected the merits of the Redeemer as unnecessary and useless for moral beings. But is this view correct? What are moral beings? Does each one have its own personality? No! They all actually make up one thing. Revelation makes this clear when it calls everyone members of one head, Jesus Christ. Moral beings have a double personality - private, or individual, and general. And therefore they cannot have a morality that is completely pure or completely their own; such morality belongs to God alone; other beings, since they themselves are dependent, their morality partly comes from them, and partly depends on the outside. From this we can explain those virtues that often exist in societies without a reason, as well as those vices that, in a certain society that has them, do not have a true basis. Both are maintained in this or that society not by the individual personality of that society, but by the common personality of all or many peoples. But now this personality is not so noticeable: in eternity, without a doubt, it will be revealed with all clarity, then a perfect community will be established among moral beings. However, anyone who even now does not notice this mutual community between people can easily be mistaken, and even this can lead, as it has led some, to error. Note 4. Is it characteristic of the truth of God to punish innocence? The Innocent One Himself desired it; Jesus Christ voluntarily gave himself up to death; therefore, from the side of God’s truth there is nothing here that could darken it. Moreover, these sufferings were useful for the Sufferer Himself; through such heroism of self-sacrifice, His humanity, without a doubt, rose in moral terms; As a result of this, there was also a physical elevation, for as much as Jesus Christ was humiliated, he is now glorified! What should a preacher do with this teaching? It is necessary to expound it to the people more often, for this constitutes the basis of all religion. How to present it? The way the apostles set it out, that is, first show examples and foundations, and then make applications. In this case, the Apostle Paul can be the best mentor: in revealing this teaching, he even goes to the subtleties, but those that are understandable for a simple sense. It is necessary to offer this teaching, following the example of the apostles, from two sides: the first side is the one on which our hopes and rights are affirmed, the second is the one from which our duties flow. Thus, the death of Jesus Christ is joyful and instructive: joyful because it is the source of our hopes, rights and privileges; is instructive because all our positions flow from it. The Apostle Paul expounds well the teaching about it from both sides. First, he says in general that with Jesus Christ we “have all died” (2 Cor. 5:14). He expresses this same idea even more clearly in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 5:6). So, he says first that we are dead to the truth of God - it finds us in the tomb of Jesus Christ and therefore cannot punish us, the dead. He also explains the method of our participation in the death of Jesus Christ through immersion performed in Baptism. Then he says that we must be dead to sin, and sin must find us in the tomb of Jesus Christ; from here derives all our positions. Thus, the death of Jesus Christ, on the one hand, delivers us from everything, and on the other hand, obliges us to everything, gives us rights and assigns positions. And whoever does not take the last is not given the first. To bring this teaching closer to the concepts of the people, the best way to do this can be comparisons. Thus, one can imagine God’s justice in the form of irritated anger, from which one can hide only in one place - in the tomb of the Savior. Whoever runs away to this place and remains dead there is saved; but whoever comes to life and leaves perishes. For the wrath of God pursues a person, as soon as he comes out of this tomb, he comes to life for sin. Other metaphors can be used. For example, if a king, wanting to have mercy on his subjects, criminals, punished his son for them and then announced that those who reformed would receive this punishment, then such a comparison would be very similar to the Heavenly Father, who gave up His Son for us. With these and similar metaphors we can explain to the people that only under the condition of our correction can the merits of Jesus Christ be useful to us. People may still think that if there are merits of others, then their own correction is not necessary, and vice versa. A person usually wants to either do everything himself or leave everything to others. And the preacher must pay attention to this. It is necessary to show that the merits of Jesus Christ are of no use without our correction, and that our correction without His merits is impossible. III. Let's look at the third part of the activity of our Redeemer - the so-called royal office. He performed the first two offices on earth, but He performs this last one entirely from heaven. Why not on earth? Why, at least, did He not lay the beginning of His Kingdom here? The apostles casually touch on this issue and decide in a general way. Thus, the Apostle Peter (Acts 3:21), exhorting the Israelites to repentance and turn to Jesus, and assuming that they would want to know where this Jesus is now, says: we cannot show Him, for He is in heaven. “It is fitting for heaven to accept him even before the years of the dispensation of all, even as God spoke in the mouth of all his saints, the prophet.” So, from these words it is clear that Christ must be in heaven - it is fitting; but why is it necessary? this is not visible. This apostle considers the end of His stay in heaven to be the dispensation or fulfillment of everything that was said by God through the prophets. And since God spoke about the conversion of all pagans and Jews, it means that the visible Kingdom of Jesus Christ will not open until the conversion of Jews and pagans is completed. The Apostle Paul also touched upon this subject (1 Cor. 15:25), but said even less: “For it is fitting for Him to reign until He puts all enemies under His feet”; These are his words, from which it is clear only that Christ needs to be in heaven, and again there are no further reasons. So, let us now ask ourselves: why did Jesus Christ not establish His Kingdom on earth? Why didn't He stay here for at least forty years instead of forty days? This question is the fruit of curiosity, but a necessary curiosity. It is highly desirable for the human heart that Jesus Christ remain on earth: this was expressed by the apostles who looked at heaven for a long time when Jesus Christ ascended. But Jesus Christ had to leave the earth for the following reasons: 1) The apostles would have remained with their carnal concepts about Jesus Christ if He had remained with them on earth. So, after His resurrection, they immediately asked: “Lord, will you establish the kingdom in this year?” (Acts 1:6). This means that the same carnal concepts remained in them, for the destruction of which He needed to part with them and, by His ascension, assure them that He was not an earthly king, but a Heavenly one, and that “His kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). With His ascension, as the apostle puts it, He “filled all things” (Eph. 4:10). 2) It was possible for Him to be on earth as an unrecognized Person. If they recognized Him, then all the relations of earthly kings and laws, in general the entire structure of the earth, would have to change, then a universal theocracy (Greek: the rule of God) would have to come in the strictest sense of this word, but it is impossible; for how, given the present structure of our planet, can we establish direct communication between countries and peoples everywhere? How, for example, can we transmit the commands of this King to North America? Is it through the Angels? But this means making this world a world of miracles. Moreover, death must still remain in the world. How would the subjects of the immortal King die? How should He act in this case? His subjects would no doubt ask Him to remove death. What can we do here? Don't grant the request? But that wouldn't be good. Satisfy? This would mean doing countless miracles. Such and similar contradictions would have been inevitable if Jesus Christ had remained to reign on earth. That is why the wisdom of God decided to establish His Kingdom in heaven. 3) Moreover, it was more fitting for Jesus Christ to reign in heaven than on earth. He is the King of all: “He has given Me,” He says, “all power in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). So, He is the King of the angelic world, as well as the human one. It is more fitting for the king of these two worlds to remain in the higher world, it is more fitting to give commands from top to bottom rather than from bottom to top; therefore, it is more decent to live in the Angelic world. And in relation to the human world, it is more fitting for Christ to be a ruler in heaven than on earth. For there is a large part of people - both those who already exist in the past and those who still exist in the future, and on earth there is usually the smallest part of people. That is why Jesus Christ devoted the most important minutes to being with those who live in the invisible world; for example, he descended into hell. 4) But for a Christian, a sufficient reason for this lies in the words of Jesus that it is better for Him to go, so that the Comforter may come (John 14:2-3, 16-18). Perhaps in the Persons of the Holy Trinity themselves lies the reason that it is fitting for one to be the Redeemer, and for the other, the Holy Spirit, to be the Perfector. For why did the second Person incarnate, and not the first or third? This was probably what their relationship required. For these and other reasons that we cannot see, it is better for Jesus Christ to be King in heaven than on earth. So, our Redeemer is the King. What is His Kingdom? Who are His subjects? What's the goal? What means? What are the distinctions and rewards in this Kingdom of the Heavenly King? This subject is the most extensive. Jesus Christ has already reigned for several hundred years; How many changes, very important ones, must take place during this time, and therefore how much can be said about this subject! Meanwhile, this treatise is shorter and poorer than all others in our systems. For example, the Right Reverend Irenaeus sets out only a few of the most general properties about this King; then he cites several passages from Holy Scripture, and thus concludes the whole matter. Why is this treatise so short among our theologians? From the influence of foreign theology on our theology. The reason for this is the Protestant parties that had influence on theologians. It is known that the grace-filled Kingdom of Jesus Christ constitutes the Church, and in it, in a special way, are the shepherds of the Church. But Protestants have neither a Church nor pastors, just like we do. Therefore, they have nothing to say about the Kingdom of Christ. since our theologians followed them, that’s why they don’t say anything. As a result of this, the teaching about the Church among our theologians does not have a close connection with other truths. From the theological notes it is clear that it is, as it were, some kind of superfluous treatise. This is because it is not in the right place. The best place for the teaching about the Church is here, in the treatise on the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, but here it is not yet included in any of our systems. Who are the subjects of the invisible King? The whole world is primarily subject to this King, especially all people, and especially the Church; and therefore His Kingdom is more numerous and diverse than all other kingdoms. since this Kingdom is “in spirit and power” (Luke 1:17), then it must be perceptible to the senses; Not only by faith, but also with material eyes, we must see that Jesus Christ reigns in His Kingdom. This is visible both in the whole world and especially in the Christian Church. Let's open the Bible, what does it say about this Kingdom? Literally a lot, but this is interpreted differently. The prophets speak most of all about the Messiah as a King, but these features, in terms of their size and vastness, are difficult to apply. It can only be seen that the moral side on earth is coming true; the sensual side will also come true in part and someday will come true completely. But it is impossible to make a particular application of these features, at least difficult. It is possible to borrow from the prophecies of the Old Testament such features to describe the King of Heaven as Irenaeus describes Him in his system, that is, we can say that He is omnipotent, eternal, and so on. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ speaks about His Kingdom, but understands it from the moral side, and does not speak about the physical side of His Kingdom, about its power, laws, governance and rights. The apostles speak, but little and with caution. The Apostle Paul touches this subject most of all, but speaks little and with apprehension. This is because it was not yet time to talk about this, for the Jews had not yet lost the habit of their sensual dreams of the Messiah as the King of the earth, and the pagans were preparing with their political suspicions. These reasons, especially the first, forced the Apostle Paul to say little about the royal power of Jesus Christ and where he speaks about the power of the Antichrist. The apostles spoke about the Kingdom of the Messiah in general terms, and therefore from their descriptions it is difficult to extract what is essential in this matter. However, the main features can be found. They are: 1) The Kingdom of Jesus Christ, firstly, constitutes the Church, with which He is in the closest union. This union is expressed in the Holy Scriptures by various (symbols) metaphors, meaning the closest connection of one thing with another, for example, what is the relationship of grain to bread, vine to branches (John 15:2-7), groom to bride (2 Cor. 11:2), head to other members of the body (Eph. 1:22-23), in such a Church - to Jesus Christ, its King. In addition to the true Church, all false churches, and in general the entire human race, are subject to Jesus Christ. This is clear from the words of the Apostle Paul, who says: “For it is fitting for Him to reign until He puts all enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). How will He put down and conquer all enemies, that is, all tribes hostile to the truly Christian tribe? Either by converting them to Christianity, or by completely weakening them and punishing them. But the power of Jesus does not extend to the human world alone; it extends to other worlds—to heaven itself. The God-man Jesus was given everything on earth and in heaven. This important truth is often repeated by the Apostle Paul. He also adds to this power of the God-man the remarkable side that it extends to the worst part of the world - to hell: “yea... every tribe will worship Him, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10). Thus, the limits of the power of Jesus Christ are the limits of the entire world. What great power! How can it fit in one person? For Jesus Christ is also in humanity the King of all. Here must be the main reason why the Redeemer, being Man, was also God. Only from this union did the humanity of Jesus Christ receive such a vast capacity; a created being in itself would not have been capable of accepting such power! What is the purpose of this Kingdom? The same as the general restoration of the human race: Jesus Christ rules this Kingdom in such a way as to destroy and destroy the corruption in it. since this Kingdom has two sides - sensory and spiritual, then there are two types of government: one destroys death from the physical world, and the other destroys sin from the spiritual world. And the death of Jesus Christ is the basis of this revolution. With it, Jesus Christ accomplished, only in an infinitely higher sense, what one of the wise (Archimedes) expressed in these words: “Give me a point, and I will move the earth!” Jesus Christ stood at this point in His death and turned the whole world to God! However, in this death He laid only the foundation on which He now edifies, but over time He will bring everything to the full measure of perfection. How does our all-powerful King rule? What means does he use to achieve his goal? He uses two means - invisible, immediate, and visible, mediocre. a) Where is the visible kingdom, which is subject to the senses? In the Church, which was created partly by Jesus Christ, and more by the apostles, which until the end of the world will be under the direct control of Jesus Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit. He is her soul, life, groom. She is preserved by His power and will one day present herself as pure, free from defilement. That is why every part of it leads to Christ, the Cross of Christ is visible in it and on it. The church is founded on the cross; the cross was erected on the Church. How does Jesus Christ rule through it? From its structure you can see the controls. So what is the Church? The Church is a society well established by Jesus Christ and the apostles, consisting under the control of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, in which famous people, on the basis of the Gospel law, act to correct people, to bring them to the light, and thus transfer people to another world - to the Kingdom, apparently ruled by Jesus Christ Himself. This is the essence of the Church or the kingdom of grace! In particular, the activities of Jesus Christ and the Church are one and the same. This is how Jesus Christ taught, and the Church is a theological school; she is also the light of the world, her teachers are the pillars of the teaching transmitted by Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus Christ in their person continues to teach. Here is the first image, or method of government! Further, Jesus Christ was the corrector of conscience, exposed the errors of conscience, knitted and solved. The church also does this. She closes the door of the Kingdom, and no one is able to open it; opens, and no one hinders her. Moreover, it continues to represent the life and activity of Jesus Christ in its rituals, it is, as it were, a panorama of all this - and what happened over the centuries, it concluded in one liturgy. Thus, the Church on behalf of Jesus Christ teaches, corrects, and sensually represents His very Face. Imagine that an infidel came into our church; being a witness to what is happening in it, he would ask the faithful: “What do these symbols mean?” This one would tell him the whole story of Jesus Christ from His birth to His death. In order to more clearly express His teaching, Jesus Christ only partially subjugated the Church to Himself. She is a school; but who has the right to teach? Famous persons who received this right from Jesus Christ Himself. It is governed by well-known elected members, who were first the apostles, who received direct authority from the Savior Himself, and now the priests, appointed and dependent on the same direct and continuous election. Thus, the Christian Church is the most tangible Kingdom of Christ. All that can be demanded in this case, except why Jesus Christ apparently does not appear in her, but there are reasons for this. b) Invisible, direct control. Jesus Christ, ruling His Kingdom through people and Mysteries, controls them and acts on them Himself, directly. This control is twofold, as can be seen from the Holy Scriptures and from Christian history: one is spiritual, moral, similar to the action of Angels or the Holy Spirit; the other is physical, obvious. The first consists of arousing good thoughts and extinguishing bad ones, or influxing into the soul. This is vouched for by all the passages of Scripture that speak of the mysterious union of Jesus Christ with the faithful. For example, Jesus Christ compares Himself to a vine, and His disciples to branches: “You cannot bear fruit,” He tells them, “unless you are on Me (on the vine)” (see John 15:1–4). This expresses more than a connection in thoughts; Here you can see the closest contact, the basis of which should not be thought, but something more. Another action of Jesus Christ, immediate, direct, subject to the senses, is visible mainly from that place (Jn. 14:23), where He promises to come to the believer with His Father and “make an abode with him”; also from where He appears to be pushing at the door of the heart (John 10:7–9). But let the history of the holy persons serve as a sufficient basis for the truth we are proving. All holy people, while still in the body, took advantage of the moments of the appearance of Jesus Christ. Not to mention the times of the apostles, in which Jesus Christ appeared to Stephen, Paul and many others, we see frequent repetitions of this later in the history of Christianity. And therefore there is no reason to deny the spiritual communication of Jesus Christ with the faithful, it is possible, and it exists. Other types of apostles and Scripture in general reveal little. The Revelation of St. John the Theologian (Apocalypse) only speaks a little about this; but it is impossible to apply decisively what it contains to known events. However, one cannot completely reject it or consider it the fruit of a pious fantasy. In John's visions, everything moves for Jesus Christ and under His rule. There His invisible dominion over the entire human race is presented. The struggle of people with evil spirits is described - a terrible struggle not so much by force as by deceit, which must be defeated not by deceit, but by love and patience. But besides these revelations, the history of mankind and the Church presents experiences of frequent appearances of Jesus Christ in this world. Let us run our thoughts through the past 18th centuries and dwell on the most important events; in them we will see the direct actions of Jesus Christ. The first enemy of Christianity was Judaism; but this enemy was the first to die, noisily. The Christian Church lost Stephen and James from him, and some of the faithful suffered plunder of their estates. But how strictly was Jerusalem punished for all this! How clearly Jesus Christ showed Himself in punishing him! Josephus, describing this, turns to Providence several times and exclaims: why didn’t this happen differently? We clearly see the finger of God. This is especially evident in the destruction of the church. Titus, partly out of his kindness, partly out of ambition, ordered, as much as possible, to protect the church from destruction. Meanwhile, one warrior climbed into a place where it was difficult to climb, threw a firebrand, and thus burned the church. In general, the fall of Jerusalem is a tangible action of Jesus Christ. That is why many interpreters understand the conversation of Jesus Christ about the final end of the world only about the end of the Jewish church and city. The second enemy of Christianity was paganism. Christianity fought this enemy for three centuries. The most severe persecution occurred during the reign of Diocletian. This struggle had to be decided, and it was decided directly by Jesus Christ. It is true that the martyrs gave a strong testimony by their death; but this natural testimony would not be sufficient without the miraculous testimony of Jesus Christ Himself. The triumph of Christianity that Constantine the Great brought him would not have happened without the miraculous sign of the Cross; without this sign there would still be many more Julians on the Roman throne! Jesus Christ demonstrated similar dominion in the overthrow of Julian. His death is clearly surrounded by mysterious wonder! His similar power appeared where it was needed, during the conversion of the nations. So, she was seen during the conversion of Russia. Askold and Dir undergo shipwreck, are captured and become Christians. This storm could have happened naturally, but how conveniently it serves the Kingdom of Christ here! In addition, the Slavs are convinced of the truth of Christianity by the unburned Gospel. Vladimir is disposed to accept the Gospel due to eye disease; all these are the workings of the direct power of Jesus Christ. Similar miracles are told in the history of the conversion of other nations. It is possible to accept that they are exaggerated and distorted, but it is impossible to accept that they did not exist at all. When those who were eyewitnesses and experienced them themselves recognize them, then who will challenge such recognitions? When converting nations, it is most fitting for Jesus Christ to demonstrate His direct action, and therefore in this case one can believe in miracles without fear of falling into superstition. But Jesus Christ showed the greatest miracle of His royal power in our times. It did not consist in a violation of the laws of the physical world, but in a shock to the political and moral world, accomplished to the glory of Christ, and, moreover, in the most unexpected and miraculous way. By this shock we mean the French Revolution. It is known that the past century, as its history represents, was a century of unbelief: French, German and English freethinkers formed entire societies hostile to Christianity. It has become a proverb among these encyclopedists: “To overthrow the Inglorious One, that is, Jesus Christ, from the throne.” During their lifetime, their hostile actions were successful, and even more so after their death. The kings themselves became infected with this, for Frederick the Great clearly followed the encyclopedic godless trend. But especially the French people fell from abyss to abyss. The Convention determined to expel the Christian religion from France, and the Archbishop of Paris, in the face of the Convention, rejected God, saying that He had deceived the people. Treason is terrible, perhaps equal to the betrayal of Judas! Finally, after such a satanic renunciation of the archbishop, the triumph of reason was presented in the square, which was represented by one obscene woman. Thus, what was described by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, in the place where he speaks about the Antichrist, took place among Europe. After this, who would have thought that where reason so unruly triumphed, Christianity would triumph again? Nobody! Unless they are faithful followers of Christ. But under Napoleon the triumph of the Catholic Church had already been accomplished. However, this was not yet the true triumph of Christianity. It was the same beast, only on the other side; here only the appearance of piety was restored, but no one thought about true restoration - and those Catholic writers who wrote about this were considered dreamers. But Napoleon fell, and true piety was restored in place of Christian hypocrisy. At the site of the celebration in honor of reason, a memorial service was held, then an unprecedented union was concluded between the three monarchs of Europe, who promised to preserve faith and virtue in the name of the Holy Trinity. This union is recognized by one of our ministers as the first act of the future Kingdom of Christ. And he really is. Who inspired such thoughts in the monarchs with which our Emperor Alexander I begins his manifesto? Before, it would have been a shame to admit this. Who made you think of Voltaire, Diderot and others like them as evil spirits? Who if not our Supreme King Jesus Christ? He made such a saving change that if Voltaire and others like him had been resurrected, they would have become true Christians. How much does Holy Scripture say about the kingship of Jesus Christ? The Old Testament, especially the prophets, says a lot, the New Testament - the Gospels - says a lot, the Epistles - little, the entire Apocalypse almost talks about this. But is it possible to formulate a complete and definite teaching about the Kingdom of Jesus Christ from what was said by the prophets? A doctrine can be compiled, but it is incomplete because the prophecies are vague and too broad. The gaze of the prophets often embraced not only the visible, but also the entire invisible extent of this Kingdom; For them, everything seemed suddenly, as if in perspective, that is, faces and incidents seemed to be mixed up. To see where something belongs, you need to find the point from which they looked; but we cannot always find this point. Therefore, from their prophecies we cannot formulate a complete and definite teaching about the Kingdom of Jesus Christ; however, we can extract a general teaching. The Gospels speak more about the moral Kingdom, which consists of the spirit. Jesus Christ, if He touched on appearance in some parables - and He usually spoke about His Kingdom in parables (in the form of a parable) - was limited only to the time of that time, and did not speak about the future, about the current state of His Kingdom. True, in the last conversation with the disciples He partly touched upon it; but touched only the end of the visible kingdom, and then indefinitely. The Epistles, which contain the teaching about the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, can be pointed to. They are: the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:1-12), which speaks of the Antichrist, also in the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians - about the union of Jesus Christ with the Church, and to the Jews. In all these places the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is spoken directly and definitely, but these places are few. Why not enough, why didn’t the apostles say as much in their Epistles as John did in the Apocalypse? Partly because the Jews still had sensual concepts about the Kingdom of the Messiah, and the pagans had their political suspicions, and partly, one can guess, also because the Holy Spirit did not reveal this to them. On what can this guess be based? On the fact that they did not have a definite concept of this Kingdom, especially about the time of its continuation. This is why they formed an opinion about the imminent expectation of the coming of Christ, which is clearly revealed from the words of the Apostle Paul. In this case, Providence left them to their own arbitrariness, but did not want to open it, which is why they could sin. Crowding and adversity could predispose them to this. How much can one use the Apocalypse in this case? Not much, for here events are represented under symbols and pictures; but to what time should a known event be attributed, what is essential in it and what is extraneous? This is difficult and even impossible to determine. The apocalypse serves hope and feeling, but there is little in it for faith. It represents the struggle of light with darkness and the victory of the former over the latter; but how does this struggle take place, what means are used? Unknown. All this is presented to pious feeling, and not to reason. This book is very extensive in letter, but not so extensive in spirit; it presents descriptively the general and well-known truth that virtue is persecuted, but this persecution ends in glory. So, is Jesus Christ King? Yes, this is evident from the countless names. Thus, at His very birth He is called the King. “Where is the King of the Jews to be born?” (Matthew 2:2). Pilate also calls Him King, and He does not deny this: “Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him, “You speak” (Matthew 27:11). What is the purpose of this Kingdom? The goal is common: the salvation of the human race from the oath and the management of it; otherwise - the overthrow of enemies, vices, the works of the devil and himself. In particular, in relation to the moral law, the destruction of the dominion of sin and the reign of truth, holiness and law; in relation to the whole world - the restoration of all sighing creatures, or the leadership of all; in relation to the Church - the idea of ​​it being pure, free from filth and vice, or something from such. What means are used, how is it expressed? Apparently it is expressed through the shepherds of the Church: in the New Testament there is the rule of Christ, since in the Old Testament there was the rule of God. What laws? The internal code, written, and the external, unwritten, are the action of the Holy Spirit on the heart. So, the legal position here is one mediocre, and the other immediate. How is this Kingdom similar and different from the kingdoms of the earth? It is similar in that it also has laws, punishments and rewards, but it is dissimilar in the way it governs. There physical force is used, and here spiritual conviction; External means are sometimes used, but very rarely and in extreme need. In the Church αναθεμα is the same as in states there is political death. What are the conditions for entering this Kingdom? Two conditions: faith and works. One must first believe that this Kingdom exists, and then one must act as its laws require. Whoever fulfills both of these conditions is given great rights, namely: he accepts forgiveness of sins - this is a negative good! Being adopted by God on earth and becoming an heir to heaven - these are positive benefits! What is the door through which one can enter this Kingdom? This door is Baptism. Everything is learned in Baptism because everything on the part of God and on the part of man is concentrated here: on the part of man - vows; and from God - promises and rewards. Do the subjects of this Kingdom fulfill the laws with their own strength? No, by the powers of grace, which constitutes the new distinction of the Kingdom of Christ. Are there any rewards promised? They are promised and given, namely: in this life, inner and outer peace; the apostle Paul often points to this; External benefits are also given, for example, longevity, health, fame and respect. These blessings were in the Old Testament and they are in the New, and were promised by the apostles. Moreover, in this same life wonderful gifts are given; in relation to them, no kingdom on earth can compare with this Kingdom. There is a direct indication of these gifts as a sign of members of this Kingdom: “they will lay hands on the sick, and they will be in health... they will take up the serpent: even if they drink mortally, it will not harm them” (Mark 16:18). They are also promised the appearance of God and the saints: I and the Father “will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). There are many examples of the appearances of the Mother of God and saints. In the future life they are promised the totality of all blessings, known under the name of eternal bliss. What are the punishments? The opposite of rewards, that is, deprivation of everything stated above. Here is a brief and superficial outline of the Kingdom of Christ. On the application of salvation, or on the assimilation of the merits of Jesus Christ by the faithful What is meant by the application or assimilation of the merits of Jesus Christ to the human race? Of course, the transfer of salvation from Christ to people. And since this salvation is twofold, that is, it consists in delivering a person from evils and in bringing him benefits - in reconciliation with God and in the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, then the application of salvation to the human race consists in the transfer to people of both reconciliation with God and deliverance from evils, and the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven and the acquisition of goods: both of them, without application, could remain in Jesus Christ alone - the author and source of all these merits, as it remains for some. Why does the salvation that remains in Jesus Christ not work unless it is applied to us? At a human court, a debtor is released from punishment if someone pays the debt for him: why can’t this happen here too? Because this could violate freedom, and more because here there is a duty of a different kind - an internal duty, with illness, with sorrow; and a disease cannot be cured without the application of medicine to its subject. Yes, and in a human court they require consent from someone for whom others are entitled to a ransom, and without this it is impossible to impose on him release from punishment. What part of the merits of Jesus Christ, however, can apparently operate without active application? A new earth and a new heaven, apparently, can be given to one who is not prepared to receive them; the sick person can be placed between healthy people and surrounded by good air; in the same way a sinner can be placed on holy ground. But this seems so to a superficial glance, but in reality this cannot be. It is impossible to give a sinner even a particle of goods: he will not be in harmony with his new home, and there must be perfect harmony - as the world is, so will the person. This can be seen in an ordinary patient: the pure mountain air is unbearable for a consumptive - he coughs in it; For some birds light is also unbearable - they are blind in it. Who is the recipient of the merits of Jesus Christ? Here there must be a mutual union of God with man, that is, God and man act here. When salvation was acquired, it was the Son of God alone who acted; but when it is learned, then the person must act. Otherwise, if God alone had acted, then everyone would have been saved. It is known that God acts more, and man less; There are different opinions about how exactly a person acts. The special and main agent in this case is the Holy Spirit, but we must not forget that Jesus Christ is also active here. What is the assimilation of the merits of Jesus Christ on the part of God? It consists: 1) In declaring salvation to a person, that is, firstly, in inclining the mind so that he agrees and is undoubtedly convinced that this salvation exists and that it can be learned; secondly, in the disposition of the will to fulfill the conditions that are proposed here; This is clearly confirmed by the apostles, who always do this: first they declare that deliverance from evils, both moral and physical, has already followed, then they add that this deliverance can only be obtained through the fulfillment of certain conditions, that is, in order to enjoy the benefits delivered by Jesus Christ, one must live well. 2) In helping a weak person, who in this respect is like a completely weakened patient, who cannot accept medicine without the help of another, but who has only his mouth and stomach for this. What does this assimilation consist of on the part of man? On the part of a person, it consists of: 1) readiness to accept what is announced to him - to accept not only with the mind, but also with the heart, or in biblical language - in living faith. This condition on the part of man is the main and essential one, but not the only one. And therefore this condition consists of: 2) in fulfilling those conditions that are required of him - in behavior in accordance with the new state, or - in a good life. But this is not the whole story. In relation to the assistance from God, there must also be something third from the side of man. God gives strength to man, uses means so that man can assimilate the salvation acquired by Jesus Christ; a person must use all this, that is, he must obey the voice of the Church; listen and read the word of God, consume the Sacraments; This means that the assimilation of salvation on the part of man also consists of: 3) in the use of what God gives to man and what he uses for this assimilation. Our theologians do not talk about this last condition, being content with faith and works. This is because they follow the Protestants, who have neither the Church nor the Sacraments, therefore there can be no obedience to all this. What means does God use to assimilate salvation to the human race? He uses means visible and invisible, permanent and temporary, natural and supernatural. The visible main means is the Church - a society of people chosen to serve salvation. She, having accepted everything from Jesus Christ Himself, constantly declares salvation in actions and teachings and helps in prayers and the Sacraments. The private means found in the Church and used by it are: 1) The Word of God, which is more extensive than the Sacraments and other private means, for it contains both a detailed announcement of salvation and complete assistance. 2) Sacraments, which, with the exception of Baptism and Communion, which also contain an announcement of salvation, are mostly means of reinforcement. 3) This also includes rituals and everything church in general. These are visible and permanent means! Invisible and temporary are: direct actions of grace on the soul, actions not only of the Holy Spirit, but also of the Son of God and God the Father. The apostles often speak about these means in their Epistles. All these means are supernatural. Thus, the Church is a supernatural means, for it was founded by Jesus Christ, who descended from heaven; and about the Word and the Sacraments there is no need to say that their origin is supernatural. Are there any other natural remedies? There are: 1) Mind and conscience. They tell a person that he is a sinner, they convince him that he himself cannot get rid of sin, and as a result, they incline him to the idea that God, an All-Good Being, will not leave him unhappy, but will give him a helping hand from above. This help is given in Christianity through Christ. This means that in this way the mind and conscience lead a person to Christianity, to Christ. So, conscience - this is the first and constant revelation, for which all others exist - reveals Christ to man in the spirit in the same way as the revelation of God; does not reveal only historically, that is, does not indicate the person and all temporary and local circumstances. She points to Christ as justification, according to the apostle, sanctification and deliverance, without saying only who He will be or is, where he appeared and when; that is, it indicates the spirit of Christianity without comprehending only its history. What conscience does this can be seen from many examples. Thus, Justin Martyr was led to Christianity in this way - by conscience, by its anxiety - and here he found complete peace. The same happened with many others. 2) Events in nature and in the human world. The same must be said about them as has been said about mind and conscience. They also discover the spirit of Christianity without its history. Here is a general outline of God's means! They are: visible and permanent - the Church, the word of God, the Sacraments; invisible – illumination from the Holy Spirit; natural - mind and conscience, and events in nature and the world. Can internal means work without external ones? Otherwise: can pagans also receive illumination from the Holy Spirit, or only Christians receive it? That Christians are illuminated by the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt; There are many indications of this in the Apostolic Epistles. But whether pagans and Christians are illuminated in this way - there is no direct indication of this in Scripture. It doesn't say that it should be, but it doesn't say that it shouldn't. So, this is known only to Jesus Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. Perhaps it exists, but Scripture did not reveal it, because there is no need: it is only necessary when considering the fate of other non-Christian peoples. Here a pious heart may regret the fate of these nations; but in this case one can rest in peace on those general truths of Holy Scripture that with God there is no partiality; that He will judge some according to the written law, and others according to the internal, unwritten law, that he who does the truth in every language is acceptable to God, and so on. Based on these passages, a Christian cannot regret other peoples living outside the Church; and how these benefits will be delivered to them - only God knows, and our curiosity has no place here. What means should a person use to attain salvation? They are already shown and noticed in the following: “receive, live and keep,” that is, faith, works and the use of means that God uses in this case. But in relation to the supernatural action of God on the human soul, preparation is still required to accept this action, or to bring oneself into such a state that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit can have direct communication with the human heart. Some people recognize this as necessary not for everyone, but only for a select few. But no, everyone needs it. Without this it is impossible to have either living faith, or diligent activity, or complete obedience. And what do those expressions mean in which Jesus Christ is presented either as the Head of the believers, or as the Bridegroom, and others? These are not empty expressions - bare metaphors. This means there is a strong connection between them. Here is a general outline of the assimilation of salvation to the human race! From this it is clear that this assimilation on the part of God consists in announcement and assistance; on the human side - in accepting the conditions for fulfillment. Means from God: Church, the word of God, the Sacraments, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, conscience, events of nature and the human world; from the human side: business, use of means and preparation. Let's look at this in particular. Is it really necessary for the human race to assimilate merit? Necessary: ​​this is clear from all the Epistles of the Apostles, in which salvation is first offered, and then it is suggested to use or apply this salvation to oneself. If it were not necessary, then everyone would be saved: God has no respect for persons. From what passages of Scripture is it clear that God is the main agent in the assimilation of salvation? The Apostle says: “We are the last messengers of God, like men on death row” (1 Cor. 4:9). Hence and from the words of Jesus Christ: “When you go you will teach all...”. (Matthew 28:19), as well as from the words of the apostle: “And He gave unto the two apostles to eat...” (Eph. 4:11), it is clear that God declares salvation to man. From the words: “For God is at work in you, even as you will and as you do” (Phil. 2:13); and also from the Epistle of the Apostle Peter: “For all His Divine powers, even for life and piety, were given to us by the mind of Him who called...”. (2 Pet. 1:3) - it is clear that God is also omnipotent. Moreover, from whom are all the means that serve to assimilate salvation, for example, the Church, the word, the Sacraments, illumination? Clearly, from God; This means that God is the main agent. Is it biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit is a special agent? Biblical, for Who founded the Church? The Holy Spirit, as it was revealed during His solemn descent on the apostles at Pentecost; then when calling the apostles to preach, for example, Paul; He breathed the word to the apostles, He acts in the Sacraments, in the Church, and so on. So, there is no doubt that He is a special agent. Is Jesus Christ the agent in this regard? Yes: He first announced salvation Himself; then he sent the apostles to preach or, what is the same, to announce salvation. Is He still active? This is not directly evident from the Apostolic Epistles; but in the Revelation of St. John the Theologian (Apocalypse) we clearly see: there no important warfare is carried out without this pure and immaculate Lamb. So, the agents of assimilation in the Divinity appear to be two Persons: the second and the third, and the special agent is the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Scripture say that God also uses natural means for this - mind, conscience and events? It is not directly stated, but it does not follow from this that God does not use these means. Scripture is silent about them because it deals only with supernatural means. Meanwhile, history shows that these means were used by God. And the mind cannot but agree to this. For why were we given mind and conscience? To lead us to perfection, but perfection is in Christianity; therefore, the means that lead to perfection lead to Christianity. Has God always used as many means and such as we have shown? In the first centuries, or, better, in the first century of Christianity, there were other means, since then the first foundation of the Christian faith was laid - the matter was difficult, and there were more means. So, at that time there were extraordinary messengers - apostles chosen by Jesus Christ Himself; Thus, the Holy Spirit clearly inspired those whom He chose what to do and where to go. This can be seen from that place in the Acts of the Holy Apostles, where the Holy Spirit commanded that Paul and Barnabas be separated for the work of ministry. God endowed these chosen ones with special gifts - the gift of miracles, tongues, and the like. But these special and original means did not last long; the end of all this can be put at the end of the 1st century; after this, although they were there, they were not in such strength. With the beginning of the 2nd century, those permanent means that we now use began and came into use. But, having extraordinary means that we do not have, the Christians of the first century did not yet have, or even had, but not in such completeness, ordinary means. Thus, their Church was only an initial sprout, without further development; the written word, if there was one, was only in parts; The sacraments were also used only those to which Scripture directly and clearly points, as established by Jesus Christ. All this: the Church, the word, the Sacraments - received full and constant use already from the 2nd century, when the miraculous gifts ceased. The first and main means that God uses to assimilate salvation to the human race is the Church. What is the essential responsibility of the Church? Preach, or announce salvation to people, and assist in the application of salvation. How should she do this? Here she must pay attention to people. There is a significant portion of people who already know Christ. In relation to them, the activity of the Church should partly consist in preaching or announcing salvation, for they do not fully know it; but mainly it should consist in helping them, or in indicating the way to use the means of salvation. This is how the Church should deal with believers. But there are many who do not know Christ - salvation; Thus the Church is obliged to preach and proclaim salvation. This duty was forgotten by her for many centuries and is now being forgotten. The Church seems to be solely concerned about its own salvation; this is enough for a private person, but for the governmental Church, more is needed - it must strive to bring everyone to the knowledge of the Son of God. Our Russian Church is also guilty of this. She partly only fulfills this function, for the vast Siberia is all filled with idolaters, to whom all attention should have been paid long ago. The same is noticeable in other Churches. Some formed entire societies and converted many in Africa and the islands of Australia; however, this whole thing is not being done as it should be; not the way it was done in the first centuries of Christianity. So, we can ask: do we believe in Christ? If we believe, then we must preach Him to all nations. The Church must remember - what the Apostle Paul said about himself applies to her, that she has a duty to evangelize Christ “to the nations” (Gal. 1:16). So, through the Church, firstly, the announcement of salvation must take place. Salvation is stored in it, and it must communicate it to everyone. Jesus Christ in heaven; but whoever wants to see Him, He exists on earth, in the society of the faithful - in the Church, and, moreover, here you can see Him in the most sensual form. For He is contained in Scripture, and Scripture describes in such detail all the features of His face and all the circumstances of His life that, after reading it, one can draw the most faithful image of Jesus Christ, one can see Him. It speaks about Christ - who is He, what did and is doing, and what does he offer for hope, what does he command to hope for? Thus, the Church is the guardian of salvation and a helper in assimilating it from all sides. Is it portrayed in Holy Scripture as an organ of grace instituted by God Himself? Depicted. Jesus Christ says: “I have created the Church... and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). He also appears to be the Head of the Church, which means that the Church, as the Body of Jesus Christ, is organized, moved and revived by Him. It is composed of rulers and subordinates. Are rulers from God? From God. “And He (Jesus Christ),” says the apostle, “gave us to be apostles, and prophets, and evangelists” (Eph. 4:11)... This means that the church hierarchy is from God. The main responsibility of shepherds is to equip “the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12); the most common is to teach faith and piety: “as you go on, you will all learn languages” (Matthew 28:19) or: “until we attain all things... to a perfect man, according to the age of the fulfillment of Christ” (Eph. 4:13); also perform the Sacraments: “so let man not pity us, as the servants of Christ and the builders of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). To define in more detail the responsibilities of the Church, we need to pay attention to the aspects of the human soul on which it acts. There are three sides to our soul: mind, will and feeling. So, in relation to the mind, the Church must open, clarify, instruct; in short - must be a teacher; in relation to the will, she must give laws, oversee their implementation, reward those who fulfill them, and punish the guilty, or must be a leader; in relation to feelings, it must clothe invisible truths in visible forms, bring closer to feelings what is distant from them, must have a ritual side, or must be an expositor; in this regard, the goal of the Church, which we spoke about, the perfection of the saints, is to give people by the very deed what is in Christ. Thus, in Christ there is light, and in Christians darkness must disappear and one truth must establish itself; in Christ there is holiness and integrity, and sin must be driven out of Christians, and virtue must take its place; in Christ there is painlessness and indestructibility - and sickness and disorder must be removed from Christians and given them immortality. Is the Church furnished with any special promises for this purpose? For this, she has a direct promise from Jesus Christ about His omnipotent presence: “Behold, I am with you all the days” (Matthew 28:20); or: “Where there are two or three congregations in My name, I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). It has the advantage of being the visible body of the invisible Head - Jesus Christ. Without this Head she could not act for such an important purpose. It could partially fulfill it, because people themselves can act for this purpose in part, but not completely. She fulfills it completely because Jesus Christ Himself, its Head, acts with it. In what ways is the activity of Jesus Christ directed in this case? This path is indicated by the duties of the Church. Thus, the Church must be a teacher: Jesus Christ in this regard is her inspirer; The Church must be a leader: Jesus Christ in this regard is its ruler, supreme judge and leader; The Church, finally, has a ritual side: Jesus Christ watches in this regard, so that nothing incongruous with the spirit enters into it. What are the fruits or consequences of this presence of Jesus Christ in the Church? There must be participation in life and sympathy with the Head in each member, and this constitutes the general consequence of this presence. Here one cannot make a strict distinction between members, because here one member can replace another, and not as happens in an ordinary, material body, where a hand cannot be a leg, and vice versa. Experiences confirm that in the Church, the last members were sometimes awarded what the first ones did not have. However, the immediate consequences of the presence of Jesus Christ should extend to leaders who have in this regard the moral advantage given by Jesus Christ Himself and transmitted by the apostles. What are the consequences of the presence of Jesus Christ, extending to the shepherds of the Church, or to the representative Church? The first consequence is the infallibility and immaculateness of the Church, that is, the Church cannot establish anything or teach any teaching that is contrary to the spirit of religion. But how to understand this infallibility or immaculateness? That the presence of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit protects the Church from major and very important errors is beyond doubt. This is required both by the importance of leaders, such as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, and by the good of humanity, which could not stand with such errors. But does its infallibility extend to the complete impossibility of sinning? Catholic society also affirms this kind of infallibility, which, in its opinion, is expressed in the pope. This opinion is not defined in our Church. Some have adopted such infallibility from the Ecumenical Councils: such an opinion is found in the Stone of Faith (1 Cor. 10:4); In Irenaeus, perfect infallibility is not assigned to the Church, but to the Holy Spirit acting in the Church. This opinion, on the one hand, may seem like sophism, for there is no dispute about the fact that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are infallible; but on the other hand, it seems to be the best Christian opinion. How is this? Fallibility and infallibility can and should be attributed to the mind abiding in the spirit or soul. But this Church, in the strict sense, is only a body. The spirit, or soul of this body, and therefore the mind, is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, fallibility or infallibility must be attributed to Them. And therefore it is very correctly said that it is not the Church, but the Spirit acting in the Church that is infallible; The Church itself is fallible, but her mind is infallible; but if so, then the Church is infallible; for the Church, the body, is ruled by Jesus Christ, the mind. This is partly not entirely clear and seems strange, because we do not see the connection of this Head with her body, and even more so we do not see how this Head controls the movements of her body. These movements are of two kinds: some come from our invisible Head, and others from us; the former are infallible, but the latter may be incorrect. However, it is difficult to distinguish which movements are from us and which are from our Head. So, the opinion of Irenaeus is the best of all; it is based on the teaching of the Apostle Paul that Jesus Christ is the Head and we are His members. It seems sophistry to the superficial eye, which does not see that between the Church and Christ there is such a close connection as there is between body and soul. Let us continue the development of the infallibility of the Church, borrowed from Christ. Due to such a close connection with Jesus Christ, the Church is infallible, although she herself may sin. But how to determine this infallibility? Is it in calculations, or measurements? Is it possible to list by chapter and place? Faith can only see this, but it is impossible to describe it. The first traces of reflection should be in the shepherds; but sometimes they can be in the last member, for all members of this body are equally alive and have direct sympathy with their Head. That this happens, a reliable witness to this is Sozomen, who described the First Ecumenical Council. This council was the first and most important; it consisted of many martyrs and confessors; the action of the Holy Spirit should be predominantly reflected on it. But it affected more than one, not very famous member: everyone agreed to prohibit priests from marrying; but one of those present there recognized this prohibition as bad, and thus prevented the error of all; It is clear that this time he alone had more of the gift of infallibility than all the others involved in this matter. However, this is a rare case, and for the most part it happens that traces of infallibility are predominantly reflected in the shepherds of the Church, for they are, as it were, the brain members of the body of Christ, and therefore Christ, as the mind or soul of this body, primarily acts on them. Does this infallibility extend to the point that the Church cannot fall? Some Churches have fallen; in the Revelation of John the Evangelist it is directly said to some Churches: “repent... and if not so... I will remove your lamp from its place” (Rev. 2:5). Does the infallibility of the Church extend to the impossibility of deviating from the truth for a time or forever? In the Head of the Church the truth of faith is preserved in all its purity and immutability. The truths of faith in the spiritual Jesus Christ and in the written Christ, or in the word of God, are unchangeable and constantly pure and holy; but in fact, there may be eclipses in the minds of Christians, which, however, do not harm the Church accepted in general. For the apostle does not represent her as perfect, but as being prepared for perfection, and therefore now there may be a part of darkness and misunderstanding in her until she reaches the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ; then only she will not have filth, vice or anything like that. In general, in the discussion of the infallibility of the Church there can be no divisions; this is a matter of faith, not logic. Reading the reasoning of Catholics on this subject, you immediately feel how incongruous and inappropriate their logical divisions are here. To fragment this object is the same as to subject the spirit to anatomy. Catholics themselves feel this incongruity, and therefore move from one method to another. So, they say: the Pope is infallible; but since popes often gave false definitions, then, having attributed infallibility to the pope, they attribute it not to him alone, but to the pope together with the bishops; then they limit this so that the pope and the bishops are infallible only in the most important cases, such as: in explaining any member of the faith, in affirming the dignity of a famous saint, in general when introducing the person of Peter: Para de cathedra Retri loquens infallible. But these restrictions deaden and make disgusting the very teaching, which, as a purely spiritual action, should be left to faith alone. Closely connected with the infallibility of the Church is its indestructibility: “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), that is, virtue, the life of the Church and its union with Christ will remain until the end of the world. This is the meaning of the Church as a manager and leader, acting in the assimilation of merits to the human race, acting through the announcement of salvation and assistance! The second means of assimilating the merits of Jesus Christ is the word of God. It announces salvation to people and helps them to assimilate it. Its use in this regard is twofold: 1) general and 2) specific. The general thing is that it serves as a common tool, or the main and only reliable way of preserving and communicating salvation. Christianity is preserved in him and by him. In this regard, it is very important, for without it neither the Church nor Christianity could maintain its primitive purity. Even if there was only one copy of it, and if none of the believers, except the shepherds, read it, then even then it would be very important. It is all the more important now that both a pagan and a Muslim can read it, and such reading has always been permitted; and Christians, if they ever hid it, did so only from those who mocked it and perverted its truths, or destroyed and spoiled it. The private use of the word of God is that it can announce salvation and help to everyone. Announces salvation by presenting clearly and in detail the foundation, essence and purpose of Christianity, as well as the conditions, requirements and duties of a Christian. According to these two sides, the announcement is divided into the Gospel and the Law. By law we mean the Old Testament, and by the Gospel we mean the New. This division is not entirely accurate: both the Old and New Testaments contain both an announcement of salvation and demands for the fulfillment of certain conditions. However, it is appropriate, for indeed the Gospel is more the gospel of salvation, and the Old Testament contains more moral requirements. The same word of God helps in the application of salvation by indicating the means of this application not only in a theoretical way, but in a more practical way, in persons and actions. Moreover, reading and listening to it, just like reading any wonderful book, will of course help a lot. It arouses pure and holy thoughts in the mind, pious desires and intentions in the heart, living and noble sensations in the feeling, and therefore reading it is very well compared to eating food. How does it produce this? Natural and supernatural. Naturally, it acts like any book filled with high and holy truths. Its action in this regard is incomparable and incomparable with anything. For there is no book in the whole world that is similar in height, Divinity, life and kindness. Despite the fact that the books that make up the word of God are not in a system and without a strict logical order, it is nevertheless better than all books, both as a whole and in parts. If it were necessary to classify these books as literature, then of all the verbal names for books there would not be a decent one for them - they would have to invent a new name. For example, how many letters have been written that are exemplary in their thoughts and filled with the rules of good morality; but none of them can compare with the letters of the Apostle John. In these latter, as John Chrysostom puts it, there is genuine grace - a feeling aroused by God Himself, and not by people. What can we say after this about all Scripture? There is a lot of good, true, and gratifying things in it; as much as is not and cannot be in any human work; all this true, good, joyful thing is filled with the Divine. When reading it, all this resonates in our soul, as if on a string, and if it is developed to accept all this, it will be shaken at its very foundation, and these sensations, as well as what it feels - truth, goodness and holiness - become familiar and constant to it. This action of the word of God is natural; there is also the supernatural; it belongs to grace, which we will talk about later. This is the meaning of the word of God as a means of applying the merits of Jesus Christ to the human race! It acts both in a general way - preserving salvation, and in a private way - announcing it to people and helping in its application. The third means of acquiring merit is the Sacraments. What is the essence of the Sacrament? Usually theologians define them as follows: “The sacraments are divinely instituted actions in which invisible grace is communicated under visible signs.” But this definition is not complete. In addition to communicating apparently invisible grace, the Sacraments also express the spirit of some truth or some event. Therefore, the full definition of a Sacrament is: “A Sacrament is a divinely ordained act in which some important truth or event of faith is emblematically expressed and invisible grace is communicated visibly.” On this side, theologians do not represent the Sacraments: therefore, those who do not see the message of grace, which cannot be seen, reject the Sacraments; meanwhile, this would not have happened if they had indicated what everyone can see in the Sacraments, that is, what they represent or sensually express the spirit of a well-known Christian truth or the most important event. Are the Sacraments precisely designated as means to the application of salvation? How is it applied and how many are there? That the Sacraments are appointed as a means of achieving salvation is clear from the Holy Scriptures. For example, the Savior says: “Whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not have faith will be condemned” (Mark 16:16); or: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). This is about Baptism, but the same can be said about other Sacraments, based either on the direct instructions of Holy Scripture, or on considerations derived from it and indicated by it. How do the Sacraments contribute to salvation? since all of them are taught to believers who know salvation, their purpose is not so much to announce as to help; they are more supportive means. However, while helping a person, they explain to him a lot of things that he wants and needs to know; They best explain to us the approach to God, and bring the supersensible and, so to speak, turn it into the visible, sensual. So, for example, in the Eucharist our spiritual union with Christ is announced to us and made tangible. So, their main and primary goal is that they apply invisible salvation through visible things, clothe the supersensible in the visible, in the sensible. Consequently, through the Sacraments and in the Sacraments, Christianity clearly expressed and accomplished what man wished to achieve with the help of his theurgy (pagan rites); provided, that is, a way of such union with God that a person can see God and enjoy Him, or eat as he eats bread or water. In this regard, the Sacraments do what neither the Church nor Scripture can do. For the Church and Scripture teach us spiritual blessings spiritually, and the Sacraments communicate the same blessings tangibly, as if they were sensual, visible. In them, the invisible world becomes visible, the Divine appears to man in signs and symbols, for example, in water, bread, etc., and man has always desired and desires such phenomena. Consequently, each Sacrament represents an extraordinary revelation of the Divine, brought under the senses as much as they can accommodate. God, instituting the Sacraments, seemed to say to man: “Since your strength is insufficient and your faith is weak, I promise to help you, to make up for your shortcomings. But you may not feel My actions, you may not feel the help I give. For this, here are signs for you - the Sacraments, and therefore, whenever you see what is happening to you, or that any of these Sacraments established by Me are taught to you, know that I am invisibly touching you.” So, the Sacraments are the times of the soul’s meeting with God, the points at which the Divinity most palpably touches humanity. From this side, the Sacraments appear throughout the whole world - they are revelations worthy of the Divine and necessary for humanity, they are actions that nothing can compare with. How long do the Sacraments last? On the one hand, it is extremely much, and on the other, very little. Much because the Divinity communicates with man through feelings, apparently attached to him; the consequence of this touch can be holiness, extending almost to deification. But you can accept a well-known Sacrament a hundred times, for example, partake of the Holy Mysteries, and not be a saint. From this side, each Sacrament has very little effect, and this is because the conditions are not fulfilled. The power of the Sacraments is similar to the power of electricity, which acts only where and in what conditions necessary for this are met. But on the part of God, the Sacraments always act in the same way: whether they touch us much or little depends on the state of our soul, and therefore we ourselves are to blame. This action of God through the Sacraments seems to many to be material and inconsistent with a philosophical view. But this seems so to those who look at it superficially; and in the thing itself it is worthy of the Divine, beneficial for humanity and very consistent with the true philosophical view. Here the superficial glance is seduced by the fact that the Divine communicates with man through visible things - let's say general - through nature; So, can the Divine act through nature? Maybe it usually works through her. It seems strange to us that God acts through water or bread! But this strangeness exists only for those who simply look at these substances as they first appear to the senses; and what is bread in its essence?.. What is water?.. Isn’t it the power of God? And therefore, a true philosophical view leads to the fact that every eating of bread is a communion of the Divine. Every thing in its essence is the word of God, and in visible forms we invisibly feed on the word of God. Therefore, every supper of true Christianity must reach such a supper, must approach it and become like it. This way of God’s actions is not noticed by those who separate God and the world - the things and powers of God. But there should not be such a disconnect. God fills the whole world and constitutes the essence of all things; without Him creation is nothing. From this point, God always acts: people just don’t feel it and forget, while every thing can sanctify a person, and therefore the whole world is an important sacrament - a universal and constant sacrament (ritual, rite). What is the general idea of ​​all the Sacraments? since through the Sacraments God announces to people that He will help them, then the main idea of ​​the Sacrament, on the part of God, is an announcement to man about God’s help, or a general announcement about the action of grace; and on the part of man - faith in grace, which assists him in the matter of salvation and strengthens him. Here is the general content of the Sacraments; Let's see what each of them contains. a) Baptism is a sign of cleansing the soul from impurities and sins. The metaphorical expression of this truth is spiritual birth. Why is it called that? The basis of this name lies in the similarity of ordinary birth with Baptism. Through Baptism a person also receives new life, just as through physical birth. For a sinner in the Holy Scriptures (Eph. 2:1) is called dead... “in sins,” and a dead person usually does not live. Consequently, to emerge from a sinful state, or to be washed from sins, is the same as to emerge from non-existence - to begin life, to be born. So, the main idea of ​​Baptism is the forgiveness of sins and the gift of life. b) Confirmation is a symbol of strengthening spiritual forces and communicating the correct direction of their activities. In Baptism a person begins to live, but the baby only lives, without proper activity. The same would be true for a Christian at one Baptism; For this purpose, Confirmation was established by God, through which the power to act is imparted to the baptized person and at the same time the correct direction is given to his actions. That is why the parts of the body that are most necessary for action are anointed: the sense organs through which the activity of the soul is expressed and stimulated, for example, ears, hands, feet, nostrils, and others. So, the main idea expressed by Confirmation is the strengthening and goodness of activity, or life. According to this idea, this Sacrament is close to Baptism, and for this reason it is connected with it. True, for some Christians, for example, Catholics, it is disconnected. But we combine these Sacraments based on the custom of the ancient Church. So, this Sacrament expresses a very important truth, namely, that not only our existence, but also our activity and strengthening depend on God. The importance and necessity of this Sacrament was testified by Protestants who, in accordance with their hypothesis, rejected other Sacraments, but were forced to abandon this one with little change. c) Communion expresses that a person, by receiving bread and wine, is directly and sensually united with Jesus Christ. The moral side of it is that under the sensual eating of bread and wine, a person is taught the spiritual food - Jesus Christ, that is, not only His Body, but also the Life-giving Spirit - not only the spiritual Christ, as happens in other cases, but also the sensual, and not only the sensual, but the whole - the whole, or the hypostatic Christ is taught. The Body is spoken of only because it is visible. So, the brief thought of this Sacrament is this: the Eucharist expresses the complete union of man with his entire being with Jesus Christ entirely, both in Divinity and in humanity - a union that comes from eating the visible bread and wine and the invisible Blood and Body. A great and immeasurable thought!.. In parts it contains: 1) the fact that a person is united with Christ by a sensory union, extending to a real union; This truth, which only God can fulfill, is biblical, for the Apostle Paul calls Jesus Christ the Head, and us members; It is clear that this expresses the kind of connection that we have shown. In order to express this truth, the Gospel did not spare - let's put it this way - its honor, it used some rudeness in expressions, so that the words: “eat My Flesh and drink My Blood” - not only seemed cruel to the Capernaum Jews, but also seduced many of the disciples and prompted them to leave Jesus (John 6:56); 2) the fact that this connection is made through the sensual eating of a meal. Eating, or nutrition, is very important in life, and at the same time very mysterious. Through ordinary eating, the spiritual person is united with visible nature. External things pass into our body and are transformed into it, that is, they lose their form and existence, but receive the form and existence of our body. But the physiological processes of this are very mysterious, for example, how does one member transform into blood, another into the brain, a third into a nerve, and so on? Thus, even from ordinary eating it is clear that the spirit feeds on the body, and that the life of the spirit and body depends on external things; the spirit - this eternal fire - needs to constantly add wood so that it burns. This is primarily accomplished through partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. How this Body and this Blood are transmuted (changed) into our body and blood is incomprehensible, but it is also incomprehensible how external things are transmuted into our body? But if our weak body can transform, how much more does the Body of Christ have such power! This is the idea of ​​this Sacrament! Is it good for the mind? For the mind, it is one of the most majestic ideas and there is such a mystery in it that the mind reveres, for it sees that the natural transformation of food is mysterious. What kind of Flesh and Blood is given in this Sacrament? Not that, so to speak, carnal Flesh and Blood that was in the humiliated Jesus Christ, although this too was unspeakably higher than our flesh, but glorified Flesh, to which we cannot in any way attach our gaze. The body of Jesus Christ, which He had before His glorification, could be divided into several specific parts; The glorified body, which must nourish the whole world, is infinite, and in its infinity is second only to the Divine. d) In Repentance, Jesus Christ forgives the repentant’s sins through His servant. So, its moral idea is the remission of sins. Both sides are clearly expressed here - the side of God and man. God forgives sins due to the merits of Jesus Christ - that is God's side! But he releases the sinner who repents and asks for forgiveness - this is the side of man! Is it necessary to declare forgiveness of sins? For many, many hours and years of life, even their whole lives, pass in such a way that they do not need this announcement; but for a true Christian it is necessary! He who has never felt an embarrassment of conscience does not need this; but whoever truly repented and was embarrassed cannot do without it. The announcement of forgiveness of sins is necessary to calm the sinner’s conscience. So, this Sacrament is similar to Baptism. There, original sin is forgiven, and if the person being baptized is an adult, then other free sins are also forgiven; and here free sins committed after Baptism are forgiven. Why is Baptism the first repentance, and Repentance the second Baptism?.. The idea in both of these Sacraments is the same, and the metaphorical expression - birth - befits both. For sin kills a person, therefore, after Baptism, the sinner becomes dead again and is reborn through Repentance. This sacrament is based on the weakness of man - on the possibility of falling that remains in him. For no matter how much a person promises to live holy, he will still sin, and therefore has the need to cleanse himself - to be born (reborn). e) In Anointing, when parts of the body are anointed with oil, the believer is given remission of sins and healing from illnesses. So, the idea in this Sacrament is the idea of ​​spiritual-sensual healing. Does it belong to a religion? Apparently, it refers to non-religious, earthly activities. But the Church rightly believes that illnesses are the consequences of sin, hence the basis of this Sacrament is visible. And the Church must pay direct attention to the painful state of the human race, for this state is universal, from which people can fall in spirit if consolation is not given to them. That is why the caring and humane spirit forced us to invent the Sacrament of Healing - a remedy for diseases. How complete is this healing! Earthly doctors usually limit themselves to the sensory side of the patient; Some only means of healing, known under the name of psychological means, also relate to the spiritual side. Meanwhile, as is proper, one should pay all attention to the spirit, for all diseases originated supersensibly from Adam. The Church did this, and therefore satisfied the demand of the mind. She heals with oil, a remedy that, if it has the power of healing, is for some very minor diseases. So, these are only the essence of symbols, but it promises healing power from prayers: “and the prayer of faith will save the sick” (James 5:15), and not from oil. Is it proper for the Church to generate such hope? It is quite fitting for her, as a messenger of heaven, to make a firm assurance of Heavenly help. People can give ordinary medicine and advice, but the Church must come with a vessel of grace. These are the ideas of the Sacraments that everyone needs; in them, and especially in the last one, God appears to be a healer of soul and body! The sacraments that not everyone needs are: a) Priesthood and b) Marriage. They are similar to each other, their goal is the same: the priesthood is marriage with the Church, and marriage is the priesthood. Priests marry the Church to produce spiritual children; those who are getting married are sanctified by the Church for the creation of carnal children in the purity of motives - a great sacred rite! It repeats the first great mystery of the world - creation. The moral idea of ​​these Sacraments is also one. The priesthood expresses the union of Christ with the Church. But is this union already expressed in the Eucharist? It expresses what we receive for ourselves through this connection; and here a new feature is added - the birth of spiritual children, that is, the beneficence of this union is shown, extending from us to others. Marriage is no longer needed for this union; it is quite expressed by the Priesthood and the Eucharist; but this union is necessary for marriage, so that those getting married, seeing in them the purpose of their union, remember that they must produce children who would be new members of the Body of Christ. That is why the Church sanctified marriage and expressed in it the same idea of ​​union. And if there is any era in life, then this should primarily be sanctified. The blessing of God is brought down to these moments of human life, and man is attached to the invisible world in the most visible way. How do sacred persons give birth to spiritual children? Spiritually - through the word and the Sacrament; sensually also through the Sacrament, and especially through the power of preaching. Is there a basis for this in nature and human life? or is this Sacrament, and at the same time these faces may or may not exist? The basis of this lies deep in the fallen nature of humanity. In a state of fall, a person cannot do without spiritual fathers who would give birth to him, raise him and see him off to the next world. This foundation is unshakable. Hence, all nations had priests - priests. These are the truths expressed by the Sacraments! They embrace the most important moments and epochs in human life, such as: birth and death, growth and nutrition, on which life depends; the state of marriage, according to which a person who was hitherto in a series of effects, the causes of which were in his ancestors, himself becomes the cause of new effects, becomes the head of a generation; finally, moral healing and enlightenment from priests. These main truths, expressed in the Sacraments, must always be kept in mind by theologians and teachers of the Church in general, for without knowing them it is impossible to avoid errors. Our sacraments are very significant and edifying. They satisfy the most important moral needs and correspond to the most important eras of life. Therefore, those who rejected the Sacraments withheld, although in a lower sense, their ritual sign. So, Protestants have a kind of confession, marriage is also blessed among them; They have something similar to the Blessing of Anointing on the path of the dying, that is, introducing him to the Holy Mysteries, which constitutes a special rite for them. Pastors are also not directly sent, but are released with prayer; therefore, they have all this, only they weaken their sacred rites, removing the effect of grace from them. We spoke briefly about the content of the Sacraments, and this brief overview is not so full of edification. If we indicate more fully and in more detail the relationship of each Sacrament to life, then they will appear much more venerable. For example, let's take and develop more of the Sacrament of Penance. What does it represent at first glance to a person, even a non-Christian, if he looks at it? Millions of people come to sinners like themselves and reveal their whole conscience to them. Is this a common phenomenon? Where can you see something like this? The most dangerous thing for a sinner is to open his soul. Who made him fearless? Who can do this? To God alone. He alone could do this, and he did. Man would never dare to demand this. The other side: people who are sinners declare forgiveness to sinners. Who gave and allowed them this right? Not only the Jews, but all people knew that God alone could forgive sins. How could people learn this for themselves? Only Jesus Christ could introduce this institution. For it is clearly contrary to the corrupted nature of man. He may decide to go to other institutions, but this is impossible for him. But being far from corrupted nature, it is close to healed nature, which disgusts itself and wants to cleanse its abomination. In this case, a very wise order of Jesus Christ is seen. There is no better relief for a sinner than the opening of his conscience. He calms down a lot after this, and sin stops weighing on him. This is understandable for a true repentant. What comes to our attention when we look at the actions of repentance? Looking at this, we see that the beneficial actions of this Sacrament are very great, and if it were performed always and everywhere properly, then these actions would be countless. So, we know that there have always been people who wanted the good of humanity, for example, philosophers, legislators, kings and others. But their desires were never properly fulfilled. What prevented this?.. The fact that their actions remained on the surface; they did not penetrate into the inner world - they did not see the conscience of people. It would be best for them if the world of conscience opened up before them. But who could dare to make such a proposal? This opening of conscience could only be demanded by God; He demanded, and in Christianity it is done. And sinners before the shepherds, as before God, reveal their conscience and are healed. A rare advantage! Based on it, how much good can shepherds do! With this advantage, the shepherd can be a true messenger. Morally, he needs to instruct and heal illnesses of the soul, and how easy it is to do this when he knows the mind, faith, and generally the conscience of his flock! And he can and will learn all this during confession, performed in the form in which it is prescribed for us. During confession, he can draw up a complete, detailed and best outline of what to teach and what to edify in the hearts of his flock in the coming year. How many other conveniences does confession offer, performed as it is in our Church! Protestant confession is not like that, and therefore does not have these benefits. In our confession the best place is to edify (instruct, teach) everything that cannot be done elsewhere; during confession you can say things that you cannot say in other cases. Not everything can be called decently from the pulpit; but in confession you can touch on everything, for example, the secrets of home life, the relationship of a husband to his wife, and vice versa, also the monarch to his subjects, which is indecent and dangerous to preach about publicly. Here the sinner reveals his conscience before the Face of Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is ready to accept everything; It is clear that in another place long interviews will not produce what here - two words. Here we can talk about rights trampled by laws, because laws do not always provide help, and a shepherd, constrained by civil laws, cannot talk about this in other cases. But here is the best place for this, for here the fulfillment of this office, which lies with the shepherd, is not associated with either harm or temptation. From now on, the institution of this Sacrament is the only thing, and in its use it would be so if it had not become mechanical. All civil courts and the very court of conscience are inferior to it, for in it there is no, or little, religion, soul, conscience. This court of the Church, in relation to civil courts, is the Holy of Holies. For a person who repents here truly stands before the judgment of God - ready to open everything, listen to everything, accept everything, submit to everything! So, how do the Sacraments act in relation to our assimilation of salvation? They act morally, explaining the most important truths of faith to the mind and bringing them to the senses, that is, they explain the matter of salvation in such a way that even the lower abilities of a person cannot fail to understand it; On the one hand, they also act supersensibly, since they communicate the invisible power of grace; and on the other hand, it is sensual and material, since this invisible force is communicated in a visible way, through matter. These means - the Sacraments, as well as the Church and the word, can act on their own, as institutions containing in themselves much that is true, good and useful; but for greater effectiveness, grace also acts in them. This is how grace works in the Sacraments: for example, when Jesus Christ gave the apostles the power to bind and solve sins, he first blew and said: “receive the Holy Spirit,” and then added: “By him (that is, by this Spirit, whom they received) forgive their sins, they will be forgiven them” (John 20:22–23). So, since grace acts in the means used by God to assimilate salvation to the human race, then, having spoken about them, we should talk about grace. But since this grace also acts in those means that are required on the part of man, it is better to present the doctrine of grace after the doctrine of the means used by man to assimilate salvation. This is how God acts on man! Let us now turn to man: what should he do? A person must believe, live according to faith and use the means. So, is faith a necessary condition for salvation? That it is necessary is clear from many places in Holy Scripture. In general it is said: “without faith it is impossible to please (God)” (Heb. 11:6). But here we mean a universal faith in God and in the future life, common to Christians with all other peoples, or philosophical faith; Christianity requires a special faith, and therefore the Christian faith is the belief that God did not abandon people after their fall, but sent Christ - the Intercessor and Healer. And this faith is required by Jesus Christ Himself, “whoever believes in Him will not be condemned” (John 3:18). “Whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), and so on. The Apostle Paul also often demanded faith - and this should be very natural. For when Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the human race, the first thing on the part of people should be to recognize this Redeemer and agree to all His demands, to all that He has done for us. What is the Christian faith? There is no complete definition of the Christian faith in the Holy Scriptures; but piecemeal in many places faith is determined. True, the Apostle Paul (Heb. 11:1) also has a complete definition of faith, but a general faith, not a Christian one. This should be noted because theologians and especially preachers often stop at this definition of the apostle: “Faith is the revelation of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” while the faith of a Christian is not defined here. The Epistle to the Romans defines the Christian faith piecemeal in many places, but a complete definition of it can only be made by consideration. To compose it, you need to pay attention to the subject of the Christian faith. Its subject is the entire Christian religion, its entire plan with all its reasons and motivations, the entire essence of Christianity. So, the Christian faith is faith in Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer: “and we have believed and known that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:69). Even more specifically: the Christian faith is faith in the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ and in His death. “God has ordained cleansing through faith in His blood” (Rom. 3:25–26). In a word, one can find in the Holy Scriptures indications of all members of the Creed, and therefore one can find many private definitions of the Christian faith. How can we define the Christian faith in general? In general, as they define it in catechisms, it is a heartfelt acceptance of the Gospel, that is, faith in the gospel of salvation delivered to people by God. In particular, it is faith in Christ as the Redeemer of the human race, and since all redemption is concentrated in His death, Christian faith is faith in the death of Jesus Christ. All these definitions include the definition of the Apostle Paul. For all Christian objects are from the supersensible realm, and Jesus Christ was visible only with one half of Him - Humanity, therefore faith in these objects is this time “revelation of invisible things”; also, the final fulfillment of the entire plan of salvation will be beyond the grave, but for us this is still in the future, therefore faith in this is a “notice to those who hope.” This is the concept of Christian faith, to which, as we said, the definition of the Apostle Paul goes, but which is not in all its accuracy and completeness in this apostolic definition. So, we have seen what the Christian faith consists of and what is the need for it; Let's now see what properties it should have? Can it consist in simply recognizing as truth what is proposed, that is, in accepting Christ only with the mind and memory, or with the whole being of the soul - with all its abilities? The Christian faith is not and should not be simply theoretical, as required by any science, for example, a certain part of astronomy, which treats such truths that cannot be found applications, but must be accepted, based on faith in the mind, in its laws. Christian faith must be practical, for its subject is the sign of the practical. True, it began metaphysically; The agents of Christianity are supersensible beings, and their method of action is also metaphysical. But the goal of action and the means are practical, experimental, guided by the heart and feeling; The essence of Christianity is the restoration of the human race, our life is also such that it is not only the mind that accepts it, but the heart and feeling, which has an influence not only on contemplation, but also on activity. This truth, that is, that our faith is and should be expressed in life, was clearly expressed by the apostles and Christ in the Holy Scriptures. For example, Jesus Christ: “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28); or: “If you know this, blessed are you if you do” (John 13:17), He said to His disciples. He especially expressed this truth in a conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:3–5). It is necessary, He said to this secret friend, “to be born... again,” that is, it is necessary to completely change in knowledge, feeling and activity, and without this it is not possible to be saved. These words clearly show that knowledge alone, without activity, will not help, and that therefore a living, active faith is needed. Of the apostles, this truth was revealed primarily polemically by Paul and James, and practically by John. Paul, contrary to the opinion of the Jews, who thought to be justified by the works of the ritual law, contrary to this Jewish egoism, in the Epistle to the Romans primarily describes the theoretical side of faith, as if forgetting its practical side. However, he here, although little, touches on this last side of faith, and then, starting from the 8th chapter, he describes in detail the connection of life with faith, and saying: “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not in the flesh, but in the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1), turns all his attention to correcting the behavior of Roman Christians. Jacob, contrary to those who boasted of faith alone, especially demanded works: “What good is it, my brethren, if someone says to have faith, but not to have works...”. (James 2:14). So, Paul, for his own reasons, spoke of theoretical faith, and James, also for his own reasons, spoke of practical faith, to the detriment of the theoretical. Hence, to some, these apostles seemed contradictory; but in fact they do not contradict each other at all, but only look at two sides of faith - one at one, the other at the other. Not only Christ and the apostles require active faith from us, the very order of things requires it. Every thought has an impact on our heart: important - important, unimportant - unimportant. Although most of our thoughts do not turn into rules for activity, the way of thinking has some effect on the will, although not always noticeable. If so, then the truths of religion, so important in themselves, and especially the truth that God saved me and the entire human race, cannot remain without practical influence. But many people live poorly and, believing in Christ, do not think about activities? So! But most of the believers are unfamiliar with all the truths of the faith and do not know Christ as they should. Millions of people who repeat about Christ have no idea about Him; they do not have Christ in their minds or memories, and therefore not in their hearts: it is not surprising that they do not have active faith. On the other hand, some have faith in the mind and memory; despite this, they do not have it in their hearts; what can I say about these? The first is that people of this kind either do not have a detailed concept of the plan of Christianity, or they have a concept, but do not agree with it; otherwise, what would make them go to obvious destruction? Those who have a concept of Christ and agree with him, but do not have perfect activity, are not evil, but may only have some weaknesses. Secondly, it should also be said that people can often fall into psychological deception, that is, they can imagine that they have true faith, while it is imaginary, so that if it is subjected to a strict test, they themselves will be convinced that they do not yet have perfect faith in Christ. But could it not be that the mind has a clear concept of Christ, and agrees to it, but the will will be evil and the life will be bad? Is such a split possible in the revelation of mental activity? There are two ways to answer this question: the method of mental consideration and experience, or practice. Let's start with experience. Experience says the opposite, that is, it convinces us that true knowledge must certainly be expressed in activity. For if a person acted contrary to his way of thinking, then, as we said, he would condemn himself to obvious destruction, and such determination in a person is impossible. Experience also vouches for the fact that supposed believers do not have the faith we are looking for; their faith consists of human things, learned but not mastered; from truths that have not taken root in the heart; from lessons accepted by the imagination, without actively mastering them. Thus, from experience it is clear that the perfect embrace of Christ by the mind cannot be without the embrace of Him by the heart; practice without theory and theory without practice are nothing. That's what experience says! What will mental consideration show? Although there is some duality in our mind or, better, in our soul; however, there is also harmony, as a result of which a certain truth immediately passes from the mind into the will. Thus, we see in ordinary life that as soon as any news arrives, even the most unimportant, people immediately take the necessary measures, use certain means; this means that the mind transmits this message to the will, and it begins to act in accordance with it. Well, is there really a harmony of mind and will in life, but not in religion? This is where this harmony, this unity of mind and will should prevail, as mental considerations and experience assure us. Let us not, however, deny the existence of such monsters in the moral world who can know Christ and can, with this knowledge, be evil at heart. Perhaps, due to the depravity of human nature, they can and do exist. But the first thing we stated above is more likely. And from here it can undoubtedly be asserted that whoever lives badly, no matter how much he knows Christ, still does not know Him; and whoever lives well knows Him; This is not just a ghost of faith, but the true Christian faith. The second condition on the part of man is a good life. Although this condition already lies in the first, for living faith is faith combined with works; but since people in their activities separate faith from deeds, Scripture especially demands from them a good life, or good deeds. Thus, the First Epistle to the Corinthians says: “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19). Now, since Baptism is similar to circumcision, we could say: “Baptism or non-Baptism without keeping the commandments is not important.” The same condition is required of man in the book of Ephesians. “For we are a workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10), that is, we were already once created for good works, now we are created a second time for the same purpose in Christ. The book of Colossians says the same thing (Col. 1:10), and many other places. Even more is required of Christians; they need not only virtue, but holiness. “This is the will of God,” says the apostle, “your holiness...”. (1 Thess. 4:3), or: “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16), or: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), and so on. In general, a higher virtue is required of Christians than that required by moralists. Be like Me, says God; How low in comparison with this is Kant’s saying: “Realize the ideal that is in your mind!” Kant eliminated the will of God, and therefore its beginning is lifeless; God presents Himself to people as an example of His activity, and therefore in this presentation there is power and life. How is it necessary to achieve this purity of soul and body, this holiness - suddenly, or gradually? Purification is required from a Christian to be gradual, consisting of clarifying the mind, correcting the will, curbing passions and carnal lusts, that is, gradual cleansing of the mind, will and feelings, or soul and body. Anticipating our weaknesses, stumblings and falls, God, so to speak, prepared the means for healing all new ulcers of our soul, so that after each sin we only need to repent - take advantage of the means - and again we can begin to do good, to live well, in a Christian way. Is the achievement of perfect holiness promised in this life?.. There is no promise of this anywhere in Scripture. It only says: be holy, but whether it is possible to achieve perfect holiness here is not mentioned. The opposite of this is stated in many places, and in general where it is said that one must always cleanse oneself, that whoever admits to be sinless is lying, and so on. This was best witnessed by the Apostle Paul by his own example. He served as a model of Christian life and, however, said about himself that he was subject to temptation and, moreover, some kind of rough, carnal one from Satan (Rom. 7:14–24). This was to be expected from the brevity of human life, from the versatility and depth of our spirit and from the deep fall. For these reasons, man could not and cannot become perfect in everything in this life. The third condition on the part of a person requires that he use the means used by God to assimilate salvation to him, that is, he would listen to the Church and obey her, use the word of God and participate in the Sacraments. This condition is very important. He who neglects them will not receive salvation, I say: he who neglects them, for he who does not know them is subject to a special judgment. Here a thought may arise: if a person who does not belong to Christ learns about Him and begins to believe in Him, will he receive salvation? He does not use these means; So, can he be saved? It is possible, because he does not use these means directly and openly, but uses them indirectly and imperceptibly. For example, how would he have recognized Christ if these means had not had their effect on him, if he had not read the Gospel or heard Christ’s sermon? Therefore, in this case, it is very appropriate to say with Paul: “How can they hear without him preaching?” (Rom. 10:14) Here are three conditions on the part of a person necessary for him to assimilate salvation! These three conditions required on the part of man, and the first three means used by God, are accompanied by an invisible action on the part of God - the action of grace. So what is grace? What is its effect, and what is its relation to human powers? Grace has many meanings in Scripture. In this case, it means the direct action of the power of God and especially the power of the Holy Spirit on the human spirit, with the goal of actually assimilating to man what is in Christ, that is, filling the mind with truth, the heart with good, the conscience with peace, or the moral transformation of soul and body here, and the physical there, in eternity. This is the practical concept of grace! Its source is the Holy Spirit; the subject on which it acts is the human spirit; the goal of action is human perfection, negative, consisting in getting rid of evils, and positive, in delivering benefits. It is clear that this teaching is strictly Christian. Philosophers have only a shadow of it, namely: faith in Providence, which is some small shade of faith in grace. Does Scripture promise such direct action on the part of God? Promises in many places. For example, the Savior Himself speaks to the Jews, who did not even understand Him, about the attraction to salvation from God the Father (John 5:34). What does this attraction mean if not some special action of God the Father, without which, no matter how much Jesus Christ did for our salvation, everything would nevertheless be in vain, and which is different from all the actions of Jesus Christ? This attraction is that direct action of God, which we call grace. The same is contained in verses 63 and 45 of chapter 6 of the Gospel of John. Also in the First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1:22), where by the Spirit we must understand the action of grace; We also see this in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 15:13), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:16), in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 8:9), in the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 4:6). Moreover, the same direct action of God is shown in those places in which man turns out to be a new creation (Phil. 2:1-3, 13). This grace-filled action is attributed to the guilt of many private human virtues: for example, “the fruit of the spiritual is love” (Gal. 5:22, 4:6; Heb. 13:10–11, 21, etc.). The types of grace are general and particular; the general appearance is the attraction we have shown of man towards salvation; and its particular types are all particular expressions of this attraction, for example, calling a person through the word and the Church, awakening him through the Sacraments, enlightening the mind, softening the heart - either with joy or sadness, and others, in general, types of grace, according to circumstances, can be divided almost indefinitely. How far does this work of grace extend? How is it accepted? What responsibilities does it impose? How is it stored and used? All these questions are resolved by moral theology. We will touch on two theoretical sides. And firstly, are not the effects of grace irresistible? Apparently, some passages of Scripture lead to the idea of ​​the irresistibility of the actions of grace, and as a result of this there is a whole society of Reformed people who think that God can save a person without any consent on his part: “and they will have mercy on him if they have mercy on him, and they will show mercy on him if they have mercy on him” (Ex. 33:19), that is, to whomever God judges (recognizes), he gives. But, strictly delving into the meaning of the biblical teaching, we will find that the Holy Scriptures nowhere present such grace. It represents a person as always able to resist it. There is a special grace in Scripture that is given to some chosen people - either for their good or for the good of others; but there is no insurmountable grace either in Scripture or in history, for people overcome this special grace. If grace worked in this way, everyone would be saved. But they say: a person acts freely even when he cannot overcome the actions of grace. He, they say, preserves what is given to him, as befits a free being. But we can save when we have mastered what we are saving. If we accepted something without freedom, then we will preserve it without freedom. So, in order for there to be free preservation, free assimilation is necessary. Consequently, one must agree either that a person neither freely assimilates nor preserves salvation, but that everything is done by grace without his will - which is completely contrary; or the fact that a person both assimilates and preserves salvation freely, and that therefore grace cannot act detachedly, not irresistibly. What is the relation of grace to man's powers? Holy Scripture does not explain this; it could not explain, because to explain this it would be necessary to reveal the supersensible half of a person, to provide more information about the composition of the soul than there is in all our psychologies. Scripture, while dwelling on general truths, does not examine in particular where the action of grace ends and where the action of man begins. There are passages that say that God produces everything; There are also passages that state the opposite: everything is attributed to man. Such inaccuracy in words caused a wavering in thoughts. Theologians in discussing this subject have always been divided into parties. Some attributed everything to God; others - to man; There were also those who stuck to the middle, and these did better. That God produces almost everything is certain. Rather, it is necessary to prove that something is required from a person. This is proven by the fact that the Holy Scripture ascribes to man the ability not to listen (see parable of Matthew 21), the ability to correctly understand and follow what is understood (Rom. 1:21–24), the ability to act in one way or another (Rom. 7:15); many motives also appear to him (Matthew 3:2), and so on. All this shows that a person can and does do something, albeit a little, for his salvation. It is impossible to determine exactly how much a person does and how much God does; it is a mystery. However, for clarification, an analogue that was found in natural religion, that is, faith in Providence, can serve: just as the action of Providence consists in maintaining being and physical forces, so the action of grace must consist in maintaining being and moral forces; what is brought there by a being who is in the control of Providence for his existence, the same must be brought here. What is this doctrine of grace for the mind? For the mind, this teaching should be desirable and desired. Everyone will agree that the highest help for a person is necessary. Anyone who has tried to correct their heart knows how difficult it is and impossible for our weak forces. To become a saint from a sinner is the same as ascending to heaven; and it is completely impossible to climb there on your own, without a guide and an assistant. This teaching about grace prevents the first and usual consequence of passions and sins - despair. It usually happens to a person who does not hope for help from anywhere that, having tested his strength once and again, and not seeing any success, he gives up his work, because self-reliance is weak. But support in grace is a pillar of heaven that can always support the struggle. This doctrine of grace serves as a bulwark against frivolity. A person, with a lack of his own strength, is given the never-fading powers of grace; and therefore he can never excuse himself for not having overcome sin. This doctrine of grace increases the love of God. Man, living in this world, is at a distance from God, for this is really a country of removal - exile, as the Apostle Paul notes: as long as we are in the body, he says, until then we are removed from God (see Rom. 8:8)... But the consciousness of this direct action of God always reminds us that we are close to God, that we are one with Him. Grace is, so to speak, a continuing chain of internal connection between a person and God, which has time to turn into an external - visible connection. Judges, legislators and everyone working to correct damaged human nature especially need to know this teaching. Having begun their work, they may fall into despair when looking at the deep damage to humanity, if they do not know that God Himself, so to speak, is working to correct this. Moreover, this same teaching can make them respect the greatest sinners, for there is a power that can correct them. How grace works, the mind cannot comprehend; but cannot deny that it acts; otherwise he would have to reject the truth accepted by natural religion or philosophy, that our existence is sustained by a higher, Divine power. Philosophical faith in Providence is completely similar to the Christian faith in grace: both are a matter of the heart, not logic. So, the doctrine of grace is not new; it is a more limited and more useful doctrine of Providence, long known to philosophers. To explain how one can accept an action and not feel it, which usually happens when grace acts on us, some natural phenomena can serve. The reason for this must be that God did not want to violate his personality through the tangible revelation of His actions to man; I wanted to leave him with his complete independence, so that man could act with greater freedom, and so that his actions would therefore be more moral, more sublime and more worthy of God. The phenomena we mentioned are, firstly, electricity. You can draw a circuit to a patient, act on him and treat him, but if the entire electrical apparatus is hidden from him, then he will not feel that these actions are external, and will consider them his own. Another phenomenon: they recently invented a galvanic machine to revive the dead, which is located in all the most important metropolitan police forces, and we have one in St. Petersburg. They put a frozen person into this machine, act on him, and if there is life in him, then he comes to life. But all this can again be produced in such a way that the revived one will attribute it to his own forces, and will regard it as the action of an ordinary awakening, if he does not see the physical apparatus used for this. The same can and does happen to the soul at the time when grace acts on it. Thus, in the field of science there are indications that it is possible to act in an imperceptible way, just as grace usually acts on our soul. So, the salvation acquired by Jesus Christ is assimilated to people morally and physically. Moral assimilation consists in communicating to people everything that is in Christ, that is, truth, goodness and blessedness. Physical assimilation consists in the visible and sensory teaching of salvation to people and in their direct union in Christ. This last assimilation is necessary for a person because of his weakness. Grace works both on the part of God and on the part of man. On the part of God, it acts in the means that God uses, for example, it encourages a person to obey the Church, honor the word of God and use the Sacraments, and also assists in the use of all this. On the human side, it affirms and gives strength to good activity; sometimes through fear, sometimes through promise, he forces you to use the means. Thus, grace surrounds us on all sides. This is how salvation is acquired by the human race! On the relation of the visible Kingdom of Christ to the invisible Hitherto we have seen how man enters the visible Kingdom of Christ, and what is the structure of this Kingdom; Let us now look at the relationship of this Kingdom to another, closely connected with it - the relationship of the Militant Church to the Triumphant Church. The visible kingdom of Christ will exist until the end of time, but before this limit, unknown to us, how many people die! On earth there is only a smaller, or, better said, the smallest part of people, but in another world there is the largest. So, is there a connection between the two, and if so, what is it? These two branches constitute one body, one Kingdom. Death is a very important limit in a certain respect, but for the Church it is unimportant. And therefore there is a connection between the two branches of the Kingdom of Christ, and therefore there must be mutual relations. What are these relationships? The Christians who have departed from us are those who have achieved perfection, whose imperfections ended with the end of this life, and whose weaknesses disappeared with death; or those who transferred into that world only a weak faith with activity imperfect in many respects. According to these two kinds of people, the Church’s relationship with them should be twofold: the subject of the relationship with the first, the perfect, should consist of respect for them and in petitions, or in prayers; the subject of our attitude towards the latter, imperfect ones, should also consist in petitions, but not towards them, but sent for them. So, between them and us there is strict reciprocity: they send us help, and we send them. The visible church takes help from the invisible, but also sends it its own help. The basis of this reciprocity is the unity of both Churches in their Head – Christ. And what equality between them! The Church of another world is higher than ours: it helps us, intercedes for us; but on the other hand, our Church, endowed with the greatness of the merits of Jesus Christ, is more powerful than that, for it helps it with its benefactions. The Scriptures explain little of this attitude; but in spirit it is completely Biblical. His spirit consists of love and trust, which are spoken of everywhere in Scripture. Everyone is alive before God; much more, one might say, before Christ, Who died that they might live. If everyone is alive, can they remain without mutual relations with each other? A. In what form does the Church contain the teaching on the veneration of saints? She teaches you to respect them and call for help. What signs does she show respect for the saints? What types of this respect? These types are: consecration in honor of their days, or the establishment of holidays; dedicating churches to them; giving people their names; placing their images in churches and houses; worshiping them, kissing icons and relics, if they exist; lighting candles and incense; censing; taking out particles in their honor at the proskomedia; glorifying them in sermons, and others. We calculate these types of respect for saints because there is a whole Church, the Protestant Church, which rejects respect for saints in the forms in which we maintain and fulfill it, attacking not respect for saints, but types of respect, especially the worship of their images. But let reason itself judge this more impartially; Will he find anything contrary in this respect for the saints? Saints are respected; Can reason say anything against this? He knows that people who are different from others cannot but be respected, and a saint is a great, excellent person. Just as in civil societies there are great men whom one cannot help but reverence, so in church society there are great men whose greatness is higher than the greatness of the earth, for they are great in heaven and share in the glory of the Kingdom of Christ (Luke 23:43. Rev. 6:9–10), while those who are great on earth are always in danger of being small; return is always possible for them. Saints are all the more worthy of respect also because their greatness is combined with beneficence for us: they are always great in moral terms, great in love and charity. So, can the heart and religious feeling be prevented from respecting their benefactors, intercessors and friends? Let us now look at the signs that express respect for the saints. Let's start with dedicating days to them - with holidays in honor of the saints. Dedicating days to saints is the same as dedicating days to virtues, for every saint is an example of a certain virtue. In France, in the last century, a religion of reason was established, which had holidays established in honor of well-known virtues; This means that the mind agrees to devote days to virtues; but isn’t that what we do, only in a different, better way, when we dedicate days in honor of the saints? Celebrating the memory of the saints, we celebrate the memory of well-known virtues, for example, remembering the beheading of the Forerunner, we remember the firmness and constancy of the truth; consecrating the day of Peter and Paul, we consecrate the feats performed by people for the benefit of humanity, considered from the spiritual side; By honoring St. Nicholas, we honor mercy and love for neighbors, and so on. So, the Church, having dedicated certain days in honor of famous saints, fulfilled the demand of reason, only better than it could. For she represented virtues in persons, and a personal representation is better, more lively and edifying than an abstract idea. The same can and should be said about the dedication of churches to saints. Churches are named after saints. There is a shade of this in civil history: here we see that the names of great men are given to famous buildings, institutions, and others. By naming a church after a saint, it means that this church is given to this saint under special protection; Is there anything nasty about this? Doesn’t reason itself suggest this to those who act in the same way with ordinary establishments? Images of saints are nothing more than portraits of our benefactors and friends, whom we preserve and respect for memory. For the simpleton who cannot understand any other kind of teaching, icons representing the faces of saints or events from their lives are the best teaching. There can only be a shortcoming here, consisting in excessive veneration of icons, in the superstitious representation of them as something divine; but this deficiency comes from rudeness, and on the other hand, for someone who is so rude, it is more necessary and useful. For if he cannot obtain an abstract concept from an icon, then without an icon he can do so even less. Consequently, this very excess is not without benefit for him, and to take away the icons from him would be reckless. France showed this: when during the revolution all church appearances, and therefore icons, were destroyed, it turned out, especially in the villages, something similar to paganism. Naming the names of saints is a wonderful custom, and if it is fruitless, it is due to our carelessness. This custom is very ancient: even in ancient times, people gave themselves the names of gods, great people, etc. This naming is appropriate for Christians; through this name of a famous saint, and therefore the name of a famous virtue, passes from generation to generation and is perpetuated. If Christians combined their very virtues with the names of saints, then the virtues would pass from century to century and would be established. This means that this custom is very good: it can make us like saints! Veneration of icons, lighting of candles and censing. These actions, solitary in their subject matter, may seem strange. But are they really strange? Doesn't the same thing happen in earthly civil relations? Where there is no personal presence of the sovereign, there his face is represented by the soldiers - a banner, in places of justice - a portrait or a mirror; why shouldn't it be the same in religion? True, there is anthropomorphism (human-likeness) here, but one from which a person cannot free himself. In religion, this anthropomorphism is reduced, because here a spirit is represented, separated from the mortal body, which is somehow more convenient to imagine as being present at its portrait. So, this sign of respect also has its basis in human customs. It would be surprising if it were not transferred to the Church; It would be strange to take off your hat to a person and walk without any sign of respect in front of the image of a saint. There is, however, some strangeness in the fact that they bow not to the saint, but to his image. But this expression is necessary for lower people: when they see an image of a saint, they cannot help but honor him with worship. Moreover, this side of our Church does not present any strangeness to the correct view. In general, there is a basis for all these signs that express respect for the saints. And the Protestants then strongly rebelled against them when they fought with the pope, thinking that the entire dominion of the pope was established on this appearance, which among Catholics is varied and abundant to the point of excess. Now they too are beginning to judge more sensibly, see the benefits of this appearance and are introducing something similar in many places. The second type of our relationship to the saints is calling them to help. Turning to the saints and asking them for help, assuming for now that they hear us, is not at all strange. The fact that they are in another world does not prevent this, for they are not far off; The fact that they are without a body does not hinder either: Angels are spirits, and for all that they are our helpers - guardians; a soul detached from the body finds it even more convenient to act and communicate with other beings. So, turning to the saints is not at all strange; In this case, there can only be one strange question, namely this: do the saints hear us, and how? When we pose such a question to ourselves, the impetus for this is some dark concept stored in the minds of people about heaven and hell, as something distant. But do we know where heaven is? Maybe it’s right there, next to us. So, part of this question, based on the unproven opinion about the distance of the sky from us, loses its force. The saints may be near us and with us, but we don’t see them. But this weakening of part of the question does not weaken the whole question; The following reasonable question still remains unresolved: the righteous are not omnipresent, but petitions are sent to them from everywhere, how can they, being in one place, hear everything? This strangeness is eliminated this way: the righteous see everything through God, that is, God sees everything, and the righteous see everything in God, as in a mirror. But this decision is difficult to understand, because in order to understand how the righteous see everything in God, this requires more than what is required to solve the question we asked. So, let's solve it more simply. Here it's all about space. External space (it must be both in us and outside of us) does not prevent the spiritual eye from expanding so that it can see at one time from one pole to the other, for our physical eye is so far in its vision that it sees the most distant stars, which are further away from it than one pole from the other. It is very likely that he would have seen the poles of the earth if its thickness had not prevented him. How does it happen when thousands of heavenly bodies suddenly fit into our eye and do not fill it? No philosopher will say this! For us, what has been said is enough. For from this it is already clear that the spiritual eye can expand and see far. This expansion occurred among some saints even in this life. There are some phenomena that explain this not only in the world of people, but also in animals, despite the fact that this life is a prison where everything is constrained and compressed by four walls. Thus, some animals instinctively sense the future and see more clearly than humans. People have dark premonitions and feelings about what is happening far away from them. If people, and especially saints, look so far in this life, then it is not surprising that they see much more beyond the grave; there the horizon of vision becomes wider and hearing becomes more expansive - and the current too limited hearing and vision cannot be transferred there. We now see unusually rapid physical actions; we see that some planets travel millions of miles per second; why not attribute such speed to the soul? it must be faster, because it is less constrained by distance. Besides, do we know the laws of another world? We do not know the physical world well either. Recently, Keppler and Newton discovered the laws of the solar system, which were universally accepted as true. But in the present century they were rejected by our domestic astronomer Strug and other laws were found, perhaps also not true. If we could not correctly judge physical laws, then even less can we determine the laws of the spiritual world, which is completely hidden from us, and it would be extreme stupidity to transfer our real laws there. So, the saints themselves hear our prayers; Otherwise, why would strong prayer have such an effect on them and disturb them so much if it did not reach their ears? And this is repeatedly evident from some legends about visions of saints. For example, Samuel, summoned by Saul, says to him: “Why are you bothering me?” God spoke similarly to Moses at the Red Sea: “Why are you crying out to Me?” It is not surprising that in another world the minds and hearts of saints expand. The Apostle Paul wrote to believers even in this life: “Our heart is enlarged. You are not crowded with us” (2 Cor. 6:11–12). So it expands here with love, and there with the power of spirit. Is the doctrine of the calling of saints the teaching of the Church and Scripture? It is universal and Biblical, although Scripture does not directly speak about it. That the saints pray for us and that therefore we must call on them - in confirmation of this, some cite the following words of the Apostle Peter: “I strive and always have you, after my departure, to make a remembrance of these things” (2 Pet. 1:15). But from the Russian translation a completely different thought is visible: “I will try,” the apostle says here, “so that even after my departure you always bring this to mind.” since the previous text speaks of the death of the apostle, the meaning of this place may be: “I will pray that you remain faithful and blameless even after my death,” but where to pray and when - whether here, or in another world, before death, or after death - this is not visible. Thus, the idea of ​​this text is general, vague and not entirely suitable for our case. But here the place is clear and decisive. The angel “was given... much incense, that he might give to the prayers of the saints all the gold that was before the throne” (Rev. 8:3). For whom are these prayers of the saints offered? Of course, about earthly inhabitants. This one place is enough for our subject; but there is also something else, in the Old Testament, in the Second Book of Maccabees. It says that Onias, long dead, was seen praying with outstretched hands (2Mac 15:12). These two places prove our truth directly and clearly. Besides. The Holy Scriptures and the history of the Christian Church present so many experiences of the appearance of saints in disasters and in various human needs! These experiences clearly show that our strength and help lie in the saints: how can we not resort to them? We touched upon the fact that saints hear prayers brought to them from all countries; proved that they could have such wide hearing; Now let us ask: can their soul have such capacity to embrace so many in number and so varied in subject matter of petition? The human soul can still hold a lot. For example, how much can be contained in one of her abilities - in memory! One general (Epaminondas) knew all his soldiers by name. And in general, how much knowledge, thoughts, and feelings now fit into one soul! After this, it is not surprising that the souls of saints contain so many. The real capacity of the soul is only a shadow of the capacity that it will receive in the higher world, having become better, light, subtle, pure. How do saints hear? By what means do they receive our prayers? Internal or spiritual feelings. That we have these feelings is clear from the fact that we sometimes feel without the help of external senses. For example, in a dream we clearly act with other senses: we see with a special eye, and not an ordinary one, we hear with a special ear too; in a word, in a dream the soul acts in a special way, but as if in reality, with the help of ordinary external feelings. This leads to the idea that the soul has its own feelings, similar to the current external ones. And if the soul acts with these feelings in a dream, then is it surprising that it acts with them after separation from the body - in another world? Of course, the way we see the present is not entirely similar to the future; however, he can clarify it somewhat. So, the saints have the tools to hear and feel, and therefore they have the opportunity to accept our prayers. This possibility becomes even clearer if we assume that the soul takes with it some, albeit shadow-like, shell of the body: in this case, the soul can have the same feelings with which we now usually act. In general, it should be noted that all difficulties and objections regarding this subject fall and are lost upon a careful look at it, and especially from the immutable rule that the laws of the present world cannot be transferred to the future world; Based on the current state, one cannot directly judge the future, which is much more sublime. This is accepted not only by theologians, but also by philosophers, and therefore does not arouse the slightest suspicion. On the other hand, it must also be said that the idea of ​​service is very consistent with the dignity of the saints. It is very decent to use people to serve people, and especially saints, who in this life were very happy about the perfection of their neighbors and considered helping them a special reward and pleasure in the future life. This holy desire remained and naturally expanded and increased; why wouldn't the ministry remain? It has remained and should remain also because the help they give to us also gives them something like a work of love. And in general, before the general resurrection, the activities of the saints could not be occupied with anything better than works of mercy; That’s why this gap is filled with them. But even if we could not prove from reason that saints can see distant objects, then even then we could not reject such a vision of saints. For the history of the Church presents many examples of how holy men even in this life foresaw far. For example, Sergius of Radonezh, during the Battle of Kulikovo, foresaw the entire course of the battle, prayed and told the brethren how the battle was going on, who was killed, and so on. One day during the meal he stood up and bowed; at that time, a bishop was passing near the monastery... Thus, Basil the Great recognized the thoughts of Ephraim the Syrian, who stood unnoticed in the corner of the church and was seduced by the splendor of the clothes and the splendor of the service of this saint. As a result, he sent him a prosphora and, inviting him to his place, told in detail his own thoughts, which were revived in him in the church when looking at the clothes and worship. In general, it must be said that the human spirit contains many abilities and sides that are not revealed in this life. From some experiments it is clear that in our body - in this cramped prison - lies the greatest giant. And our psychology, which barely comprehends the phenomena of the soul, does not, one can safely say, grasp its essence. Our soul can be divided into abilities that act in everyone, known to everyone; and into abilities that operate in some - unknown, secret to ourselves, that is, it can be divided in the same way as geographers divide the earth into known and little-known countries. Here this division is even more appropriate, because our soul is less known to us than the earth. Especially unknown are its two poles, that is, one side of it facing God, and the other facing the world: these are two great unsolved mysteries! The latter is apparently understandable, but if we take a closer look, we will see that it is also incomprehensible and mysterious. To do this, it is enough to point to the sense of vision. How do countless objects enter the soul? How do they stay there, and how do they come out from there? Isn't all this a secret? The ancients fabled that particles are separated from bodies and enter our eye; the newest ones - explain from the refraction of solar rays; but all this does not explain the matter, it still remains mysterious how you look at the sky - and it is in the eye; you look at the stars - and they are in your eye! The same mystery is noticeable in the abilities of the soul; Thus, from the mind of the architect huge buildings are born; the philosopher produces from himself a whole world of thoughts; the historian brings out, so to speak, several centuries with an endless variety of persons and events; all this is done in such a way that the soul in no case feels or suffers the slightest loss - and therefore leads to the thought that one should not stop at logical reason, but must go further, for it, with its dialectical forms and considerations, is the enemy of everything lofty. In addition to the invisible effect of the saints on us, there is their visible effect. They act on us through their bodies, or powers. What kind of phenomenon is this, extraordinary in all its respects? The incorruption of the bodies of saints is a very interesting subject - it is the first most remarkable phenomenon in the world. The whole world is subject to corruption, but there are no bodies of saints: where does this exception come from and for what? Is this a phenomenon that alone belongs to holiness? Judging strictly and accurately, it must be said that incorruptibility is not the only attribute of holiness. It occurs in other cases: there are incorruptible bodies of people whose lives are unknown; however, there are so few of them that they are almost unnoticed, and they are mentioned here only in order to hit opponents who could object to us if we were silent. There are only two manifestations of the incorruption of non-saints: in Revel lies the incorruptible body of the Duke Ducroix (he was a traitor), defeated and captured near Narva, and for this cursed by Peter the Great in all the heat of the impulses of his great soul (the phenomenon, no matter how you judge it, is very remarkable); There is one more example, and that’s all; but there are a lot of phenomena of the incorruption of the bodies of saints. Therefore, having touched on what is little noticeable, let us turn to what is too remarkable; Let us turn to our subject - the incorruption of the saints. We respect the relics of saints, and we receive help through them. Could this veneration be superstitious? From excess, harmful in everything and always, it can turn into superstition, but “in itself this is a godly and useful thing. In fact, is there anything incongruous here? We show respect to non-living bodies. And every dead body already becomes something honorable for us; death puts a stamp of destruction on us, but at the same time - inviolability. If this happens with ordinary bodies, then what should be for us, if not an object of reverence, the bodies of the saints of God? The body of a holy man, after his death, is the house in which the angel lived. But we see that houses and places marked by the presence of sovereigns are noticed and commemorated by curious posterity. The bodies of saints, in this respect, have a much higher significance. The words of the Apostle Paul can be especially applied to them: you “are the temple of the Holy Spirit living in you” (1 Cor. 6:19). Everything that could remove us from them is an unpleasant image of decay; but God destroyed this aversion from the dead body in the bodies of the saints, clothing them with immortality - incorruptibility. After God has deigned to constantly manifest His miraculous power in them and through them, we must turn to them with reverent attention as the paths of a special Providence. The incorruptibility of bodies replaces many miracles and is superior to them all. For those are one-time, but it is a permanent miracle; In order for the body to remain incorruptible and perform miracles, it is necessary to constantly provide it with miraculous help. since, if not the power of healing, then the power of incorruption constantly remains in the bodies of the saints, it is obvious that the miraculous powers of God are constantly at work in them. Why does God use this kind of miraculousness? Why does He reveal His miraculous power through the bodies of the saints, through their incorruptibility? The body is the weakest part of our composition; the Gnostics derived it from an evil principle and unjustly thought that it was the source of sin; its incorruption, despite all this, shows that even this weakest part can be elevated and sanctified. By performing this miracle, God seems to be saying to people: “See what can come out of your body, what it is capable of!” Corruption is the most extreme visible consequence of sin; now, through grace, the other extreme is produced, so to speak - the sinful body becomes a shrine. Looking at the body in this way, you are immediately convinced that it was impossible to demonstrate the miraculous power of grace in anything better than in the body. Moreover, such a manifestation of grace-filled actions is necessary for the mass of all humanity, who from here can receive great benefit and edification. For us, from frequent meetings with the relics of saints, the strength of feeling has weakened, but how strong it is for Russians - distant from Kyiv! With what special reverence they go to these places! For them, visiting Kiev is almost the same as visiting heaven. That there are experiences of incorruption by non-saints does not diminish the miraculousness of the incorruption of saints. In some illnesses the gift of heart knowledge and insight is manifested, for example, in madness, in magnetism, but this in no way destroys the fact that the gift of prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit; the same should be said here. This only shows that in the human body there is a kind of mystery; there is the ability to be incorruptible; that a sinful body can be the same as a holy body, only this ability is manifested in them in a different way. On what does the incorruptibility of the bodies of saints depend? Is this action supernatural or natural? Simple faith in Providence and grace stops at one assistance of the power of God; but the mind also finds natural reasons, however, those that, in their turn, become immediate - supernatural. Through Christ, man must be renewed in everything - in soul and body. If so, then what else can the renewal of the body consist of, if not incorruption - in immortality? But if this is renewal, then why do we not see the incorruption of all the bodies of the saints? The system of grace requires universality, not particularity; and therefore the bodies of all renewed people must be incorruptible. So. But this harmony will have to be revealed at the end of the world, and until that time its traces should appear only in some. Why is this so? This is necessary for this world; this is our purpose. Through this God edifies and corrects the nations; but the laws of this edification and correction are consistent with the needs of the peoples; and since it is necessary to present to the people examples and incentives for correction through the incorruption of bodies, then for this very reason this incorruption has become a rare, private phenomenon, and not a general one. So, from this side, the saints do not participate in the cause of their incorruption: here everything is hidden in Divine destinies. However, part of the reason for incorruption may lie in the saints. This is their way of life - external, such as: fasting, abstinence, and so on. This can be seen from experience that this way of life is partly the reason for incorruption: what is drier and thinner is harder and stronger. However, one cannot stop at the external way of life. If there are natural reasons for incorruption, then they should lie more in the internal way of life - in thoughts and feelings. Some think more about the perishable, and the other about the incorruptible - about heaven; hence the body of one is more prone to corruption, and that of another - to incorruption. The source of incorruption must be in the spirit: it must be assumed that according to the nature of the activities of the mind, the property of the body is formed: if the mind is occupied with perishable things, then the body strives for corruption; if it is incorruptible, then the body is occupied with incorruptibility. Let us not be far from the laws of the spiritual world and from the idea that certain thoughts and feelings alone are capable of producing the miracle of incorruption. It is known from experience that one touch of one thing to another can transform the latter; all the more so can this be in the spiritual world; for the thought is stronger than the thing. Thus, in the saints there is part of the reason for the incorruption of their bodies. It is better to look for it in Providence and the need of the people. Incorruption is not the only proof of the height of holiness. Rather, it can be assumed that some saints enjoy another, higher and full resurrection, and are so mature that they are close to the state that will be after the general resurrection. That such a resurrection has already happened to some - there is an example of this in Scripture. But he is so important that one does not dare to judge him, and for this reason he must remain in the shadows. This is the resurrection of those who rose with Jesus Christ: “and many bodies of the saints who fell asleep rose up” (Matthew 27:52). It would be strange to suppose that they rose up in order to die again; therefore we must think that they were resurrected by complete resurrection. And therefore, the general resurrection can be preceded by a private one. Elijah and Enoch are taken with their bodies to heaven. So, it will not be contrary to the teachings of the faith and the Church to think that some saints have already been resurrected and renewed with full existence, which after the end of the world everyone will enjoy. B. The connection of the Church with those who have passed on to another world while still imperfect is prayer. And in relation to the perfect, their connection with them consists in prayer. But there, that is, in relation to the perfect, prayer is offered for us, and here, that is, in relation to the imperfect, it is offered by us for them. The basis of this teaching on the part of the departed is need, for many go to another world not pure, but only with weak faith, and on our part it is the desire to help weak brothers. The main questions that must be included here are the following: what is the essence of the Church’s teaching on this subject? Can our prayers be useful to the dead? When and how? Do they have only an external, indirect influence, or do they act directly on the physical and moral state?.. So, what is the essence of the Church’s teaching on the remembrance of the dead? In general, she teaches that it is useful to pray for the dead - pray for the deceased, it is useful for him - this is the general universal opinion of the Church! But when do these prayers bring benefit - in this life or beyond the grave? The question seems strange and unnecessary; but it is needed, for there are those who claim that these prayers benefit (heal) the dead in this life, that is, when they live. “God,” they say, “sees the future as the present, and therefore imputes to the sinner future prayers for him as present ones, and in accordance with these prayers reduces his punishment at the very moment of his death; for after death a change of state is impossible.” From here arose different opinions on this subject. The general and ordinary opinion is that prayers are useful beyond the grave. It is divided into its quotients, which we will see later. Another private opinion of some of our theologians is that prayers are useful in this life, and not beyond the grave; used at death, not after death. The last of these opinions is found in Irenaeus and Feofan Prokopovich. The essence of this opinion, as can be seen from its disclosure in the system of the Right Reverend Irenaeus on pages 239, 241 and 269, is that “as soon as a person dies, God immediately judges him, and takes into account those prayers that will be offered for him. Depending on the merits of these prayers, He pronounces judgment before the sinner enters eternity, one or another judgment, that is, reduces the punishment or not.” It is clear that there is some kind of cunning and unnaturalness in this opinion. This thought, no doubt, was led by the thought that after death there is neither mercy nor repentance. The more general opinion, as we said, is that prayers are useful in the future life. How? When deciding this issue, the general opinion is divided into many private ones. Firstly, they say that these prayers act on the dead through God, that is, by softening God’s justice they bring forgiveness to sinners, and thus improve their lot. This opinion holds the same thought, that is, it owes its existence to the opinion that after death there is no repentance, and the effect of prayers on the dead is limited only to alleviating their external condition. This opinion is revealed in detail in Yavorsky’s “Stone of Faith”. Others think that our prayers not only alleviate the physical condition of the dead, but also the moral one, that is, they produce an internal improvement in them. Our theologians have almost no opinion about this. There is a book: “Mirror of the Orthodox Confession,” which contains a sermon for the consecration of the church, containing a well-developed view of prayers for the dead: here, in this sermon, the idea is revealed that prayers for the dead produce in them not only an external change, but also an internal one—they change them morally. But the difference of opinion on this subject does not yet end here. Paying attention to exactly which people the prayers work on, there is again a disagreement. Some admit that prayers work on everyone; and others - that on some, namely on those who repented and moved there with hope; The Church excludes the unrepentant from its prayers. Here's a new disagreement. Asking where are those whom God forgives for the sake of our prayers, and answering this, they again disagree. Some say that in this way people undergoing ordeals receive forgiveness; others claim that these people live in hell, only in a certain part of it. Hell is therefore like a prison in which there are sections for those condemned to death and for those imprisoned for a time (this disagreement is not important to us, for whether those souls for whom we pray are in ordeals or in hell, however, the thought is allowed that their condition is bad and that it is possible to change this condition, and this is the only thought we need for us, for if this condition were good, then why change it; if it were impossible to change it, then why pray for a change. Here a survey of opinions regarding this subject. Where does this difference of opinion come from? Our theologians could not help but disagree here. For this subject is not defined in Scripture; in the teaching of the Church is also not developed in detail. But it is noticeable that all these definitions were influenced by the opinion that there is no repentance after death - this opinion was, as it were, a guard over those who defined this subject. And therefore, everyone tried to allow in their definition no more than the thought allowed that there is no repentance after death. And since one understood this thought more strictly, he defined the subject itself more closely; the other had a lesser concept about it and therefore expanded the scope of the subject he was considering; hence the difference of opinions and definitions. So, we have seen the essence of the opinions that our theologians have about this; Let us now say something more about them. Where are they? The first opinion, that is, that prayers do not work beyond the grave, but here, in this life, in the system of Irenaeus; the second opinion - that prayers also act beyond the grave, but only on the external physical state - is found in Yavorsky’s “Stone of Faith”. We said about the first above, let's say something about the second. The essence of this second opinion, according to the theory of the writer of this book, is that as a result of prayers, not sins and guilt are forgiven to the deceased, but temporary punishment. This punishment is combined with each remission of sin, so that the soul of the sinner, seeing that for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ her sin was forgiven, does not learn to sin unpunished. It consists of various kinds of penances imposed on the sinner. And therefore, if someone has not fulfilled these penances imposed on him in this life - has not suffered temporary punishment here - the prayers offered for him make up for this, serve as a replacement for him and free him from this punishment. This is what this teaching consists of! What is it like? It is also somewhat clever, and, moreover, introduces an idea that is contrary to the teaching of repentance accepted by our theological systems. All our theologians teach that repentance requires only faith in Christ and the determination to improve; and here a third condition is introduced, accepted only by Catholics, namely, that satisfaction (satisfactio) is also required on the part of the sinner. In addition, this look is superficial and does not exhaust the depth of the subject! Here, in the “Stone of Faith,” the opinion of where those souls for whom they pray are found is also discussed. Having first outlined the opinion of Catholics, who designate purgatory (purgatorium) as a place for these souls, the writer of this book then says on his own that these souls are in ordeals, and proves the existence of these ordeals with various traditions, examples and testimonies. Behind this opinion, adopted by himself, he sets forth the opinion of those who, considering ordeals to be something rude, reject them, and for the souls for whom we pray, they assign a place of sojourn in hell - in a certain part of it. Here he means Feofan Prokopovich and his followers who held this opinion. So, in general, the opinion found in the “Stone of Faith” admits that prayers are useful beyond the grave and bring forgiveness, but this benefit is limited to a certain type of people, and this forgiveness is determined by a certain type of punishment. But here is the third opinion: it is contained in the sermon appended at the end of the book we mentioned, “The Mirror of the Orthodox Confession.” It says here “that prayers benefit everyone who depends on Christ, even if they have many weaknesses; Only the desperate, those who died without repentance, are not used. They use it in the same way as during life, that is, what the prayers of others produce in us, or ours in other people while still alive, the same thing happens with the dead. Just as here prayer has not only a physical influence, but also a moral one, so it is there. If we pray for the deceased on his instructions, if we give alms for him, according to his will, then we are only instruments fulfilling his will, and he himself is the author of this good deed - his will; So, can he remain without moral improvement while doing such things? This is the essence of this opinion! There is some kind of breath of moral spirit in him; it allows for the possibility of moral change and improvement in another world, and therefore is less suitable for the idea that there is no repentance after death. What is the opinion of the Church? Where can I look for teachings on prayers for the dead? It is not literally in the Bible, but it is in spirit, and therefore it must be sought in the Biblical spirit, or better yet, in the spirit of Christianity. But before we begin to look for it here, let us pay attention to the idea that has been in the Church since ancient times, that after death there is no repentance. This thought can have, as it did, a great influence on the definition of this teaching. Does Scripture directly say that there is no repentance after death? In the system of Irenaeus (p. 241) there are passages (Gal. 6:9, 1 Cor. 7:29, Ps. 6:6) that seem to directly contain the idea that after death there is no place for repentance. But these places are vague, for the most part they only show that present life is a more convenient time for repentance than the future; and that repentance would be completely impossible beyond the grave - this is not visible from them. It would be more likely to cite in support of this thought those passages in which it is suggested to use real life as the only time; also the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the impossibility of moving from one state to another is depicted in a tributary (in the form of a parable) image. In the Church, the opinion about the impossibility of repentance after death was general, universal. How did she take it? The Church, by accepting it, could limit it. So, she could think that after death repentance is extremely difficult, and therefore could say that it is not there. In this case, we can give to the words of the Church: repentance after death is not possible, and the Church itself, without a doubt, gave them the same meaning as some Church Fathers give to the words of the Apostle Paul when he says that some sinners are “impossible... to be renewed to repentance” (Heb. 6:4-6), that is, difficult. Here is the first limitation! This opinion can also be understood this way: if someone died without any repentance, then he cannot begin correction after death; but even if he began to improve here a little, then there he will continue what he started. Here is the second limitation! There may be a third thing, this: after death there is no absolution repentance, but there can only be corrective repentance, that is, here it is the one who repented who is forgiven of sin and punishment, but there there is no such absolution. There is freedom to change oneself, but one must endure all the consequences of sin, endure all the punishment. Depending on these restrictions, the view on prayers is done differently and better. And in general, is it possible to accept this opinion without any restrictions? What is the period of life following death? Is there a period of development or inactivity? Although for infants it must necessarily be a period of development: they died without beginning spiritual development here; therefore, their spirit needs to develop there. But couldn’t it also be a period of development for adults, especially for those of them who, from the spiritual side, were here nothing more than babies? If for these too it can be a period of development, then it is necessary to admit one of the three limitations we have shown for the opinion that there is no repentance after death. But let’s leave the analysis of opinions and turn to the matter directly, that is, compare the doctrine of remembrance of the dead with the spirit of Christianity. So, what is the basis for this teaching? There are two reasons for praying for the dead: one is theoretical. It consists in the fact that the earthly and heavenly Church, visible and invisible, constitute one body, and that the fate of the dead has not yet been decided. Based on this, the Church asks them for heavenly help. Another reason is practical: it consists of Christian love, to which prayers, and especially prayers for the dead, are very appropriate; it is the most tender fruit of love, which clearly characterizes it and shows that it is not bound by time and distance, but acts into infinity. So, both sides of this are not subject to doubt, and therefore it is also certain that the teaching about prayers for the dead is in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. But can this part of weak people really use prayers? the universal faith of the Church guarantees this. This is where the universal faith must have authority most of all. If this were a delusion, then Jesus Christ would have protected the Church from it and would not have allowed the evil to continue for a long time. But we see that from the very beginning of Christianity they have continuously believed and still believe that these prayers are useful for the dead. This is what is said about this in the Apostolic Constitutions and the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite; and in general all the saints had faith in this: is it possible for us to doubt and not believe the benefits of prayers for the dead? How do our prayers affect the dead? Even if we did not give an answer to this, we still cannot undermine the possibilities and effects of prayers, for we do not know and cannot explain how the prayers offered for us work. In general, if we did only what we see as an internal possibility, we would remain without any work, for we could hardly clearly see the internal possibility of any thing. For example, what is simpler than moving your hand? But does a person, stretching out his hand, know how this movement of his hand combines (connects) with the thought of his soul? However, there is an opportunity to explain how our prayers affect the dead. We turn our prayers to the Almighty, Infinite, Wise Being, in whose bosom all are dead and living; This is the first way to connect us with the dead and mutual sympathy! In addition, we are all closely united in our Head, Jesus Christ, to whom we send these prayers. So, if it is impossible for us to directly act on members of the Church invisible to us, then it is possible for Him; He can directly apply the effect of our prayers. What is the effect of these prayers on the dead? They usually believe that their effect is to alleviate the external fate of the dead. If it were limited to this, then the benefits of prayer would be considerable. It would consist in providing, so to speak, the justice of God with the opportunity to provide help to a sinner without violating the laws of justice. For the justice of God, without violating the laws of justice, cannot give funds a second time to those who rejected them the first time; but if they pray for him, then God, taking these prayers into account, again gives them to the sinner, without violating the laws of justice, for these prayers replace and destroy before the justice of God that sinner’s offense, for which he rejected the means first given to him. But... Couldn't prayers for the dead have a direct effect on their external and internal state? That is, can’t they directly, on their own, provide the dead with that calm, that peace that the Church asks for them? And further: can’t they act directly on the conscience of the dead, change it, dispose it towards good, and thus don’t they make them themselves able to leave the state of torment and come to a state of bliss? It won’t be impudent if we incorporate this action into prayers: Christian prayer is omnipotent! But before we touch upon the beneficial omnipotence of Christian prayers, let us turn to the external world: is there anything similar here? In the external world one can see the mutual effect of one thing on another; they notice that the properties of things in this case are transferred from one to another. For example, the strong acts on the weak and strengthens it; light - to the dark, and enlightens it; in general, the perfect is applied to the imperfect, and perfects it. In some things, the ability to transfer properties to others is amazingly strong! For example, in a magnet, which, no matter how much it imparts its strength to other things, does not itself suffer the slightest loss from this. This action - the transfer of properties - can extend over an extremely long distance. For example, the heavenly bodies consist (exist) of us no less than we do of the world of dead souls (if we even accept the ordinary opinion about the distance of the dead from us); but the ray falls from the sun and, if you place a glass prism under it, it will impart the magnetic force of the thing on which it falls. What a distant distance!.. And yet the action does not stop. (This example, or, better, an example of physical sympathy, is represented by plants from the other hemisphere, which sleep during the day, that is, twist their leaves; what memory and sympathy! If this exists in the physical world, then even more so in the spiritual world, where space and time are generally less active.) But these are small bodies; Let's look at large masses: what's here? The heavenly worlds are separated from each other at the greatest distances; and yet there is some kind of communication between them, for they support each other, help each other. These are emblems that signify an organism of harmony. Is there really less harmony and strength in the moral world than in the physical? If the ray acts like this, then thought does so even more. (Our soul is compared to the extinct sun. So, if it had received the original light, then its thoughts would be the same as the rays of the sun. For some, this still manifests itself, for the soul, although partially, still retains its first strength.) Traces of this can be seen in the human world. Even the ancients noticed and Christians confirmed the extraordinary effects of the will of one person on another. This is the effect of staring at the eyes, the harm from them is obvious. This, of course, being roughly understood, is superstition; but in a pure sense it is an expression of this law. Another example: a person wants to see a friend or acquaintance he knows; this very moment receives an irresistible desire and, as it were, a forced attraction, forcing him to go there, to the one who wants to see him, while before there was not a shadow of this desire in him. There are especially many such examples in the lives of saints, because their sympathy is stronger. But it must be said that here this sympathy is not so strong. In the future life, the soul, detached from the body, can be more subject to the beneficial effect of their prayers. This truth is important, and it is not difficult to prove. We see it through experience. For example, in those illnesses in which it is detached from the body, the soul comes into a state of complete submission to the will of another and does everything that the will of the one who acts on it wants, as if losing its independence. Thus, in magnetism, the patient acts by someone else's will - the will of the magnetizer. How can a soul that is completely detached from the body not be subject to the will of the one praying and the beneficial effect of prayer?.. No, it would not be at all superstitious to admit that the prayers of some have a direct effect on the souls of the dead. But such an effect is produced, as we said, only by the prayers of some, that is, the prayers of saints, which are performed with holy intention, with faith and with the help of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the prayers of the Church. Such prayers are very powerful; for example, the prayer of some saints meant that during it they were surrounded by a pillar of fire. In general, such a prayer can do anything, and whoever delves into this matter will be convinced for himself. This state of the soul beyond the grave, that is, a state that is not independent, exposing it to the influence of others, also explains the thought of the Church that after death there is no repentance, that is, the soul itself cannot begin a new series of actions. Why is the soul there so light and dependent? Because there is no body. The body is a burden for the soul, but it also gives it heaviness, gives it weight; and without it the soul has nothing to rely on, and becomes light, easily swayed; Because the soul comes to such an indecisive state, dark forces attack it, and it becomes defenseless without the help of others. This is where she most conveniently makes friends (makes friends) with both good and evil forces; and if with good people, then it’s easy for her, and if with evil ones, then it’s hard. But our considerations are weak and do not embrace the matter; however, they are fair and this view is understandable even to the simple; it is only necessary to split this shell, which is deep in itself, more and more. But are prayers for the dead useful for those praying? Helpful. This idea is well explored in The Stone of Faith. It says that just as one who burns incense will first feel the aroma of the incense, so one who prays for the deceased will first himself benefit from this prayer. So, these prayers are also useful for us. Their moral benefit may be greater than the benefit of all other prayers. For they are always associated with the thought of death, which has the strongest effect on morality. In addition, here everyone who prays imagines that the consequences of sin are disastrous and that they extend into eternity. The more often and more vividly such an idea is, the less and less often sin will act. This is the benefit of praying for the dead! from lat. “partial”, “private” - disunity, fragmentation - ed. conviction in posthumous liberation from sin, the salvation of all people - ed. could not understand - ed. were - ed. in the middle of the 19th century - ed. interpretation of this place - ed. from another place, from another - ed. in human nature - ed. that is, the river of oblivion - ed. You might be interested in: