Лекция первая. О религии вообще

In discussing religion in general, we need to show where it comes from in man and how it came about; how she expresses herself and what her spirit is; what is the goal and what are its properties. From here its insufficiency and incompleteness will naturally appear to us, the need for another, highest and most perfect religion will be revealed, and thus the path to Christian theology will be paved. This treatise should actually take a place in the philosophical system, for natural religion is the subject of philosophy. But since philosophy does not look at religion from the side from which we should look at it, so that the doctrine of religion in general can be a good preparation for theology, we will offer it here in accordance with our purpose. Namely, we will look at religion from two sides: what is religion in itself, and is it sufficient in itself? Why will our treatise on religion generally have two sections: 1) religion in itself; 2) religion according to its inner dignity. Before we show what religion is in itself, let us make a few remarks about the name of religion. Perhaps concepts associated with its different names will help us understand its essence. Religion goes by different names. In the Holy Scriptures it is called “covenant,” “law,” “serving God,” “the way of Jehovah,” or simply “the way.” Considered in the heart of man, it is called “walking with God, the fear of God”; among our ancestors it was called faith; now among secular people it is known under the name of “the law of God”; more commonly and more often it is called religion. The word religio has three word derivations, each of which gives rise to thoughts about religion, one more edifying than the other. So, Cicero derives this name from relegre - reread, sort through, examine. Therefore, by name, religion is nothing more than erudition, knowledge, and is opposed to ignorance, is the daughter of light and is alien to all superstition. The Christian Cicero, Lactantius, produces religio from ligo to bind, to unite. Therefore Lactantius calls religion a union between God and man; This name best expresses the essence of religion. St. Augustine characterizes religion even more, deriving it from religo - to reunite, restore the union between two separated beings. According to this concept, religion is the connection of God with fallen man; This name expresses the essence of the religion that has existed since the fall of man, and therefore the Christian religion. The names of religion in the Holy Scriptures do not fully express its essence. Thus, a covenant, if by its name we mean promises on the part of God and their acceptance under certain conditions on the part of man, most of all can only befit the Jewish religion. The word law shows only the practical side of religion, which determines the way of our activity. “Serving God” is only the appearance of religion. “The Way” is a multi-significant expression: it also includes “descending” on the part of God: God descended to man in creation, descends in providence, and will descend in future judgment; – and “ascending” on the part of man: man ascends to God through faith, hope and love. “Walking” with God expresses the inner spiritual disposition of a person and the corresponding holy activity from the feeling of the omnipresence of God. “The fear of God” is a feeling that comes from the idea of ​​God’s justice, which curbs the evil inclinations of the will. Therefore, such a name is more appropriate for the Jewish religion, which curbed the stiff-necked Jews with fear, but is not entirely appropriate for the Christian religion. We call it “faith.” This name characterizes religion from the point of view of its objects that exceed our understanding; but it embraces only the speculative part of theology. Among the secular people it is now called “law,” because they consider speculative knowledge unnecessary for themselves and understand by religion only the active teaching of faith. From these names it is clear that religion is the relationship of man to God and God to man. The question arises: what is it in itself? Where are the answers to this question? There are two of them: first, “history” can and should answer; the second – “philosophy” can and should answer. 1) In the field of world history, religion appears to us, first of all, as the “ever-present companion” of all peoples in general. There are degrees at which a man of science and art is left, where civil government and laws do not follow him, where he does not have a social life, where even the most settled life is unknown to him; but religion goes further than all this, does not leave him anywhere, follows him in all degrees of education, lives in all climates and countries, in a word: it is not subject to any conditions that modify human existence. So, for example, it is also found among the peoples most remote from the educated world - the Eskimos; The rude inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego also have it: and they have their own religion and their own gods. Although some travelers found peoples who seemed to have no traces of worship; but from this we should in no way reject our position. For, firstly, such examples are very rare - both travelers and chroniclers agree on this; secondly, in a short time, travelers could not fully learn the morals, customs and social institutions of such peoples, especially since these peoples, in relation to religion, are governed by the laws of secrecy, that is, they tend to hide their religion from people alien to them and hostile, which was later confirmed when religion and worship began to be discovered among the same peoples; thirdly, if any people actually did not have any signs of religion, then judging strictly, it does not follow from this that they have no religion. It may be in the heart of the people, it may be contained in some of their dark thoughts about the Divine, on whom everything depends and by whom everything is controlled. No rudeness can be beyond the reach of religion. On the other hand, although there were enlightened people - philosophers, who rejected the Providence of God and the dependence of the world on God and destroyed all religion, but from this we cannot reject the truth of our previous position. Against this, one can say the same as said above, namely: firstly, these examples are very rare; secondly, most of these philosophers were only called by the name of atheists because they rejected the gods of their fatherland; but they could profess other gods; thirdly, moreover, almost the majority of them spoke out of vanity, writing godless systems out of the sole desire to show off their wit. And even if there really were such monsters in the moral world, they destroy and overthrow the universality and necessity of religion just as much as the monsters of the physical world overthrow physical laws. So, the first property of religion, considered in the field of world experience, is its universality. Therefore, it is not something accidental, but is a necessary accessory of the human race, a necessary element in the composition of our existence. But this religion, necessary for everyone, is infinitely diverse among all peoples. People do not agree on anything so much as on the fact that there is some highest Being - the beginning and end of all things; but they disagree so much on nothing as in their concepts about this Being. Without analyzing this diversity of religion by people, we can see it from the concepts that philosophers had about God, the systems of which are known to us. Popular concepts are even more diverse than the concepts of scientists. This diversity comes from different concepts about the three constituent elements of religion: God, man and the future life. Thus, some merged God with the world, others completely separated them. Merging God with the world, they looked for Him in the lower circle of creatures: in the kingdom of plants and in other soulless creatures of visible nature; or in the kingdom of dumb animals - they adored animals, birds, etc., or in the genus of rational beings - they idolized people; or, speaking from the circle of visible nature, they imagined seeing Him in the invisible forces of nature and worshiped its mysterious forces; or ascended to the stars to find the Divine; or descended to the underworld to worship Pluto, Neptune and others. Separating God from the world, people either represented two principles of the world - good and evil, or gave dominion over the universe to Jupiter alone, but with a heavenly court, and so on. What an endless variety of religions can come from here! But with this diversity, it is impossible not to notice, however, agreement on some points of religion among all peoples! No matter how much its image changed, there were and are, however, some constant points around which these changes revolved - some common features, without which the image of religion is impossible. We find three such points: 1) everyone recognized something invisible besides the visible, except the earthly - the heavenly, except the temporary - the eternal; everyone assumed a special, mysterious order of things, except for what we noted; 2) everyone recognized their dependence on the Supreme Being. Although man also worshiped lower beings, such as fetishes, he did not adore them, but those invisible principles of nature, of which they were symbols; 3) everyone was nourished by some sweet hope of moving to a better world after death, everyone dreamed of union with God. Having collected these features on the universal field of experience, we can give the following definition of religion: religion is faith in the union of everything visible with the invisible and in the dependence of man and the world on the Highest Being, combined with the firm hope of passing after death to a better world for union with God. This is how history answers the question of what religion is in itself. One should then ask: where does religion come from in man? History gives us only half an answer to this. She says that religion was passed down to us from our ancestors through our descendants, and takes us back to ancient times; but remains silent when we ask her about the first culprit of religion. Legends rise above history; but even those do not satisfy us. They say that man did not invent religion himself, but received it from God (Plato has a conversation about this), that he was once in heavenly palaces in cohabitation with God, fell from there through a crime and brought religion with him to this world; but for the mind all this is unsatisfactory: it seeks clear and solid knowledge. So, in order to solve this question, you need to turn to him yourself and ask him about what is not solvable for history. 2) But before we listen to the mind’s solution to the question we propose, we need to clear the mental path from objections and doubts in order to move unhindered towards the truth. First, it is said that religion may have been the work of one man; but such an assumption by French semi-scientists has no basis; for religion, being the work of one man, could not be universal. It cannot be thought that the priests invented it; for priesthood already presupposes the existence of religion. Secondly, they believe that religion is a product of rudeness and ignorance. Timor fecit deos, says Lucretius, but why does it exist among the most educated peoples? Thirdly, some people think that it is the fruit of the speculations of enlightened people; but why do we see it in wild ones? Finally, fourthly, they say that external nature taught man religion, but even this cannot be established? The universality of religion must be based on human nature itself. External nature can only excite a person to religion; but to accept its impressions one must have the innate ability of the heart. Therefore, religion must be hidden in the heart of man and must have its beginning in it. Ancient mythologists, that is, fabulists, rightly argued that a person would not have learned religion if he were not disposed towards it. We dare to say that if there were no germ of religion in a person, then neither nature, nor people, nor Angels, nor God Himself would have taught him religion. So we have seen that religion cannot be explained by accidental causes, that it has a basis in human nature. What is this reason? How was she born? Why did it take different forms? History, being younger than religion, cannot answer these questions. Here the mind must speak; only he, delving into human nature, can solve these issues, and we must pay all our attention to his solutions. Without a good knowledge of what constitutes the basis of religion, we will not even have an idea about it. This study of the mind about the basis of the possibility and origin of religion, without a doubt, can only be brief, for detailed knowledge of this is incompatible with the degree of enlightenment. So, the question is: on what is religion based in man and in the human race? how did it happen? Why is it always present in humanity? To solve these questions, we must turn to human nature. Man can be considered in two ways: either as a part of the universe, living a common life with all creatures; or as a special being, living his own life. In both cases we find in nature his foundation of religion; in the first - because it exists throughout the whole world, in the second - because it especially lies in the human spirit. Religion in nature. By the name of the world we mean the entire system of the universe, the union of all celestial bodies and all creatures inhabiting these bodies. All parts of this universe, from the largest planets to the smallest bodies, are connected to each other by the closest common connection. What is the power of this entire connection of creatures? It is either visible - the sun (in our solar system), or invisible - God. All creatures of our solar system have a close relationship with the sun and clearly express their dependence on it. Let us rise to the starry sky: the sun holds all the planets with their satellites in a harmonious and strong connection, gives them constant and correct movement, sets boundaries for their flow and sends them life in the light. Let's go down to earth: the entire circle of earthly creatures is divided into three kingdoms: plant, animal and fossil; each of them has its own king in the sun and again reveals its dependence on him. All plants live by light; with the advent of day, the pores open, the leaves unfold, all the organs of life open to receive it from the light. Bring the plant into the room; no matter how its leaves are arranged, they will always turn towards the window, towards the light. Bring an American plant to us in Europe: here too it will show its connection with its native sun; in its development it will follow its own day and night, and not ours, it will unfold only at night, when it is day there, and not during the day, when it is night there. Let us move on to the animal kingdom: and here this connection and dependence of everything on the sun will be revealed to us even more, because animals come closer to the spiritual kingdom. Here this is expressed in two ways: gratitude or joy and fear; Animal language is not capable of other expressions. When the sun rises, a choir of birds sings a solemn song to greet him; animals leave their lairs and rush to open and elevated places to take part in the general joy of the creatures at the magnificent spectacle that opens; The orangutan, the animal most similar to man, turns to the east to bow to the rising sun. This is not poetry; no, this is the involuntary attraction of creatures to the Author of their lives, a response to the all-powerful Word, which holds and revives everything with His power. A storm rises and rages - the opposite spectacle! Birds hide under branches, animals run away into caves, and the fiercest of them become meek, like lambs. What is this if not reverence for the invisible Lord of the world, who appears in terrible majesty? Thus, everything receives existence, strength and life from the sun, everything expresses this through its existence and through this reveals its relationship to the invisible source of existence, strength and life - God and shows Him worship and reverence. The sun is the dependent king of the world; it itself is held together by someone’s strength, it itself owes its existence and power to God. For the world, it is the representative of the invisible World Ruler, the organ of that omnipotent Word, which produces, preserves and lives everything - a union between the Creator and creation. All creatures in it worship God Himself, as the original source of everything. So, the whole world is nothing more than the vast church of God, in which God receives worship from creation, as the Creator and Ruler of everything. In this general, mediocre and direct service and worship of the creature to God, man also participates. Everything involuntarily expresses its worship of the light, and man showed reverence to it in times of unenlightenment; everything trembles and reveres the earthly sun, and he had it as an object of worship and awe. All of Central Asia and all of America worshiped light and fire. Perhaps they will say that this view of ours is unnatural, that it is either too learned or poetic. No! When David calls all creation - from Angels to creeping things - to worship and glorify the name of God (Psalm 148), this is not poetry or school thoughts. This view is characteristic of both common sense and the metaphysical mind. The said psalm expresses exactly the view of simple reason and feeling. We can find metaphysical views of this kind in the writings of some German philosophers. If by the name of religion we mean the connection between God and creation, then from what has been said it is clear that the whole world has its own religion, for everything feels its dependence on God and expresses its feeling to Him. But doesn’t the world have religion in the meaning in which St. Augustine defines it, that is, in the meaning of the union between God and fallen man? Is there not some falling away from God and a desire for a primitive state in creation? Doesn’t nature express through any actions that the union between the Creator and the creature is either dissolved or weakened, and that it seeks to restore or strengthen this union? We will find this in nature too. Without a doubt, we cannot see this in it in due completeness and detail, for our knowledge of it is very limited; but still one cannot help but notice in it obvious and striking traces of the creature’s falling away from God and the desire to draw closer to Him. First of all, let us note that this view of the world is not any fictitious or too scientific, arbitrary or unnatural. We find an immutable basis for it in the words of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 8:19–22), which clearly express this religious view: “the creation waits with hope for the revelation of the sons of God, because the creation was subjected to vanity (not by itself, but by those who subjected it) in the hope that it itself would be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers (as if in childbirth) until now." The ancients also had such an opinion about creatures: they saw the imperfection and poverty of creatures, the state of vanity, believed in their future restoration to a perfect state, and assumed some blessed seed from which their restorer would be born. These opinions appeared in philosophical schools; but for the most part they were lost in the multitude of philosophers contradicting each other friend. They were preserved in the best purity among the Indians. We will find the same if we look at the universe with common sense and an unprejudiced feeling. In fact, let's look at our solar system. We see that some bodies, its components, constantly observe the laws and limits of movement prescribed for them; they are, as it were, obedient children of the sun, without leaving the boundaries prescribed for them and without moving away from it; others flow spontaneously wherever they want and sometimes seem to completely abandon the sun. Is this their natural state? Are these not angels who have lost their beginning? Why don't they have laws? Where do they wander, what happens to them?.. No, they themselves sometimes express a feeling of the unnaturalness of this state, they rush towards the sun, like its repentant children, they get so close to it that they seem to want to merge with it - and, carried away, so to speak, by fate, they go again to wander in the boundless abyss of the universe. Let's go down to earth. Here again her life appears pitiful; She, constantly changing, strives, as it were, to achieve some state and, still not achieving it, suffers in the pangs of birth. Her insides are boiling; through two hundred and thirty volcanoes it spews flammable substances, as if trying to resolve itself; from the outside - its middle is burning, its sides are freezing, the climates, like fetters, constrain their inhabitants, the elements are in a struggle. Is this really natural? No! The sun is not like that: there are no changes of darkness and light, heat and cold, and the struggle of the elements (Vellane). The earth should expect such a state, and will reach it when, according to John (Rev. 21:1), it becomes new. In the kingdoms of nature there is the same confusion: the forms of the three kingdoms of the earth are constantly changing; the vegetable kingdom seems to have no purpose other than to serve as food for animals; animals were apparently created in order to torment each other and saturate people with themselves. No, it can't be natural. We do not yet have the ear to listen to the groanings of the plant kingdom: but how clearly we hear the groanings of animals!.. So, we hear how the creature groans about the vanity with which it is subjugated by the crime of man, and how it sighs about the glory that is being prepared in the future! Religion in Man. So, since man is considered as a part of the universe, he in his nature already has the beginnings of religion, for it is in all creatures, although it is expressed by them in an unreasonable and sensual way. Being bodily, they are unworthy of the highest spiritual religion; for them the sun is God, but they cannot see the true God and worship Him. But man, as a special, rational being, has a higher religion within himself: it lies in his spirit. The basis of our spirit is the basis of religion, the development of its powers is the development of religion. From this development of spiritual forces, as from the very essence of the spirit, one can see why religion is universal, why it is diverse, and why, finally, everyone agrees on one essential point of religion - immortality. Let us remember what Fichte says about the first human consciousness. It is produced by the representation (dark) of two opposites: I and not-I. By nature, the I strives towards infinity and cannot be conscious of itself unless it confines itself to something opposite and thus is reflected on itself. This opposition, which limits the endless striving of our spirit, is the boundless totality of everything that does not constitute our self: it is the boundless sea, in which it sways like a point. What kind of dark idea is this of a limiting, or better yet, immense opposite that embraces our self, if not a dark idea of ​​God? Thus, a person, at the first awakening of his consciousness, meets God, the beginning of everything. Since the first act of consciousness is repeated in all other actions of our faculties, then in all cases our thought meets God. This really happens. With the opening of our consciousness, the infinite non-I disintegrates into an infinite number of individual beings. Thought strives to bring all this to the unity that it can, and through this it reaches the being in general, behind which it again meets God - the highest Being. This activity is accomplished through imagination and feeling and through the laws of reason. But the forms for all ideas of imagination and feeling are infinite: space is infinite, time is infinite. These are two veils in which all our sensory perceptions are wrapped. Here again our thoughts are reminded of God, infinite and eternal. There are two special laws of reason: the law of identity and causality. The law of identity guides us to the knowledge of the unity of everything that exists. The law of causality should lead us to knowledge of the cause of everything. Here again we recognize God as the one and Creator of everything. After reason on the ladder of abilities comes the mind. And he lives in God; eternity is his homeland and element; the three highest ideas: the being in itself, the absolutely necessary being, the absolutely whole being - its food; religion is his main subject. If we abstract from man according to the law of causality: then two more qualities are added to the above-mentioned image or appearance of the Divine: reason and perfect will. The practical abilities of our spirit tie the knot of religion even more tightly. “We recognize within ourselves the laws of our activity, which we could not prescribe for ourselves. We recognize, in case of failure to fulfill them, our guilt before the incomprehensible Being; We also realize that the fulfillment of moral laws must be accompanied by a reward - true happiness, but we see the opposite... From here we must certainly conclude that there is some mysterious Being who, having given moral laws, monitors their implementation, must help our powerlessness in their implementation and reward or punish in the future life. Hence God is the King of the moral world, the judge and the giver of bribes and the future life. Thus, we understand why religion is everywhere. If the beginning of religion is the beginning of self-consciousness, and self-consciousness is in everyone, then religion must be in everyone. It is also clear why religion is so diverse. The development of religion follows the development of the powers of the human spirit: but the powers of the spirit develop differently, therefore, the development of religion must be different. Just as one cannot expect the full development of the human spirit here, so the full development of religion in man, with his own strength, is impossible. Let us look at the development of the human mind, and we will see that the development of religion has always been consistent with it. Thus, savage peoples develop feeling and imagination, and partly conscience and reason, and all this is fused with instinct. Therefore, the religion of these peoples has a feeling of infinity and dependence on some higher being, a feeling that is excited from the outside and darkly expressed within. How does a savage express his religiosity? Without distinguishing the spirit from the body, the creature from the Creator, nature from God, he does not embrace the wholeness of creation, but sees only some manifestations of the Divine, hidden under the outer shell, and he idolizes this appearance, as a symbol of something infinite. He ascends a high mountain - and is struck by fear, which awakens in him a feeling or a dark idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Divine - and he reveres and honors this place. He enters a dark cave or approaches a waterfall - and here the same feeling of infinity is born in his soul, and therefore he adores not these things, but the feeling of Divinity generated by them in his soul. Since there are many phenomena in nature that produce such religious ideas, there were many gods. Then, when a person begins to become enlightened, appearance loses its former value for him. He begins to disbelieve that the gross matter of bodies has any power over him. As a result of this, he turns from soulless creatures to animate creatures, to animals. Here, in particular, he reveres those who, either by their enormity, or strength, or beauty, or their striking contrast, give rise to some vague and lofty thoughts in him. Thus he worships a dolphin, a whale, an elephant, a serpent of excellent and beautiful variegation, and also an eagle, which soars towards the sun and thereby expresses some desire for the Divine (that is why Jupiter was depicted with an eagle). Mystery forces us to look for the Divine in animals that cause harm or benefit, etc. But here, as before, man idolizes not animals, but the Divine, of which they are only symbols. Later, he begins to look for something higher in them; dreams of their intelligence and thinks that they can speak, but do not want to (blacks say that animals are silent so that they are not forced to work)... But as time goes on, this search disappears, and a person begins to recognize animals as insignificant. Therefore, he turns to the sky, worships the sun, the moon, and so on. This is how the religion of the Persians, Indians and others arose. After this, he makes higher views, and imagines a certain kind of rational beings, higher than man. This is how Greek and Roman mythology was formed. But since at this level of existence a person’s reason begins to develop, and with the development of reason the range of sensory ideas about objects visible to us also develops, then in this case a strange confusion of the great with the insignificant, the high with the low, occurs. To see this, just read Homer's Iliad. There is a mixture of high, metaphysical, and low, experienced traits. Thus, when Jupiter says that all the gods will not drag him from heaven with any chain, but that he can shake them all, then his words contain a lofty idea; but her manner of expression is the lowest. This development of religion has been going on for centuries. Its completeness is determined by the complete development of the human spirit. But such completeness of perfection is inaccessible to man. The pagans do not even reach the middle of it. They stop at the deification of animals, plants and, much more, humans. The Greeks and Romans could have risen higher, but their aesthetic sense took over, where they stopped, without extending further. Only the Indian people crossed these steps and entered the metaphysical path. The Chinese followed the development of reason, but not theoretical - logical, but practical - everyday, and therefore their religion is adapted to social activity, but they do not have a theoretical teaching. They do not have the very name of God: they understand Him under the name of the infinite. Religion is passed on from fathers to children. In this hereditary transmission of religion we must look for the reason why entire nations do not go far in developing it. The father, passing on religious concepts to his son, also conveys that these concepts were received from God, and therefore the son does not try, and is even afraid, to perfect what his father passed on to him. That is why religion very often suffers and is humiliated. The development of the spirit goes forward, but religion remains behind; nations move forward, but the gods remain behind or become equal to them: people become better than gods. Thus, in the time of Augustus, many Romans were actually better than the imaginary gods. The Greeks tried to improve their religion, but in vain. Folk religion among them stopped at a lower level, and its further development was achieved thanks to the participation of only a few philosophers. In the minds of philosophers the difference of religion is as significant as in the minds of nations. For not one of them achieved the full development of spiritual powers, but only each more or less approached complete perfection. The path of development of philosophers for the most part stops in the sphere of reason, either theoretical or practical, and more - school, logical. The fruit of logical reason is that religion turns into dualism; for it is the nature of the understanding to represent, and it actually represents God in opposites. Theoretical reason, united with the practical, represents God as the cause of everything, the ruler, manager, judge... Religion did not appear in this form, or appeared, but very rarely among the ancients. This was partly the case with Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras, although, however, the influence of their ideas was too weak, dark and material. The view of the new philosophers, purified by Christianity, represents God under the form of a man with an infinite mind and an unlimited will, that is, he takes from the experience of people and does not ascend further. Of the newest philosophers, each is guided by some special ability of the soul; for example, Kant was guided by practical reason, and considered God only from the side of legislation, and recognized other sides as inaccessible to the human mind. Fichte, wanting to cleanse religion of anthropomorphism, took away the personality of God: for, not finding a single name that had nothing experiential, he called God the moral order. For naturalists, God turned into the world, and the world into God. So, the complete development of religion requires the complete development of the mind; but he is not in this world. If a person reached this fullness of perfection, he would become completely religious, for just as the first act of consciousness comes from God, so the last one would lead to God. Then man would not so much feel himself to exist as to feel God; then I would be lost in not-me. The elements that make up religion are: faith in God and in another invisible world, and faith in immortality or the hope of moving on to a better world. Therefore, having examined faith in God, we must also pay attention to faith in the immortality of the soul. Belief in immortality has always accompanied belief in God. The concepts of immortality are different among all peoples, but all peoples have them. The basis of this faith, as well as faith in God, is found both in the nature of things and in man. The concept of immortality is expressed in a mysterious way in the world. The world consists of phenomena that are constantly changing in their existence. But this motley, changeable and, so to speak, disintegrating shell in many places shows traces of eternity, leads to something permanent and unchanging. How? Nature in its educational actions represents the emergence of things from nothing and their transformation into nothing. This process of nature is nothing more than the connection of the visible with the invisible, the transitory with the eternal. This is noticeable and palpable for both the philosopher and the commoner. The plant kingdom develops from seeds; but seeds form a very small part of the plant kingdom. Where does everything that is in it besides seeds come from? What came from what we see in a tree, but what we do not find in its seed? Without a doubt, the beginning of this is where the end is, that is, in the invisible. The outer shell of all things we see changes; but the more we delve into such changes in things, the more we see in them something permanent and imperishable. Particular phenomena are brought to the general, and general - to the general forces of nature or to the known fifty-three principles, and these fifty-three principles are subordinate to the three main ones: light, heat and gravity - which are unchangeable, constant, eternal and which seem immaterial. Thus, our ideas reach constant objects and meet the principles of eternal life, and therefore in nature man finds the basis of his immortality. All visible nature can be likened to a tree, consisting of many different tubes, which the further, the thinner, more delicate and, as it were, more spiritual. This view of the nature of things is not new. Without a doubt, this is how the Apostle Paul understood it when he said: “For what is visible is temporary, but what is invisible is eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). In man, faith in immortality is based on the same thing on which his faith in God is based, that is, on the nature of the human spirit. It also develops along with the development of mental strength. Thus, when the lower abilities of the soul develop, the general and main law of which is time, then with each moment of time a dark reminder of eternity is born in the soul, for time is a symbol of eternity, it is, so to speak, its reverse side. With the development of reason, the idea of ​​eternity, or better yet infinity, develops, for, acting according to the law of identity, it sees infinity in the diversity of things, and acting according to the law of causality, it finds infinity in a series of causes. Moreover, striving for development, the mind sees that complete development on earth is impossible, and therefore certainly comes to the thought of eternity. The idea of ​​eternity develops even more with the development of the mind, will and feelings. There is nothing to say about the mind, for eternity is its homeland and element. With the development of the will and sense of goodness, the desire is born to improve in virtue and to bring happiness into equality with virtue; but since the first and second are not achieved in this world, the immediate consequence of this desire is the thought of eternity. In addition, faith in a future life develops and strengthens from self-awareness. Our spirit, purely aware of itself, cannot help but see that it is immortal. For what does it consist of? From the mind, will, concepts and desires; but all this is imperishable and indestructible. Consequently, conscious of himself purely, that is, separately from the body, he cannot find in himself anything corruptible, mortal, for the fear of death is born from the fact that our ideas about the spirit are not purely spiritual, but a mixture of the spiritual with the physical: we recognize the spirit not as it is in itself, but as it is expressed in our body, and therefore we recognize it as mortal. But if we were to realize it purely, that is, by removing everything that the flesh mixes with this consciousness, then the hesitation of faith in immortality would disappear completely. Thus, in holy people who were purely aware of themselves, the expectation of immortality was the firmest, and they would rather doubt that they were living than that they would once live. So, since faith in a future life is based on the nature of the human spirit and develops with the development of its powers, everyone can understand why it is universal and why it is different. Here we should also remember what was said about the reasons for the universality and diversity of faith in God. Although religion must be based on the nature of the human spirit, although external nature could not teach a person religion if he did not have it within himself; however, it has contributed and continues to promote the development of religious feelings in a person. The development of religion takes place under the influence of nature. Let's look at the main points of this participation of nature in the cause of religion. Nature participates mainly in the development of religion by promoting the development of human powers. Consequently, external nature, giving us impressions of external objects, thus stimulates the activity of our spirit and protects it from sleep. Nature, striking our mind with its images, seems to wipe away the image of the Divine imprinted in it and clarify it. This is general participation. But she imparts religious lessons to each faculty of the soul separately. How? The activity of the human spirit begins with the action of feelings, which communicate to us concepts about things. But what are things? Those who look at them from a metaphysical point of view define them this way: they are the thoughts of God, portraits, lists of the Divine, and therefore nature is a panorama that contains many small pictures, each of which individually is, in a certain respect, an image of the Divine. So, if every thing is a small portrait of the Divine, then all nature is a portrait of the Most High, most perfect and complete. If this is so, then how many religious lessons it can teach us! True, not everyone can understand it, but at least everyone can more or less feel its instructions. We know that the lower faculties of our soul act according to the forms of space and time; We also know that these forms awaken in us the dark idea of ​​an infinite and eternal being. But to this knowledge we must also add that external nature greatly contributes to the awakening of the idea of ​​the infinite and the eternal. Its various dimensions, amazing us with their enormity, strength, and the striking contrast of their parts and positions, arouse in us the idea of ​​something limitless and eternal - God. Is reason developing with its laws of identity and causality? Nature does not abandon him either: she affirms these laws in him, letting him know that her phenomena, with all their diversity, must converge in something unified, and that the subordination of phenomena to causes presupposes the subordination of causes to one main cause. Moreover, reason is capable of remaining in the field of experience and being satisfied with what it finds in its sphere: but nature displaces it from this sphere with its contradictions, for it, not being able to solve them according to its own principles, is forced to go abroad and ask for advice from the mind. When a person reaches the mind, then nature (that is, experience) leaves him. Here he must converse directly with God without the guidance of nature. Here there is no longer assistance from nature, because the ideas of the mind correspond to the future world, and not the present. So, there is no direct assistance, but there is mediocre assistance. Namely: the ability that contributes to the development of the mind is feeling. The mind creates and contemplates lofty ideas, and feeling realizes them and represents them in images. Thus, for example, in the arts the ideas of the mind are realized by feeling. But nature has a very great influence on the formation of an aesthetic, high sense. In nature there are images that express eternal objects, which the mind cannot control and which cannot be brought under its ordinary forms. The main of these emblems are: 1) the rising sun: looking at it gives rise to the thought of something higher, something that existed at the beginning of creation; 2) the setting sun: a look at it gives birth to something uncertain in our soul and awakens a feeling of future life; 3) a rainbow after a storm: it excites similar feelings; That is why in Ezekiel it surrounds the throne of Jesus Christ. There are other emblems similar to these. A look on a dark night at a sky dotted with stars awakens a feeling of infinity and leads a person to the idea that he will not always remain on earth; here the words of Jesus Christ cannot help but come to mind: “in My Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). Such emblems come even in small sizes. Thus, the picture, which shows an enraged villain and a baby praying at his feet, represents the struggle of two opposing forces - good and evil, and thereby inhales a feeling of the sublime. This is how external nature contributes to the development of religion! You just need to listen to her lessons and sharpen your ears from day to day. If religion is based on the nature of the human spirit, if it develops and cannot but develop with the development of human powers, then where does atheism come from, where do people who do not know God and the future life come from? “Such people are very pitiful.” Religion is an idea; therefore, a person without religion is a person without an idea, without a mind, is something unfinished, headless. But before we begin to talk about this, let us first say that atheists who reject religion meet us in the middle of the development of human powers, in the area of ​​logical reason. The area of ​​feelings and the area of ​​mind are free from this. The metaphysical mind has never allowed atheism. Of the ancient metaphysicians, Plato and Pythagoras, of the newest, Newton, Cartesius, Spinoza are the most pious; none of them were atheists. It is impossible for the mind to reject religion: by destroying it, it would destroy itself: for it would destroy the realm of ideas in which it lives. Only logical reason can reject religion, and it shows this effect mainly in those people who developed it too theoretically and kept it for a long time in the concepts of space and time; such are small mathematicians. The same is the action of reason in those who dealt a lot with small things, such as zoologists, doctors, lawyers. On this basis, reason is recognized in the Holy Scriptures as the enemy of God, although, however, epithets are given to it: “earthly, spiritual” and others; This is also what the school mind, the half-learned mind, leads to. Therefore, in mystical and theosophical books it is called the work of the stellar spirit - the devil. Now let's see why reason primarily tends to lead people to atheism? Mind and feeling are adapted to eternal ideas, for the former contemplates ideas and lives in them, and the latter delights in them and realizes them. Reason stands between them in the middle: it is not adapted to either one or the other. Experience is its own sphere, but experience and what is higher than it are always opposite to each other. Here is temporary, there is eternity; here is finitude, there is infinity. But religion lives in the eternal, and therefore it is contrary to reason, which deals with the temporal. Confined to its own sphere, reason does not see anything infinite and eternal, and therefore asserts that there is no God. To protect itself from this anti-religious trend, reason must leave its sphere and turn to the mind. But this is disgusting for him: he wants to be satisfied with himself. Therefore he strives to base his laws on experience; seeks the causes of the world in the world itself, and from this his gaze is limited to only the visible, the created. Instead of looking for the causes of things outside the world and thus reaching God, he seeks it either in the elements, like the ancient Ionian philosophers, who considered water, fire, etc. to be the beginning of all things, or in the forces of nature, like the newest French philosophers, in whose opinion centrifugality and centripetal force are the first causes of the existence of the world. Contradictions that should force reason to go to reason and, therefore, to God, on the contrary, serve as a pretext for godlessness. For he by himself cannot reconcile them in any way, and therefore, without the help of his mind, he is left, from the existence of contradictions and disorder, to conclude the non-existence of God - the cause of order. So, reason, by its very nature, is a traitor to religion, or its friend, but the most fragile and dangerous. Let's look at his operation itself and see more. His first question is: do God and things exist? – A godless question, suggesting doubt and disbelief in the existence of God. For the mind this question does not exist, for metaphysics or the mind would rather doubt the existence of things than the existence of God. Having proposed such a question about God, reason tries to resolve it - it tries to prove the existence of God. But what does it mean to prove? To deduce the lower from the higher, the available from the available. The existence of God cannot be proven in either one way or another, for there is nothing higher than God or equal to Him. Instead of proving the existence of God, reason will weaken its power and, taking on something that is not its own, will end up with something that is not what it should be, because in the conclusion of its evidence there will be more of everything than in the premises. Therefore, proofs of the existence of God cannot be called proofs, but are only indications: ways by which one can reach God. That is why the metaphysical mind observes a completely different order: it presupposes the existence of God, and from here proves the existence of things. Thus, the course of the actions of the mind cannot produce the anti-religious direction that the process of reason produces. We said that those who deal with trifles can easily become atheists: for example, botanists, zoologists and others. This is because, like plants, they have the sun as God. For their mind, engaged in the study of plants, so to speak, assimilates their properties, and therefore, feeling its dependence on the sun, loses the feeling of dependence on God. Moreover, the same thing happens with the mind as with vision. Anyone who has been reading fine print for a long time or looking at small bodies under a microscope will no longer be able to see great objects. The same should be said about the mind. Anyone who has talked for a long time about small, private subjects is not able to judge anything important, universal. But religious objects are universal. Therefore, it is difficult for botanists and zoologists to study them, because the activities in which they spend their lives make their minds sluggish, coarse, and petty. Doctors are also subject to the same fate: the consequence of their practice is damage to feelings, which are necessary in the matter of religion. They look at a person from the most unfavorable side, from the side of his illnesses; In this way they become accustomed to decay, and their minds involuntarily acquire a tendency to dwell on what their hands are doing. The same is the fate of lawyers. They become atheists when they encounter untruth. Unable to reconcile the suffering of the innocent and the happiness of the guilty with justice, they claim that there is no just being - there is no God. These people are usually poorly educated, semi-scientific. They are pathetic: they are monsters in the spiritual world. But they fall into godlessness unintentionally. For to fall intentionally means to see the foundation and turn away from it; but they evade because they do not see the reason - they do not know the value of the object they reject. Having shown the basis of religion in human nature, let us now look at its essence; Let us show you: what is religion? what kind of creature is she? what are its parts? History has given us half an answer to these questions. She told us what is common in the religion of all peoples and all times, that is, she said that religion is always and everywhere represented by the union of man with God, their mutual relationship with each other. But such an answer from history is still dark and uncertain for us. What will the mind say to this? Let him define for us more precisely the essence of religion. But what should he do in this case? First of all, by considering the nature of man and the nature of things; then - by considering the mutual relationship of two beings united by religion: this means that you need to know the nature of both - God and man. But the being of God is incomprehensible in itself. The mind must look at it through its nature and through the nature of things; Having cognized the essence of his spirit, a person cognizes in part the essence of God, reflected in the ideas of the mind. Thus, religion on the universal field of experience appears to us as a union and a relationship. What union? Such as a person is capable of. Therefore, in order to see the essence of this union, let us ask: what is man? It has two sides: sensual - material, completely limited, and spiritual - rational, almost unlimited. Speaking about religion, we must keep in mind its last side - the spiritual, for in its sensual side, although religion is expressed, it is without consciousness, mechanically. On the spiritual side, man is completely united with God. If we could contemplate all the features of God’s nature, we would see that man is united, feature by feature, with God. But we are not able to know all the traits and being of the human being, which is only a list of the Divine being. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to showing the main nodes connecting a person with God. Three sides are mainly noticeable in a person: firstly, the rational side - cognitive powers; secondly, the active side is the area of ​​will; thirdly, the sensual side is the area of ​​feelings, not the one that is turned to the material, but mainly the one that is directed to the highest - to goodness and grace. These three main forces are the three threads that connect man with God. For what is mind? A force striving for knowledge - for truth. Where is the ideal, where is the source of truth? In God. Thus, striving for truth, the mind strives for the ideal of truth - God. Having lost God, he loses the truth - he becomes empty: his entire domain then turns not into the domain of truth, but into the domain of logical signs. By the name of truth we must here understand metaphysical truth, consisting in the correspondence of our ideas with the things we represent. Such truth cannot exist in the mind without the idea of ​​God, without the idea of ​​a being who alone produced the outer world and the inner world, and laid the foundation for the agreement of both. What is will? A limited force of activity, striving towards infinity according to its own laws. Where is the ideal of its laws and the goal that is achieved through their implementation, that is, the ideal of virtue? In God. If there is no God, then our will is the most pitiful ability. There is no ideal for her, therefore, everything that is good for man must disappear. What is a feeling? The ability to feel pleasant or unpleasant. His ideal is complete enjoyment of perfect bliss. But perfect bliss is in God alone, and in man can only be realized through God. These three nodes are inseparable. The mind connects a person with God by the desire for truth; the will is holiness, and the feeling is the desire for perfect pleasure. Therefore, “religion is the harmony between truth, virtue and pleasure.” Therefore, religion contains that which the sciences themselves would seek in vain. For all sciences depend on whether religion exists or is only a dream. With the fall of religion, all sciences that deal not with formality, but with reality, must fall, and first of all, philosophy must fall. Let's look at religion as a person's relationship to God. This relationship is living and mutual. God relates to man in accordance with the three abilities of the human spirit: He allows Himself to be known by the mind, to be loved by the will, and to be tasted by the senses. How? Also from three sides: firstly, as the source of being - the Creator; secondly, as the fault of order and structure - the Provider and, thirdly, as the administrator of rewards and punishments - the Judge, the Perpetrator. In all these respects He appears even now in relation to the world, both internal and external. As the Creator, in the external world He appears to have produced and completed everything; in the inner world - creative, constantly pronouncing moral laws in the conscience of man. As a manager, in the external world he controls everything by the power of movement; in the inner world - by the power of conscience, also through desires and movements. As the finalist and the Performer, he rewards and punishes in the inner world; in the external world it supports the forces of existence and preserves everything from destruction. Through all these relationships, God presents Himself to man, both ideally – in the area of ​​cognition, and really – in the area of ​​actions and feelings. In a similar way, a person should turn to God with these same sides. First, he must recognize God in all respects, that is, as the Creator, Provider and Perfector, both in the external and in the internal world. Such recognition in relation to the mind gives rise to faith. This recognition, if it is perfect, gives rise to the second attitude - the attitude of the will, expressed in its desire for God. If this desire is correct, then it produces a third relationship - unity with God, which is not achieved here, and therefore lies in hope. So, a person relates to God through the recognition of the mind, the striving of the will and the pleasure of the senses, which in real life is limited to sweet hope, or briefly: it relates to faith, love and hope. Do all religions express all these three relationships? Во всех. In religion alone the devil does not have this. His religion expresses only faith in God without love and hope, which is why it is said: “even the demons believe and tremble” (James 2:19). This is what can be said about the essence of religion and its components! Let us now consider the components of religion separately in some detail. Previously we saw how or how religion is expressed in man, as the union of man with God. Now let us examine the essence of religion according to its elements. It has three elements, as stated above: 1) God, as the most perfect Being; 2) future life and 3) man himself, as a being capable of thinking, acting and feeling. So, first of all, we must enter into consideration about God. God . When embarking on the study of such a lofty subject, we, without a doubt, must turn with sincere prayer to God, so that He will enlighten our weak minds with the light of His wisdom and reveal Himself to us as much as we can contain Him within ourselves. We must have a special disposition for this and fulfill a certain condition on our part, so that what eternal Wisdom will tell us about Itself will take root in our mind and heart and bring saving fruit - success in the knowledge of God. (See the instruction of Dionysius the Areopagite, which he gave to his disciple Timothy.) In our study about God, we must consider, firstly, what kind of knowledge does a person have about God, how does he recognize Him, how firm is his knowledge, is evidence needed for this, and what kind? Secondly, what is God, how does He reveal Himself to our knowledge, do we have concepts about Him that correspond to His nature, what should be the state of our spirit in which we can know Him? Thirdly, what is the best way to retain this knowledge and establish yourself in it? Man has three kinds of knowledge. 1) Sensual. This knowledge of things is true in itself and obvious: seeing a thing in fact, we do not require evidence that it exists and that it really is such. 2) Knowledge through concepts and inferences. Their obviousness is revealed only by evidence. 3) Knowledge through ideas of the mind. This is a rational faith in objects that exceed intellectual understanding - a faith that is firmer and more certain than any knowledge. The question is: can God be the object of sensory knowledge, or rational knowledge, or mental faith? 1) Is it possible to have direct sensory knowledge of God? Many answered this question in the negative, and, it seems, unfairly. God allows Himself to be known in the same way that things allow themselves to be known. Man is preserved, supported and controlled by the power of God: this means that between God and man there is a real union and a real, so to speak, touch of one to the other. This union and this touch must be tangible in our spirit, and they are tangible. We cannot clearly feel and understand this; for for this it would be necessary to comprehend the secret way of the divine action and the very Being of God, our spirit would have to refine itself to the simplicity of this being and renounce the bonds of the body: the impressions of divine power on our spirit should be darkly and vaguely announced to our sensation. And we really have dark sensations of the Divine. For what are the so-called innate ideas about God, if not traces of dark sensations of the power of God directly acting on us? Otherwise, where do they come from, what are the abilities of the soul, and how could nature instill them in us? No one has yet answered these questions. Maybe they will say: “What are these vague ideas, what are these dark sensations? If we do not see them with the spiritual eye, then they do not exist.” But this is obviously unfair, because we do not comprehend and do not define many things whose actual existence and reality are beyond doubt for us. Even this knowledge in reality should be much closer to us and truer for us than the knowledge of all the things around us, for man is not so closely connected with a single thing as with God: he lives and moves by His power. But it remains dark for us because we cannot comprehend it. Meanwhile, it is very close and true for us: it forms the basis of all secret concepts or ideas of our mind. In fact, in our mental knowledge there are two elements: positive and negative. The positive element consists of the concepts of our understanding, transformed and elevated by our mind. The mind acquires them in the realm of reason, from limited categories, from which it cuts off the boundaries in order to elevate them to the heights of ideas. But where does this positive element come from? What makes us cut off the boundaries of ready-made concepts of the mind and make them limitless? What voice is it that always tells us, when we expand the concepts of reason, that all this is not enough, that we need to transform them completely? Why does reason not proceed in infinitum in the gradual expansion of the mentioned boundaries? Isn’t this a consequence of a dark sense of the inherent Divinity and a dark comprehension of It? Without this, reason would not be so demanding; he would always be content with his own strength. Most philosophers did not reach this question in their study of our soul, but many felt this special property of it and tried to determine it. These dark sensations of the Divine can be clearly noticed in the heart, as the main force of our spirit, in which feeling and mind are nothing more than its two-way development. The existence of God is felt by the heart: it is sometimes filled with such feelings that have no relation to any external object - which can only be produced from communication with the soul of some mysterious Being. If we could make a correct analysis of our concepts and ideas, we would certainly reach these dark feelings, which, as has been said, lie at the basis of all our sensations, feelings and ideas of the mind. In uneducated people they are present in the physical and moral sense. This feeling of the presence of God in the great phenomena of nature, this inner impulse to do good, this self-pleasure after doing it and torment after an offense, are nothing more than a consequence of the impressions of the Divine acting on us, as an echo of these impressions. People have no reasonable knowledge of them; In this case, they are like children who, following their mother, say: father, father, and they themselves, following nature, say: God, God. That is why the ancients called both love for God and love for parents – pietas. This ability does not require proof in the existence of what it feels: it is completely confident in it; it would be unnecessary for her to prove. Ask a Samoyed: is there a God? He will be amazed at this question; the existence of God is an axiom for him. In the same way for people who are guided by the mind. 2) The mind is equally undoubtedly aware of the existence of God. At the first glance at the world, he finds everything random, conditional and turns directly to God, whose existence is unconditional and necessary. Seeing that God is the basis of everything, he sees God in everything and would rather doubt the existence of things than His existence. Thus, at the highest level of mental activity, as well as at the lowest, the existence of God is undeniable and does not require any proof. 3) On the contrary, at the average level of activity, all knowledge is acquired through inference and confirmed by evidence. Thus, reason needs proof of the existence of God (which, in fact, it cannot be convinced of even from the evidence). Indeed, by his very nature he does not know God; he was created to consider only the experienced, the limited, the creature, and not God. That is why he asks: is there a God? And the question itself shows that for him there is no God. And in his very question about God there is, so to speak, an optical illusion. He cognizes and explores everything through its opposition to itself; therefore, he refers God to the external sphere, to which he contrasts his internal one; and this is already a wrong way of researching about God. God exists in both spheres, and unites both worlds with Himself - the material and the spiritual. And what does the question itself mean: is there a God? Of course, nothing more than the question: does God fulfill the material conditions of the existence of experience, that is, is He a substance or quality, cause or action, etc.? But God cannot fulfill the conditions of experimental existence, for He is above all experience, and no predicates (logical predicates) of the understanding befit Him. So, the question about God is not befitting reason, or it cannot answer this question. A religious or sane person can ask about the existence of God only for greater confidence, for reason can confirm his confidence. But these confirmations are not evidence in the strict sense, but arguments for the existence of God. To the scientific, logical mind, in response to its question about God, we must say: do not investigate His existence, there is no God for you, for you cannot contain Him in your small cell. But should we leave our reason in this state of ignorance? No, it is necessary to take him out of it and show him God, it is necessary to free him from the shackles with which the categories constrain him, and lead him, through his own beginnings, to the mental sphere - and he will see God. Reason in the sphere of its forms is the same as a person imprisoned within the four walls of a prison from infancy. He sees the light and the sky only in parts: through the narrow and lattice windows, he always sees a very small part, and sometimes clouds pass in front of him, covering the sky; после сего ему естественно спросить: есть ли небо? Эти частички неба и облаков не суть ли призраки и обольщения? But let him come out of his prison, let him embrace with his eye this boundless space and the clouds, like shadows, flickering on it: then he will not ask whether there is a sky. Take the mind out of its four walls-categories, let it look at everything not through the dull glass of space and time, but directly through the eye of the mind: then not the ghosts of eternity and Divinity will appear to it, but boundless eternity and God Himself. И может ли он после того спрашивать: есть ли Бог? Таким образом, рассудку должно восходить на высоту ума. This is the same ascending path that philosophers called via ascendens ad Deum, and to which they contrasted the descending path - descendens. The first way, through inferences, they ascended from the visible to the invisible, and thus reached the existence of God. The last to deduce from the existence of God and show the existence of things. If you leave your mind in a state of ignorance about God, if you leave it to itself in the study of God’s existence, then very harmful consequences can occur. Hence, for example, it happened that providence could not agree with human freedom; Cicero, the scholastics, and some of the new philosophers rejected this; and some human freedom had to be subordinated to necessity. God, truly understood, is not contrary to freedom; He has no present, no past, no future. It contradicts it only apparently and to the extent that it appears in the world of phenomena by reason, which has its own present and future. So, for the lower faculty of our soul, as for the higher, the existence of God is an undoubted truth: in our dark ideas, in the heart, in the moral feeling, we feel it as if by touch; the mind contemplates it in its ideas. Only the logical mind is condemned by fate to remain in the pitiful state of ignorance of God: striving for the knowledge of God, it becomes entangled in the networks supplied to it by experience and its own rules. Against these perplexities of the logical mind there is a special kind of conviction based on genera and species. Starting from particular objects, we can ascend through types and genera to the most general concepts, and, finally, to the idea itself, and thus, leading the mind out of its networks, lead to the mental sphere, where God and eternity are. Looking from the boundaries of his region into the region of the mind, he sees mental objects in a dark way and has some faith in them. Among foreigners, this kind of rational conviction is called an ideal view, since the mind embraces these objects, or also a premonition, since through the form in which they appear to the mind, it perceives their very essence. Some Church Fathers had such insight, who through a strict ascetic life cleared their mental eye, such as Macarius of Egypt. And here one cannot help but be surprised at how the active path, or the active striving for union with God, converges with the theoretical path, or the striving of the mind to know God; the Fathers of the Church became so close to the philosophers that they resembled them in thoughts, feelings and expressions! And for all of them, as for true philosophers, the existence of God seemed to be the first truth. If for any of us this truth is not so, then this is due to the lack of development of our mind. Now the question is: what is God? How does He reveal Himself to our knowledge, and does our knowledge of Him express His properties? In this reasoning, three opinions are known: some said that God completely reveals himself to our mind; others that He is completely incomprehensible; Finally, others said that He is partly comprehensible, and partly beyond all understanding. Among the first were people at the lowest level of education - savages, idolaters. It is not surprising that they imagined God in this way; for He was limited among them and for the most part was their own creation, which is why they could know Him completely, as they believed. Educated people who are guided by logical reason belong to this class. Such was Eunomius, who claimed that he knew God as much as he knew himself. When it was objected to him that God is incomprehensible to the human mind, he replied: although each of us separately cannot embrace all the properties and actions of God, the combined concepts of all people must certainly equal the fullness of His being. The error here is obvious, and it happened because Eunomius reasoned about God according to the rules of reason and imagined Him to be a great man. Finally, among such people are German philosophers (who, however, have the most sublime concept of God). They look at God as He expresses Himself in the world; hence they accept the highest ideal concept of the world as the very essence of God and claim that they know God completely. But it is obvious that they take a copy of the Divine for the very original: their absolute unities and indifferences are concepts of the world, and not of God; God remains unknown to them. Gregory the Theologian, refuting the opinion of Eunomius, says: to understand something means to embrace it with your thoughts, just as in geometry a smaller area is embraced by a larger one. But God is an infinite Being: how can the limited human mind embrace Him? Human knowledge is nothing more than the struggle of our self with the external world, with the non-self: how can he subjugate this non-self when it exceeds his strength? So, it is more fair to say that God is incomprehensible. What about our concepts of God? Do they express anything real or not? Are they not sinful, since they are borrowed from the objects of the world? Indeed, everything we know about God is borrowed from objects of experience; according to the law of winemaking, through abstraction we assume certain properties in Him; according to the law of contradiction, we separate from Him what is indecent to Him and, raising the remaining properties to an infinite degree, we form the image of God. Here all properties are, without a doubt, removed from the external or internal world: we imagine God as the cause of everything, endowed with reason and will. This is nothing more than a perfect person. And it is clear that the understanding participates most of all in the composition of this image (although all the faculties of the soul also participate) with its categories, namely: from the category of quantity His infinity and unity are borrowed; from the quality category - perfection; from the category of relationships – substance, creativity and providence; and so on. Can this image express the very essence of God? Shouldn't we separate from God all the qualities that we attribute to Him? Dionysius the Areopagite teaches us to think about God in this way, believing that He who by excellence is the author of every intelligible thing is not himself one of the things comprehended by reason. “Again ascending,” he writes, “I say that God is neither soul nor spirit, has neither imagination or opinion, nor mind, nor understanding, is not word and understanding. You cannot speak Him or comprehend Him with your mind; He is not number, nor order, neither great nor small, nor equality, nor inequality, neither likeness nor dissimilarity, stands lower, moves lower, has no rest, lower than strength, and Himself is not force or light, nor lives, lower is life, is neither essence nor time, it is impossible to have mental touch with Him, He is not knowledge, truth, neither kingdom, nor wisdom, nor one, nor unity, nor bliss, or goodness, or such a spirit, which we understand, is neither sonship nor patronymic, nor any of those things that are comprehensible to us, or to anyone existing. It is not any of the things that do not exist, or anything that exists. For Him there is neither a word, nor a name, lower than knowledge, He is not darkness (he seemed to foresee that the mind would one day represent God under the image of darkness: this happened with the German philosophers), nor light, nor error, nor truth, nothing can be affirmed or denied about Him, and even when we make a statement or a negation about the persons existing through Him, then we neither define nor deny Him, since He is perfect beyond all definition and is the only fault of all kinds, superiority above all negation, a Being completely abstract from everything and exalted above everything.” Thus, according to the Areopagite and other fathers, such as Gregory the Theologian, no abstractions in any way express the essence of the Divine. This is how it should be, because all our concepts that we form about God are negative and certainly have some admixture from experience. In vain did the scholastics, and in the later times of Fichte, try to clear the concept of God from everything experienced. The former called Him actus purissimus, and the latter - moral order. In this they discovered only the powerlessness of the human mind. Well, are all our concepts about God already empty, completely and in no way expressing the nature of the Divine? Is it not possible to form a more accurate and true concept of Him? Eat. There is an internal path leading to true knowledge of God through knowledge of our own spirit. We have seen that our concepts of God are always lower than the Divine nature and do not express it. The best of the concepts about God is the concept of Moses: Jehovah asher Jehovah - God is God. This description of the Godhead in Moses expresses that God is above everything that we imagine Him to be, that His being is immense and incomprehensible to us. In addition to this concept of God, Holy Scripture presents us with another, from the practical side: “God is loving” (1 John 4:8, 16). These concepts are befitting of the Divine, for they express His essential properties better and more sublimely than all other descriptions of Him. Although even at an average level of spiritual activity, a person forms a fairly good concept of God, although in this concept there is some similarity with the nature of God, it is very insufficient and almost indecent to the Divine being. According to this commonly used concept of Him, we attribute to Him the kind of existence that other creatures have; as a result of which we subordinate it to space and time: we ask when the world was created, we cannot reconcile the foreknowledge of God with human freedom, and so on. But besides all this, there is a much more convenient means of approaching the knowledge of God and forming the truest concept of Him. This means lies in our spirit, considered not from the outer and lower side of it, as the mind views it, in order to form an image of the Divine by its properties, but from the inner and highest side, from where we can borrow the purest and most sublime features. The most incomprehensible properties in God for us are: 1) His existence from Himself; 2) omnipotence; 3) infinity or omnipresence; 4) eternity and 5) creativity. But these properties are also reflected in our spirit; by looking at it, we can know God. 1) We can easily comprehend the independence of God’s existence (aseitas) by looking at the existence of our spirit. This being always appears to our consciousness as independent, independent, self-existent. We do not feel in any way that we depend on anyone for the reasoning of our spiritual existence. Where are we from? Who created us? Who are we? – Consciousness does not talk about this. We, of course, assume the reason for our existence, and we do not attribute to ourselves such an existence as is characteristic of God; we say that we are from God, but reason tells us this, not self-consciousness; Knowing that nothing happens without a reason, on the basis of this law, we assume the reason for our existence. God created us and sustains us; but He hid it from our consciousness. He constantly carries us with His strength - we constantly rush over the abyss of insignificance; but we do not feel this: in consciousness our being is independent. This sense of independence and self-existence, or better, this secrecy of the Divine who preserves us, was the reason that Fichte established the whole world on our I and produced everything from it. This property of our Self, without a doubt, is an expression of the independent existence of the Divine. 2) The infinity of the Divine being, or His omnipresence, is clearly reflected in the quality of our thought. Flying in thought across endless spaces in an instant, the soul seems to know no limits to existence: it exists wherever it wants. We are surprised at the incredible speed of light, but its distribution still occurs in a certain time; but we cannot determine the speed of thoughts. Of course, these omnipresent thoughts are ideal, and not real, like the omnipresent thoughts of God, but this is what distinguishes the existence of the human soul from the existence of the Divine. However, when we are freed from the bonds of the body with death, then there will be no such limitation of existence for us: its forms - space and time - will then be taken away, and we will exist where our thought is. 3) Eternity. To our consciousness our existence seems eternal: we do not know the beginning of our existence and cannot imagine the end; both in the past and in the future we can extend it to infinity. We are sure that we have a beginning; but this is what reason says, based on the law of causality, or very often on legends about the beginning of things; and consciousness does not suggest anything about the finitude of our existence. Thus, we carry in our spirit the image of eternal Divine existence. 4) God’s omnipotence is also reflected in us. The soul has freedom. What is this freedom? She is limited omnipotence. In form it is truly limitless; for God Himself cannot make me want what I do not want. It is limited in content, and this is what distinguishes human power from Divine omnipotence. Not achieving everything, she can want everything - she encroaches on everything. This is what prompted Horace to say: iustum ac tenacem... impavidum ferient ruinae! 5) We do not understand how God created everything out of nothing, how the rough world was formed without matter. But the same thing happens in our soul. Where do our thoughts, desires, feelings come from? - Out of nothing. Where are the concepts, feelings and desires that we transfer to memory stored? - Nothing. So, the entire mental world comes from nothing and rests on nothing. Of course, objects participate in the birth of thoughts, feelings and desires, but how? It is impossible to assume that material images are separated from objects and give birth to them in us, for they could not reach the soul. External objects only stimulate with their impressions the activity of spiritual forces, and do not produce anything in it; everything in it comes from nothing. They will say: these emerging thoughts are insignificant, empty. But this is unfair, because they are carried out in words, movements and actions. Revealed in sensory signs, they are, so to speak, embodied and, without a doubt, are then real. The commander's word moves thousands of people who perform extraordinary actions. Where is the reason for these actions? In the word. Where is the beginning of the word? In thought. Where does the idea come from? Out of nothing. How many saving actions did Karamzin’s story produce? How many courtiers did she keep from flattery, how many kings from injustice? And where does all this begin? In nothing. Evil wisdom, which does not allow omnipotent creativity in God, itself calls poets, artists, painters and others creators. They are truly creators because they invent new things; their ideas really are born out of nothing. For example, a newly built house is made of materials: marble, stones, lime and others. But what is most important in it - the arrangement of parts, their unity, the idea expressed in it - all this has its beginning in the mind of the architect and was born out of nothing. Why does the word Artifex, which Plato attributes to God, also belong to man? Thus, in the human soul there are features from which one can compose a pure, sublime and true image of the Divine. There is nothing to say about moral properties: a moral person is a living likeness of God. Their good is the same; Only man has virtue, and God has holiness. Now we should talk about how to convince ourselves of the true concept of God, how to avoid doubts? But first we need to explore another element of religion - the belief in immortality. Future life. Religion is the union of man with God. This definition of religion actually contains two concepts: the concept of God and the concept of man. But the third thing is also hidden: the concept of a future life. For the union of man with God must be eternal and presupposes a union closer than what it is now. The union between God and man can be viewed both superficially and in its very essence. Considered superficially, it can remain even when it is assumed that there will be no future life. God will also remain for us the Creator, partly the Provider and the Judge; for even in the consideration of one real life, a person owes his existence and blessings to God, and is often rewarded or punished. But if this union between God and man is considered in its very essence, then with the destruction of the future life it must be interrupted. For the union of religion should not be slavish, but free on the part of man: without this it will be cold and dead. But after the destruction of immortality, there will be no place for another union other than a slave one. Man has and must have a desire for God, as a creature does for the Creator. What kind of God is it that does not satisfy this desire when He can? And what kind of Creator is He for us when He did not suggest a purpose for our life? We must honor God as a Provider. What kind of Providence is it if it is limited to one continuation of our life? What kind of Providence is it if it does not correct the disorder that we never encounter in the moral world? God is our Judge; but what kind of Judge is it when virtue rewards only in our conscience and forgets its suffering, and leaves vice to bliss, punishing it with barely sensitive remorse?.. To such a God, instead of love, we will feel alienation. Therefore, without eternal life there is no true religious union between God and man. Therefore, there is not a single religion that does not have this element - the future life. There can be two questions about immortality: can it be the subject of rational knowledge, or is it the subject of rational faith? Is it comprehensible or not? Evidence of immortality is of various kinds. Theoretical - that the soul, like spirit, is immortal; that there is no reason to destroy it; that the future life requires the development of spiritual forces, which here either at the beginning or in the middle of their development stop; for example, Kant died when he came to the possibility of judging things sensibly; in the same way, many die when they reach a time in which they could curb their passions and so on. If there were no future life, then God would be a bad ruler of the world (this proof is stronger than others). The same evidence includes evidence borrowed from the simplicity of the soul. Practical - that there is no perfect proportion between virtue and its reward, between vice and its punishment. Analogous, borrowed from objects of experience. All this evidence can produce conviction and has firmness. But can’t immortality turn from an object of faith into an object of knowledge? Is it not possible to have a presentiment of the immortality of the soul, at least in the same way that we directly feel the existence of God? We will try to explain this as much as possible. At the same time, let us resolve some objections, which in themselves are insignificant, but can shake our faith in immortality and confuse our spirit. Here they are: that the soul grows with the body; that in crazy people it has no effect at all. There are refutations to this; but they are too school-like, so let’s look for the best and most convincing ones. In the present century, the truth of immortality suffers a lot from the disputes of people. That’s why you need to pay attention to it. Eternal life - immortality for many remains a subject of dark faith. Why is this truth dark? What puts her in such darkness? Eternal life is obscured for us: firstly, because it belongs to things to come and, therefore, is opposite to present life, which belongs to things present. It is this dissimilarity between the future life and the present that causes the former to darken in our eyes; Moreover, the whole future itself is dark for us. Secondly, because in man the mortal is united with the immortal: the body is united with the spirit. This duality of man is the reason that our feeling is always divided between mortality and immortality. The feeling of mortality often takes precedence over the feeling of immortality, because a person for the most part lives on the lower side - the bodily one. And since this temporary side develops more in him, it is very natural for the sense of mortality to develop more and dominate in a person. The union of the soul with the body is a great mystery. On the one hand, the soul is strikingly different from the body; but on the other hand, she is so closely connected with him that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Let's take as an example something rough, but one that expresses our thought. Let's compare the spirit with alcohol: what is in the mass of chemical alcohol, there is spirit in the body. It is very difficult to distinguish alcohol in a known mass from itself; this can only be done through strong chemical analysis. Likewise, the spirit can be distinguished from the body only through a strong deepening. These are the two main reasons that obscure the truth of immortality! Why was this darkening allowed? The moral purpose of this has been noticed for a long time. It lies in the fact that the uncertainty of eternal life makes virtue more selfless. With a clear understanding of it, a person would strive not for God, but for rewards. Virtue, in fact, consists of self-sacrifice; but then it would consist of self-love: a person would sacrifice himself, but not for God, but for himself. This is a more general goal, but there is another, in my opinion, more decisive. Eternal life, without a doubt, contains much that is beautiful and attractive. Therefore, if it were to open up for us, many would rush headlong towards it and suicide would become universal. This darkness, pushing us away from the future life, gives the correct course to the present life. If it were not for him, then virtue, moral order and civil life would have to suffer a lot. These are the purposes for which darkness was allowed, obscuring for us the light of eternal life! Let us now look at the very truth of immortality. This truth has two sides: firstly, the dark side, which is produced by the reasons we have outlined and which consists of doubts, and, secondly, the bright side, in which the light of evidence shines. 1. The main points of doubt are the following: a) the origin of the soul, as if material, and its development temporary, similar to the development of the body; b) daily eclipse of the soul in sleep, in which there is no rational activity and which constitutes half of human life; c) weakening of the abilities of the soul, such as memory and imagination, which occurs from the weakening of physical forces; d) disorder of the soul in certain diseases, for example, insanity, which is often very long-lasting. a) Can the temporary origin of the soul lead to its temporary existence? No. For the birth of the soul is nothing other than its appearance. Do we know the first moment of this phenomenon? No. We know the first development of the powers of the soul; but is there something that precedes this development? Eat. These are all the main laws of our activity, known under the name of innate ideas. The baby looks at a thing and forms a concept about it. This concept is formed on the basis of a well-known idea. But when did he get this idea? When did the ideas of the true, the good and the graceful arise in him? Without a doubt, before. This view led many (for example Plato) to the idea of ​​the pre-existence of souls. Indeed, the soul must pre-exist. For what is she by nature? It is the thought of God, pure, spiritual. But the thought of God is eternal; therefore the soul is eternal; she existed entirely in God. But they will say: this existence of the soul is alien. No! It actually belongs to the soul; in God only it should exist. They will also say: the soul was not conscious of itself, and therefore did not exist. Can our real consciousness vouch for the existence of the soul? In a dream, the soul acts, although its activity often does not correspond to our ordinary consciousness. The experiments of physiologists have proven that in the human soul there are two consciousnesses: one is lower, our ordinary, and the other is higher, extraordinary. There are illnesses in which a person recognizes himself differently today, and differently tomorrow; Meanwhile, the activity of his spirit goes on regularly. It has been noted among mad people that after the illness passes, their consciousness of their previous state is either completely lost or is still being corrected; therefore, consciousness is not a guarantee of existence, and ignorance of the state that preceded our present existence does not deny the fact that our soul previously existed and that its present actions are memories of previous actions. It is necessary to speak about the initial union of the soul with the body like this: “It is not the soul that enters the body, but the body that approaches the soul and becomes its instrument.” Even if we assume that the actions of the soul do not begin before its union with the body, we will not have any reason to reject its immortality. For these actions presuppose something incorruptible in the soul, something that is difficult to begin with, and even more difficult to determine an end. Consequently, the immortality of the soul in both cases is obvious. b) Dreams can give rise to doubt about the immortality of the soul. A dream is a phenomenon that contains a lot of mysterious things, but there is nothing in it that could undermine faith in a future life. For does the activity of the spirit cease in sleep? No! Dreams prove this; but even without dreams the soul acts during the rest of the body; the activity in this case is not perceptible only because the soul does not bring it under consciousness. But they will ask: what is this activity for? It occupies half of human life, therefore it must have some special moral significance; and really has. Which? The activity of the soul in a dream produces warnings, consolations, and motivations (we will say more about this later). All this is not clear to us; but among holy men the actions of dreams were as clear as the actions of the waking state. c) The activity of the forces of the soul weakens with the weakening of physical forces; but this does not weaken the belief in immortality in the least. This happens with the lower abilities of the soul - with memory and imagination, but these abilities are closely connected with the bodily side of a person, and therefore must themselves change as it changes. Moreover, memory and imagination, by their very purpose, must be subject to such degradation: they are adapted to the world of phenomena, therefore, as the time approaches when they must part with the world, they must approach the tomb. However, it should also be noted that the weakening of memory is only imaginary. Experiments prove this. In old people, memory often awakens right at the grave. There are moments when they vividly imagine everything they had previously forgotten. Consequently, the imaginary depletion of memory disappears here. But even if these abilities of the soul died, then its immortality remains inviolable. For the higher powers - conscience, freedom and others, which actually make up the soul, never weaken due to the weakness of the body. Here the forces of the soul act completely opposite to the forces of the body. The closer a person is to the tomb, the more pious and conscientious he is. This opposition reaches extreme heights in some people. Before death, physical strength weakens; on the contrary, special feelings awaken in the soul: fun, consolation, and the like. Examples of this can be found in the lives of ascetics; but these examples are too high. Let's look at ordinary people - and we will see similar things in their lives. Thus, Augustus and Antoninus, at the end of their lives, clearly mock death. There are other examples of ordinary people in whom the powers of the soul are extremely revealed at the end of life. At that time, the ability of foreknowledge is born in them, and they, so to speak, look into the future. For this it is useful to read Cicero's de divinatione and de natura deorum. In this way, this point can also be clarified and removed from all doubts. d) How can the spirit be subject to eclipse in illness, for example in madness? What's confusing here? The fact that the spirit takes on an absurd mode of activity that upsets its organism. In former times, crazy people were only a subject of pity, but now they have become the subject of physiological observations that are carried out on them in houses designated for their detention. In ancient times, the Greeks, Latins and others called madmen prophets, experts of the heart. Why? Because they show amazing insight. The experiences of foreigners have confirmed that crazy people can see the future. From this it must be concluded that their soul does not remain inactive, but, as if in exchange for lost ordinary activity, it takes on extraordinary activity. Moreover, it was learned from experience that some lived for a long time in madness and, upon being freed from it, turned out to be much smarter than they were before. This phenomenon leads to the idea that the soul has two sides: ordinary - lower and extraordinary - higher, and that, having ceased to perfect the first, it is engaged in improving the latter. Therefore, the disorder of the soul in illness should not confuse us. We should admire how much strength is hidden in our soul! In this way, the entire dark side of the soul is clarified and all objections fall away. 2. Let's look at the bright side of the truth of immortality. This side consists of evidence based on inferences. These proofs are either theoretical, borrowed from the perfectibility of the soul, from simplicity and other things, or practical, based on the inequality of rewards and punishments, or analogous and others. All of them constitute light, but this light can be increased in another way. First, there is a way to transfer immortality from a subject of rational faith to a subject of consciousness. Until a person does this, his faith in immortality is in danger. But how can this be? This method was known most of all to ascetics and even to some philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato. It consists of moral self-awareness. The opinion, even held by some theologians, that the soul is immortal by grace, shows either ignorance of the soul, or an excessive demand from grace. Immortality is an essential property of the soul. Consequently, being purely aware of the soul, we cannot help but be aware of immortality, this inalienable quality of it. If there is no consciousness of immortality, then there is no complete consciousness of the spirit. We are not aware of immortality because in our consciousness of the spirit there is a lot of corporeal, mortal things. Thus, into the concept of the existence of the soul we introduce the concept of nutrition; We think that a person must certainly hear, see, touch; We remove all this from the lower part of the soul, the mortal, and not from the higher, the immortal. The body forces us to think and act this way. This is also why Solomon noticed that the body burdens the spirit. When can there be pure consciousness, such as is required in order to recognize the immortality of the soul? Then, when we recognize our soul as it is in itself, that is, when we do not attribute to it anything more than a mind filled with truth, a will filled with goodness, and a feeling filled with immaterial grace. Having strongly felt all this, we will feel immortality itself. But this is difficult to do, because the body always tells a person: “And I belong to you,” and therefore a person mixes the consciousness of physicality with the consciousness of his spirituality. However, this work can be overcome. The best means to this is an ascetic life, consisting of fasting, vigil and prayer. Live virtuously, God-like, and you will see immortality: and in this life you will begin to live forever. Through this, bodily activity is weakened, and at the same time the consciousness of the body itself weakens. In carnal people, body and soul are united very closely, and almost form one; on the contrary, in ascetics this union is subtler and more separate. Therefore, they reach the existence of the soul rather than the existence of the body. On the other hand, the moral consciousness in such people is greatly enhanced. For secular people, the mind is filled with thoughts about physical, temporary objects, the will strives for carnal, perishable matters, the feeling is occupied with material, mortal things; and ascetics think about the spiritual, the eternal and live in the spiritual, incorruptible. Thus, eternal life seems to really enter into their consciousness; they are vividly aware of their spirituality, and with it eternity. The power of this self-awareness can explain why ascetics sacrificed everything and life itself for the future. People of this kind not only feel the invisible moral order that philosophers assume, but even live by it, living, as the apostle puts it, “in the invisible” (Heb. 11:1). They have their own way of thinking, their own rules and live a life opposite to ordinary life, because they are controlled by a higher consciousness, opposite to ordinary consciousness. Not knowing the evidence of immortality, they vividly feel this truth, and no objections can shake them. This path to establishing oneself in the belief in immortality is the best. He is little known at school, but in life they have known him for a long time. In addition to this method, which shows how to make the truth of immortality an object of consciousness, there is a second method that clarifies this truth and makes it, at least partially, an object of knowledge. In times of faith there was no need to talk much about this; but now, when unbelief has begun to dominate, refuting the truth of immortality, it is necessary to set out everything on which this truth rests. The materials for this have already been collected, and we would be unwise if we did not use them. Providence itself, which had kept this truth in secret, now, in accordance with the needs of the age, began to reveal it very clearly. The logical mind can be convinced and, so to speak, see that the soul is immortal. How? 1) Previously, the soul was completely subordinated to the body and they said that it could not do without certain parts of the body. The latest physiologists have proven the opposite. The brain itself is not absolutely necessary for its operation. She can perceive herself correctly even with a damaged brain. Therefore, the objection that with the loss of the brain the consciousness of the soul is lost is unfair. They think that madness comes from damage to certain parts of the body. True, it happens; but we also see the opposite of this: they find crazy people whose bodily members are intact and healthy. From all this it is clear that if in its present poor state the soul can be separated from the dependence of the body and exist on its own, then even more so can it exist when the state of its dependence on the body ceases. 2) Since ancient times, the body has been called the prison of the soul, not allowing it to act as it wishes. The body is a shackle for her, which she strives to break. Therefore, the ancients recognized the body as the work of an evil spirit. The newest have confirmed this idea, having found a high, extraordinary side in the soul, which develops in illness or from random circumstances, also in sleep, as a result of a virtuous life. Why is this happening? Because in such cases the soul is freed from the ordinary forms of space and time. a) In a dream, space and time almost do not exist for the soul. Therefore, in a dream, she connects the past, the present and partly the future into one, so to speak, point, and lives a life that exceeds ordinary life. This is what made Heraclitus assert that the soul in sleep lives in the general world, or in the world of ideas. And indeed, this world must be different, different from the visible world, for in it the soul acts completely differently from here: it speaks differently, expresses itself differently, thinks differently. At that time she feels free from space and time; sees the past; looks into the future, penetrates into the affairs of others. Does this activity have its own laws? She is subject to the wisest laws. For a long time they did not know, or rather did not pay attention to it; but in modern times they began to collect dream books and observe dreams. As a result of this work, a system of dreams was created, which shows that among all peoples of both the New and Old Worlds, dreams are subject to the same laws, that penetration into the future is in all dreams, that in a dream the soul knows more. True, some volatility was noticeable in her knowledge at that time; but this volatility does not occur among holy people: in their sleep they converse clearly, definitely. Thus, the human soul, even in this life, lives in a common, Divine world. To do this, it is good to read the symbolism of sleep from Schubert. This book shows the system of laws of dreams, their effect on morality, the similarity of the language of dreams with the prophetic language, that is, the same figurative language that the prophets used. b) The second kind of manifestation of the future life occurs in illnesses. Here, more than in a dream, another life of the soul is manifested. Important dreams are very rare, and therefore the extraordinary activity of the soul is not always noticeable in them. Diseases in which the future life of the soul is manifested are all nervous diseases. The human soul is protected by a nervous network, and therefore, when this network weakens, then it begins to act freely. This is especially noticeable in sleepwalking. In this state, due to the extreme weakening of the nervous system, the soul is freed from the influence of external objects and rises above the laws of nature. They do not exist for her at that time, for the soul then carries the body with its force, despite the fact that it is subject to the main law of nature - gravity. The same thing happens in madness, which also occurs from weakening of the nerves. In this state, the soul predicts the future, remembers the past in an extraordinary way and penetrates into the affairs of others. The same phenomenon occurs in a state of so-called mortal syncope. Here, just like in a dream, consciousness remains, but there is no feeling. Therefore, it is not without reason that they say that at this time a person is either in heaven or in hell: indeed, our soul is then transferred to some other world. For this, it is worth reading an article in the “Bulletin of Europe” for 1830, where a man is presented who, in a severe faint, was aware of how he was buried, but could not move a single member of his body. This is how another life of the soul manifests itself in a painful state! The newest have brought this under art and, through magnetism, forced, so to speak, the soul to produce similar phenomena. This art has become the subject of charlatanism and is therefore prohibited; however, much has been written about it in The Clairvoyant, and it serves as proof that the soul in this state has insight. The experiments produced very instructive effects. Without knowing them, we could not understand how a soul without a brain would think and be conscious. From them we also learned the most important truth, that in the soul there are two sides and two consciousnesses: the lower - ordinary, logical, and the higher - extraordinary. According to these two sides of the soul, there are two systems in the body: the brain and the stomach. The soul can move from one to another. Since these systems are different and not mixed with each other, the soul, moving from one to another, begins to understand differently and act differently. For example, a sleepwalker is aware of his sleepwalking differently - and differently, having freed himself from it; in sleepwalking he forgets the natural state, and in the natural he forgets the sleepwalking state. Each of these two states has its own yesterday and tomorrow, and one is never confused with the other. This state is a harbinger of future life. This is evident mainly from the fact that a person in such a state rises above the forces of nature. Moreover, such a state of the soul is combined with a certain anger, showing that the soul eagerly desires, so to speak, to break out of the shackles of the body and move into the world of freedom. New philosophers argued that the body is a straitjacket of the soul, which it, passing into an extraordinary state, strives to destroy. c) This extraordinary life of the soul also manifests itself naturally in holy people. What diseases produce in others occurs naturally in ascetics. The stories about the miracles they performed are true. Indeed, one can achieve the power of miracles through the thought of God. The Savior, promising the gift of miracles, did not set limits, but said: he who believes in Me will do what I do, and will do more than this. In holy people this not only happens from above, but is also achieved through the full development of the spiritual nature of man and the weakening of the physical nature. This is what can be said about immortality! This truth is obscured for known reasons and for certain purposes; this darkness is clearing up; the truth of the immortality of the soul can be translated from rational faith into an object of consciousness; from an object of consciousness can finally become an object of experimental sensation. What else belongs to the circle of religion? In a certain sense, a person’s relationship with God cannot be direct. It is mediated by the world. God holds a person: this is a direct connection; but on the other hand, man reaches God through the world. This can be seen in Augustine in his search for God. Without peace, a person’s relationship to God is difficult to imagine. Therefore, peace is necessary for the essence of religion. It is necessary as a way to know God, as a book of religion, as a field in which a person can show his religious actions. Therefore, the future life cannot do without it: and there we are promised a new heaven and a new earth. But how to imagine the world in relation to religion? There are different views on the world. The physical view represents the world as a mass of gross physical bodies. But this view is intolerable for religion. Religion loves life and freedom. She looks at the world from the point from which the Apostle Paul looked, who said that all creation awaits the revelation of the sons of God - and not only the freedom of the children of God, but also their own. For further the apostle adds: the creation itself will be freed. The view of the world as a collection of free beings participating in bliss together with people is a strictly religious view; with him, the kingdom of nature turns into the church of the Divine, and the three kingdoms of nature constitute, as it were, three branches of this church. Religion consists of the knowledge of God and the spiritual world as an object of the mind; from the desire for what is known and the desire to become like God as an object of will; from the pleasure of what is known as an object of feeling. Here are three knots connecting heaven with earth, God with man! Religion is nothing other than the harmony of all these relationships. Its basis is truth, and its expression is virtue and pleasure. Consequently, all sciences, laws and pleasures are below it. What should be the spirit of religion? What are its extremes and shortcomings? When religion is the subject of knowledge alone, then it is something passive. Consequently, with such a religion, a person still has no merit. His own activity begins with the will, that is, when he begins to act in accordance with knowledge. This side depends on man’s freedom to God, and pleasure, which here mostly consists of hope, constitutes a necessary side of it. So, the spirit of religion is the spirit of the full development of mental powers. No science, no good action, no pure pleasure is superfluous to religion. First, religion, as an object of the mind, must be a union with God, expressed through a true knowledge of Him. Its shortcomings in this regard are ignorance and superstition; its excesses are unnecessary speculations that turn religion into a subject of logical subtleties. This was the case with heretics, scholastics and modern naturalists, German philosophers. Consequently, the spirit of pure knowledge, opposed to fanaticism and united with humility, is the spirit of religion. Secondly, religion, as an object of will, must consist in the desire to become like God. A person must respond to the voice of God by becoming like Him through virtue. Many did not understand this voice and responded to it with external offerings, for example, the pagans. But this is something of little importance, while the soul of religion, its true fruit, is virtue: Kant’s immortal merit is in clarifying this truth in philosophy. External offerings and worship are limited to certain places and times; while virtue extends throughout life and accompanies every moment of it. According to the Apostle Paul, we must do everything for the glory of God. Consequently, the insufficiency of religion in this regard is that pure sacrifice, virtue, is replaced by external offerings, and its excess is that morality is refined to trifles and to jealousy beyond reason. Kant fell into another flaw by placing religion in virtue alone. His position is fair, but one-sided; religion is not an object of will alone; the mind with contemplations and feelings with pleasures cannot be removed from it. Without this, virtue is weak; she often has to fight the whole world; Without religious inspiration, based in feeling and hope, it is unable to withstand the struggle. Some of the newest wise men have further extended their speculations regarding religion, and argue that for pure religious morality, oblivion of God is necessary, one must define oneself by the rules of activity without any idea of ​​​​a higher allowance and a higher reward. They were led to this by excessive purism (the desire for purity and strictness of morals, sometimes ostentatiously), according to which they tried to purify morality. Moreover, they fear God's omnipotence; in imagining it, they imagine the complete destruction of their freedom. But the omnipotence of God can be imagined without fear; a person can stand against him, as is proven by evil spirits who will forever oppose limited power to unlimited. So, in this respect, religion has two extremes: a lack of virtue and its excessive refinement, extending to the point that besides it, all other parts of religion are expelled. The third element of religion is pleasure. It is necessary because it revives virtue and makes it most pleasant. Here are the same extremes, that is, first of all, a lack of feeling, when religion turns into mere speculation. From this comes dryness in religion, mechanism, sluggish activity, compulsion and lifelessness; the second is an abundance of feeling, which makes virtue impure. Believing religion in one feeling of the heart, and occupied with it alone, a person reaches the point where he mistakes the internal movements of the heart for external impressions. From this came fanatics, intense mystics, visionaries and others. From all this it is clear that the spirit of religion must be the spirit of moderate knowledge, living virtue, religiously pure feelings and also moderate. Therefore, as we said above, the foundation of religion is truth, the expression is virtue, the crown on earth is self-soothing and heartfelt pleasure. All these parts must certainly be concentrated in religion. Can this religion have sacraments? Maybe. This needs to be known because the sacraments of natural religion serve as the basis for conclusions about the Sacraments of the Christian religion. They object and try to refute the Christian Sacraments because they do not know about the need for sacraments in natural religion. What are the main Sacraments in the Christian religion? First, the Mystery of the Incarnation, in which two sides are mysterious to us: the union of the Divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ and the redemption of the human race. Secondly, the action of grace, or the help of God. The basis of these Sacraments is supposed to be in the sacraments of natural religion. How? 1. Natural religion is the union of man with God, and a real one at that. Man appears to be limited, and God is unlimited. This union begins here, will continue into eternity, and from time to time will become more real. How will this connection extend into eternity? How will the finite connect with the infinite? How can these two natures remain unfused? All this is incomprehensible to us. But in Jesus Christ this union became clear. What the human race must achieve through eternity, then in a small form, in the person of Jesus Christ, is completely open, as the Apostle Paul expresses (Col. 2:9), saying that “in Him dwells all the bodily fulfillment of the Divinity.” The union of the infinite with the finite, the eternal with the temporal is the basis of finite being; for just as in creation the verbs of the creative Word were clothed with flesh, so in the incarnation this Word of God itself became flesh, according to John’s expression: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). 2. The essence of Christian redemption is that since beings endowed with freedom brought disorder into the world and themselves could not restore the previous order, God Himself came to do this. Naturally, religion also represents many free beings who, through their atrocities, bring millions of disorders into the world and, meanwhile, themselves do not know how the order they have disrupted is restored. Who is doing this, so to speak, repair in the world? Who is the Restorer? Without a doubt, God, Who is the Judge and at the same time the Restorer. The same thing is expressed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. 3. The essence of gracious action is that God acts in us, but we do not understand how this happens. And natural religion represents the same thing. It is the real union of man with God; Our strength seems to hang on the strength of God. The image of such a relationship between God and man is also incomprehensible to us. So, the foundation of the Sacraments of the Christian religion is assumed in the sacraments of natural religion. Therefore, having abandoned the former, one must also abandon the latter: having destroyed Christianity, one cannot help but destroy through this all religion. Does the science of religion have the same validity as other sciences? Without a doubt it has. Its reliability is not historical, for religion took on the form of history through revelation; Nor is it certainty, either mathematical or logical. It is limited to one ideal contemplation. Can it therefore have reliability equal to other sciences? Maybe. It is known that all human knowledge leads to faith. In fact, a person cannot have direct knowledge, because for this he would have to enter, so to speak, into the interior of the object represented by him; but this is impossible for him. Therefore, historical knowledge is usually based on trust in feelings. But feelings often deceive; This is why there are many false narratives and false judgments in stories. However, we believe our feelings and it would be strange not to believe history. Mathematical confidence is based on the correctness of the forms of space and time: a part is less than the whole, a quantity is equal to itself - these are truths that are very obvious to us, for we believe that our mind, by its structure, can represent things in one way and not another. Logical knowledge is based on the forms of our reason - on trust in these forms. So, all knowledge is based on faith. Without faith, there will be no knowledge. And indeed, there were philosophers who, recognizing the forms of reason as a dream and not accepting external evidence, turned all mathematical, logical and historical knowledge into empty. But these were dreamers; faith is necessary for us. All the knowledge outlined above, which is based on trust in feelings or forms of reason, is reliable. Consequently, the teaching of religion is also reliable, since it is based on faith in the ideas of the mind, which have the nature of necessity. Why are mathematical and other truths more obvious to many than religious truths? Because the truths of religion are based on trust in the mind, which in rare cases is developed, for it tends to develop after all the abilities of the soul. Such underdevelopment of the mind is the reason that many people know the truths of religion only historically, and therefore they believe them less. Otherwise, the reliability of the truths of religion should be on a par with the reliability of other truths, for their basis is the same. In religion there should be even more authenticity. The control of feeling presupposes something higher behind it, by which it is controlled, that is, forms of reason; Logical knowledge would mean nothing without the ideas of the mind, while religious knowledge stands on its own; It is no longer possible to assume anything higher than the mind. The ideas of the mind form the basis of all our knowledge. In this case, all our knowledge can be likened to a building. A building cannot exist without a foundation; but it is hidden in the ground, and for those who live in the upper floors, it is inconspicuous. Thus, every category of understanding is based on the idea of ​​the mind and leads to it. One has only to do the analysis, and the truth will become obvious. Now let's take a brief look at religion from the side from which it embraces the entire human race. In fact, religion is not the property of one person, but of all people in general. For religion, as we said above, has its basis in the nature of the human spirit, and in this respect all people are similar to each other. Religion in relation to the entire human race appears to be a moral Divine Kingdom: this is from the internal side, and from the external side – the Church. This kingdom consists of many beings appointed for the same purposes, governed by the same laws and having the same pattern. This Kingdom of God is necessary and eternal. As long as it is represented in idea, until then it constitutes the rational, invisible Kingdom of God; when this idea is expressed externally, then it turns into the visible Church, which is a society of people united to fulfill all the relationships in which we are placed with God. A visible church is necessary. A person can only be indifferent to it, can be a dead member, but he cannot not belong to it at all. For religion is necessary for one and all. But internal religion cannot remain without external religion. Thus, the Church is not a temporary, accidental invention, but a Divine, eternal one, and those who think of destroying the Church do not understand their work. It is based on human nature, and therefore was everywhere along with religion. Not to mention the educated peoples, in whom churchliness even drowned out religion - the most savage peoples had and still have church meetings, persons, days, places, etc. This natural Church, like the Christian Church, is divided there into two types: Combatant and Triumphant. And philosophy also testifies, as does revelation, that those who want to live virtuously will be persecuted on earth. Consequently, in this life, where virtue needs to fight evil, the natural Church appears to be suffering, and where there is a place for reward, it will be Triumphant. What are the affiliations of the Church? This religious society cannot exist: 1) without known symbols, or a public model of religion, a public presentation of the truths of faith and rules of morality. This model constitutes a moral center, without which this society would be divided and scattered, would lose unity - in which, so to speak, the religions of all indivisible beings converge. As many minds as there would be, there would be as many churches if there were not one common symbol in every religious society. From this follows the following practical consequence: symbols are not something that can be dispensed with, as some people think: without symbols, the same thing would happen in the Church as in philosophy. Philosophy is dominated by disagreement; she is completely scattered among various opinions. Why? Because here there is only an internal model or symbol given to man by God. These are the essence of the main laws or rules of human activity, but there is no external symbol. How should the symbol of the Church be composed? It must contain the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, moral rules, or the law of love for God, neighbor and oneself; in a word, it must contain a pure reduction of faith and morality. Without this, the Church will not achieve its goal. The disadvantages of a symbol may extend to the point that, instead of promoting the purpose of the Church, it will oppose it. Let harmful points enter into it; then it will not be the Church of God that will emerge, but a harmful and disastrous society of evildoers. 2) In addition, the Church needs external rites - sacred ceremonies, without which it also cannot exist. These include: a) sacred assemblies (what kind of society is the members of which never meet?); b) sacred days, which also imply: c) sacred places; d) sacred rites that would have a religious motive and purpose and the meaning of which would also be religious - this is a necessary element of the universal Church, which includes: e) verbal instructions, prayers, readings and singing; f) there should also be some symbolic actions in the Church in which the truths of religion would be emblematically expressed. Their need is based on the fact that many members of the Church need sensory representations of the truths of religion. 3) The third condition, without which the Church cannot exist, is the existence in it of a certain class of clergy. True, one can imagine the church as a completely independent society. This was carried out by the English Independents (a radical religious-political group of Puritans). But in order for order to exist in the church and for everything to proceed lawfully, this cannot be imagined without allowing rulers in it. Therefore, among all peoples, even among wild ones, we find a class of priests. As soon as this condition is accepted, it is necessary to establish the fourth condition - hierarchy. For how can these persons rule the church without known rights and laws? Here is a brief image showing the belongings of the visible natural church. These accessories are necessary in it. Consequently, the opinion of those who want to separate from the Christian religion an appearance based on the appearance of a natural religion is completely unfair. The French made such an attack, and taking advantage of the time of revolution, they managed to destroy the entire church. But what happened? How long did this state of religion last? In the hearts of people, religion and the Church could not be destroyed. Therefore, her visible existence was soon restored. The opinion of the national convention, previously issued against the entire church appearance, was canceled, and Robespierre himself, having emerged from hell, so to speak, said: “France believes in God and in the immortality of the soul.” Here is the appearance; for this is nothing more than a short symbol. Following this, those who had previously rejected the Church began to unite into religious societies, and public worship of Catholics, Protestants and others was again restored. Moreover, even during the time of unbelief there was a society of theophylanthropists. Its goal was to liberate people from the Christian religion and from all the appearances of natural religion and to spread philosophical religion among people. Members of this society took up this with fervor. What came of this? This society appeared like a Christian society: they wrote a short symbol, which at first contained only that they believe in God, try to live virtuously and expect immortality. Then they felt the need for a gospel, for the compilation of which they chose excellent passages from Shuqing (the book of Chinese morality), Alcoran, Cicero, Plato, Seneca; but even here most of it is borrowed from the Old and New Testaments, especially from the conversations of Jesus Christ. In addition, they established holidays and special days of worship. In the reasoning of this institution they showed quite cleverness. They applied all the holidays either to the seasons, or to the ages of human life, or to well-known virtues. So, they had a spring holiday, or a holiday of God the Creator, a holiday of Providence, immortality, a holiday of children, marital fidelity and others. They also had sacred places. Thus, trying to get away from Christianity, they always met with it - they even met with images of leading Christians: for example, those entering their society were given honey and milk. This society lasted about three years. It clearly proved that the external side of religion is as necessary as the internal. Without appearances, religion becomes a matter of controversy. Let us ask: can every religion lead a person to his goal? Not every one. If not every one leads us to the goal, then which one achieves this? None of those that existed and exist in the human race and that owe their origin to the mind. The impartial answer to this in this case is that each of these religions is not only insufficient to restore moral order between people, but also contains a lot of things that spoil people’s morals. History and reason prove this. History shows that both the religion of peoples and the religion of philosophers, before the time of revealed religion, had many harmful errors. These misconceptions are very harmful in religion. Thus, the morality of a person who imagines God as a being who is conveniently appeased by the offering of a ram is far removed from the morality of one who thinks of God as a Being who, to appease His justice, dooms His Only Begotten Son to death (there is an excellent discussion on the importance of religion by a professor at the University of Dorpat, see. "Christian Reading", 1831). Note. One can also say that religion has always suffered and continues to suffer from the opinion that represents it as something boring, which should be resorted to only in moments of repentance. Meanwhile, in fact, it is an activity that imparts strength and life to all our activities. Without it, all ideas of philosophy are empty dreams; it brings to poetry what is lofty and beautiful in it; Astronomical studies are primarily pleasant for a person because they turn him to heaven and put him, so to speak, closer to God. Scientists who have no religion are depriving themselves of their only pleasure. Every science examines a certain part of the works of God and therefore has its own religious side. The opinion of those who say that each science has its own special circle, completely separate from the circle of religion, is unfair. No, all sciences are subordinate to philosophy, and it is directly connected with religion. In practical terms, religion gives man pleasure. A person often stays in society through fear. To free yourself from this fear, there are two ways and methods: suicide and religion. Whoever feels his dependence on God will become above all fear - above despotism, which thousands of martyrs have proven - above the seductions of the flesh and the world, which we see in ascetics. In religious people, the philosophical ideal concept of man is completely realized. A religious person has an unshakable principle within him; he does not require a point on which he could stand and move the world: this point is in himself. People only act better when they act religiously. If we look at the writers, we will see that some of them reflected better in religious moments than at other times. For example, Derzhavin wrote many poems, but his ode to God is superior to others, and, without a doubt, here he elevated his very subject. Cicero, speaking about legislation and religion, rose to extraordinary heights; Plato's conversation about the immortality of the soul is better than all his works. Kant most of all showed his intelligence when he wrote about the unconditional requirement and holiness of the moral law, and so on. II. Religion according to its inner dignity We must now consider whether natural religion in itself is sufficient or insufficient. The solution to the question of the significance of the Christian religion for the human race depends on the solution of this question. For if natural religion is sufficient in itself, then Christian religion becomes superfluous; otherwise, humanity needs a supernatural aid - revelation. The force of the question is: Can natural religion bring men to that goal of perfection to which they are destined, that is, can it lead them to truth, correct their morality, bring them happiness? The impartial answer to this is negative. This is collectively confirmed, firstly, by history and, secondly, by reason. 1. From a historical review of natural religion it is revealed that it has always and everywhere been insufficient, in all ages and among all peoples it has appeared in a bad form. On the speculative side, it lacked many essential religious truths; on the contrary, she was disfigured by many errors and superstitious opinions. On the moral side, she also did not know many virtues, for example, self-sacrifice and patience, which form the basis of true virtue, were unknown to her; on the contrary, many vices were not only tolerated, but even sanctified by the religion of the ancients. To see this, let's look at religion as it appeared, firstly, among educated and uneducated peoples; secondly, what it was like in philosophical schools. 1) Among uneducated peoples, natural religion is always presented in the form of polytheism, the most coarse and sensual. What kind of morality they had with such a speculative doctrine, there is nothing to say about that. But religion is almost equally imperfect among educated peoples, such as the Greeks and Romans. From the speculative side, polytheism among these peoples was in full force. Olympus of Greece was filled with gods and the Greeks were still inventing new gods. The Romans, whose Pantheon and Capitol were filled with gods, added new ones to their number with each conquered region. And both had the most unworthy ideas about these gods. The history of their low or ridiculous origins, the history of shameful passions, vicious lives: this is what constituted their creed! This religion, it must be added, was not formed among them at all. They themselves were educated in the fine sciences and arts, and left religion untouched, or improved only the appearance of worship, without thinking about the essential. From here came a terrible mixture of taste and absurdity. They exhausted all art and knowledge to decorate the gods, and, meanwhile, in reasoning, the concepts of them were in deep ignorance; their churches shone with splendor, and inside them a blockhead or an animal was an object of worship. Such was the mental side of religion among the Greeks and Romans! It’s hard to even believe that peoples who still remain models for us in many respects adored such gods. This was also the moral part of their creed. Morality, in fact, did not relate to religion, which consisted of sacrifices, the performance of rituals, and external worship of God. That God, in fact, is pleased with virtue alone, that He must be worshiped in spirit and in truth: this was unknown to them. Why their teaching did not prescribe almost any duties, their religion did not care about morality: love for God, neighbor, and oneself had no place in it. “Oh gods! Give me honor, happiness, health, and I will give myself virtue,” said one of their scientists. This deficiency is not replaced by any models of morality. They had no one to imitate. For the gods presented examples of vices and atrocities, not virtues. Their biographies are filled with abominations and vices. The adventures of Jupiter, Venus and others cannot but offend good and religious feelings. No, it was not people who had to imitate the gods: it was necessary to force the gods to imitate good and pious people. Such vices of the gods could not but have a harmful effect on morality, even if they seemed to people only small spots in their lives. A weak and vicious heart has always excused its shortcomings by the example of the gods. If such vices occur in the morality of the gods, then in man they can be something holy, or at least excusable. In India, they still demand virgin chastity as a sacrifice to the gods. In Rome and Greece, the gods were famous for their intemperance, deception, and theft; They were known for malice, enmity, pride, that is, the most terrible vices. One poet rightly complains that Olympus is inhabited by creatures worthy of hell. How should a virtuous and prudent person feel when thinking about such a religion? Saint Cyprian, who in paganism was devoted to all kinds of pleasures, being already a Christian, turned his gaze to the state of paganism, was horrified by it and left us a striking description of the pagan religion (in his letter to Donatus). So were other parts of religion, such as hierarchy. The propagation of truth was not the occupation of the priests; they fed only superstition through the performance of sacred rites and enslaved themselves to a timid conscience and freedom of thought for self-interested species. The most important part of their sacred rites was fortune telling. Since the people are most guided by curiosity, they want to penetrate into the future; It was in these fortune-telling that the attention of both the people and the priests was concentrated. And these fortune-telling were nothing more than a skillful means of enriching the priests, or a way to achieve political goals; hence the extensive system of deception was formed. One cannot imagine without surprise how men famous for virtue and wisdom, who decide the fate of the fatherland and peoples in the Senate, do not dare to pronounce a single judgment until they learn from the augurs how a bird will peck the grain! This state of religion produced the saddest spectacles: ridicule of the gods was committed, especially shortly before the Nativity of Christ; superstition degenerated into unbelief, which destroyed every deity; contempt for any religion grew more and more intense. What should humanity then represent morally? The corruption of big cities even now makes a good heart shudder; but it is small compared to before. Examples of cruelty, hatred, descriptions of circuses, scenes of swordfighters, pictures of voluptuousness, and so on fill more than half of Roman history. If there were good people who did not fall into the abyss of corruption, then it would not be religion, but their own feelings that would keep them on the edge of this abyss. Such was the religion of the peoples and such were its fruits! 2) From this we can already see the dignity of philosophical religion. For when the nations were drowning in error and depravity, philosophers did not live on the clouds, but among these very nations. If their wisdom and instructions could not correct the depravity of their compatriots, then this is a clear sign that they were imperfect: the religion of the philosophers is not good because it was not popular. Truly, on the one hand, one cannot help but be surprised by the successes of the mind: it dispelled many obstacles on the path of enlightenment, made many discoveries, and managed, contrary to the spirit of the times, to establish many lofty truths. This does honor to human nature and cannot be diminished, for it is also an honor to God. But natural religion will also serve as an eternal monument to the weaknesses of man: even among the best philosophers it is very imperfect. Let's look at the representatives of philosophy: the Greeks - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; among the Romans - Cicero. And their religion is not such that there is no need to wish for better. From Socrates, as a philosopher of common sense, one should have expected a better religion. But he also accepted polytheism, like all peoples, with the only difference that he more strictly subordinated the gods to one supreme Deity than the priests and the people. He teaches about providence, but extends its effect to the general life of the world and peoples, and not to the private life of each person; teaches morality, but national; Enemies allow you not only to despise, but also to hate. He commands faith in immortality, but even here he shows the weakness of nature; struggles with doubts and perplexities and concludes his teaching: “Either there is a future life, or not; if there is, then it should be desirable for a virtuous person; if not, then again there is no loss for him: she is rewarded with her conscience.” Finally he adds: “You must go to your work, that is, live, and I must drink the cup, that is, die. Only the gods know what is best." They will say that he taught in this way, adapting himself to the concepts and character of the people; but such an assumption has no basis. He showed what religion he professed by sacrificing a rooster to Aesculapius before his death; at the door of eternity he had no reason and could not be a hypocrite. His whole life shows that he was generally alien to hypocrisy: having heard the death sentence for himself, he agreed to die rather than flee, when he could do it and was encouraged to do so by the advice of friends. Thus, if he had spiritually recognized a religion other than the one he taught, then, without a doubt, he would have left the false one at the door of the tomb and would not have decided to seal it with his death. So, the religion of Socrates was a religion without light. Plato, as a philosopher of the mind, did a lot for natural religion with his teaching about the ideal world. Having taken away much from the sensory world, he added much value to spiritual things; Having drawn the attention of his compatriots to the heavenly, he weakened the power of sensuality in them. But his teaching also cannot be a universal teaching of truth for the human race, both from the speculative and moral side. 1) His doctrine of eternity cannot have a place in the system of religion, for it is dualistic (dual). If anyone, then God is most suitable for autocracy. 2) The multitude of gods recognized by him, although subordinate, in religion must also have a harmful influence on morality. With polytheism there can be no unity in religion. 3) The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is also disfigured by his opinion about their transmigration and falling away. His moral system bears the stamp of weakness and delusion; she is infected with fanaticism and daydreaming; her vices are visible from his exemplary society. He banished marriage, allowed child abandonment, and so on. Having banished marriage from his republic, he, of course, had an advantageous goal: he wanted to unite all members of society in the closest union, while family ties bind us exclusively to certain individuals. But the method he proposed for this does not honor his mind. Because, firstly, it is not valid. By destroying family ties, it was possible to extend the love of a citizen only to a close circle of people, for example, living in one city, and not to all members of distant society. Secondly, this method is reprehensible. Wanting to introduce one virtue - mutual social love, he destroyed many others, family ones. Incomparably higher in wisdom is the means by which Jesus Christ set out to unite our neighbors with each other—spiritual kinship. God alone is the Father of all men; therefore, all people are brothers with each other. One Savior, who redeemed us all from the slavery of sin and death with His Blood; therefore, we are all of the same blood, partaking of His Body and Blood. Plato's religion is not worthy of the human race! Still less can the religion of Aristotle be a religion worthy of humanity. This eternity of the world, destroying our hopes, this uncertain doctrine about the fate of souls, this mover, so little separated from the world, this republic with the vices that are visible in Plato’s republic, cannot constitute signs of a good religion; and the scholastic method of presentation and abstract language make it a subject of study only for schools and philosophers, and not for nations. Even if all these systems are combined together, even then it is impossible to extract from them signs worthy of true religion. For the errors of one philosopher are not at all corrected by another; on the contrary, each of them, running away from one extreme, falls into another, more dangerous one. Cicero, who studied and critically reviewed the works of all philosophers, did not compile a true doctrine, and he did not rise above his models. He was convinced of immortality by an inner feeling, which he called augurium saeculorum. That he made this truth an object of feeling may be to his credit, but he took it away from the mind by his skepticism. Thus, representatives of ancient enlightenment could not present to humanity not only a model, but also signs of a true and universal religion; for they themselves did not know them. And what they knew, they didn’t tell the people. They all said that philosophy and wisdom love not the square, but solitude; that the most important truths should not be communicated to the people. This shows that they viewed the truth of religion as something private and not public. Could such philosophers be the mentors of humanity?.. What caused this? Without a doubt, from weakness. The death of Socrates took away their courage, and they refused to preach the truth on the streets. This is where hypocrisy arose in them, the most unworthy of wisdom. It’s strange to hear how Aristotle, in the circle of his students, laughs at polytheism, superstition, prejudices, and then in an Athenian square sacrifices an animal to some god... Is this what the preachers of the truth of Christ did!.. In Pythagoras, some think to point out a worthy preacher of truth, for he educated the inhabitants of Italy with his school. But his intentions were limited to only political types: he wanted to give the Italians a good civil order and make them happy inhabitants. And his religion could not be a model for others. It was a mixture of the highest speculations with the lowest opinions, the highest laws with material blind forces. Such a religion did not deserve to be preached to the world. This is the kind of religion we see in humanity before the birth of Christ! Among the people there are superstitions and immorality; in philosophers there is error on the one hand, and weakness on the other. This state of religion is very well expressed by the scene that St. Paul found in Athens. “As I passed through and examined your churches,” he says (Acts 17:23), “I found a church on which was written: “To an unknown God.” So the ancients adored that God whom they did not know, and did not know that God whom they should have revered. What would happen to humanity next, when the barbarians attacked the southern part of Europe, with such a religion?.. Christianity should have prevailed over the rudeness of the barbarians; it had to melt these mixtures of peoples into new forms. But without this, natural religion would be buried under the ruins of states. Isn’t it natural to conclude after this that natural religion alone is not enough for a person, that the mind needs help from above that would guide it to true happiness? This thought was born of itself among all those who considered the state of humanity. For example, in Socrates, Alcibiades wants God Himself to teach people the truth. In Plato, someone says that true knowledge of God can only come from God. So, this is the true merit of the sages for religion: they admitted that they could not be heralds of truth, and through this they opened the way to heavenly religion. Natural religion acquired just as little after the Nativity of Christ. Suddenly, after His coming, we see that it fell along with philosophy. Porphyry, Iamblichus, Celsus want to support and transform it; the lack of speculative belief is compensated by allegories and sacraments; Instead of pure morality, prayers, hymns, and sacrifices are introduced. But they were unable to hold back what was destined for a complete fall. And even this the mentioned philosophers acquired for natural religion from Christianity. Selfishness and wrong ideas about Christianity alone were the reason that they themselves did not become Christians. However, it must be admitted that they rendered a satisfactory service to natural religion (see Euler's conversation). In the Middle Ages this religion could not make progress. Then the Christian faith also fell into some decline from superstitious ignorance and the rudeness of morals: what could the pagan one expect? Finally, even in modern times, it is not such that it can satisfy all the needs of the mind and heart. No matter how great the service of new philosophers for philosophy, they cannot be teachers of humanity, for not one of their systems can be converted to religion. They have common passages in which certain useful and moral truths are affirmed; but this cannot have the value of any important merit, for their systems have the price of a school; so they themselves admitted it. This is, for example, Fichte's system. Nowhere has the human mind shown such effort as here; but no work of his is so removed from public benefit as this. The same can be said about other philosophers. Often with their wisdom they darken the Christian religion more than they contribute to the good of humanity. From a practical point of view, their teaching is extremely insufficient. Kant rendered only the service for natural religion that he clarified and purified the idea of ​​morality; but this idea has long been known in Christianity: only there the demands of morality are dissolved by compassion: Christianity also allows for extraneous motivations, with which our weak virtue is reinforced; and Kant took away this, so to speak, crutch, this support of human morality, and demanded the purest virtue, without being applied to humanity. What can we say after this about savage peoples who are removed from general enlightenment? And when can they hope to see a perfect religion? They must first cultivate their land, learn to easily satisfy the needs of life, then gradually begin their education and themselves reach true religion; and this will take many centuries. But even then they will not be able to form a true religion for themselves; this is most strikingly proven in the Indian state. If any religion, then, without a doubt, the religion of the Indians should have been perfected and fully formed in such a long time; for its antiquity goes back even to the Babylonian pandemonium. But what do we see in this religion? This is a mixture of the most intense metaphysical contemplations with the most absurd opinions about the worlds of the dead, about gods, dead heroes, and so on. From here - practical conclusions about the transmigration of souls, about the filling and control of all parts of the world with spirits, the deification of parts of nature, or rather, nature in all its forms. Hence the opinion about the dwelling of evil spirits in people of the lower class, hospitals for sick animals, avoidance of any contact with pariahs (a special kind of despicable Indians) to maintain moral purity. Natural religion became such from its very beginning over the course of several centuries. But perhaps this religion became such in some accidental way? Perhaps, with the gradual education of humanity, it will eventually achieve its proper perfection? Maybe the benefits of Revelation are not needed? Before we begin to answer this objection, let us note that religion in the human race did not arise by chance in any way, but was planted by God Himself. From here we will see that religion in the human race must be the subject of a special Providence of God. Indeed: surveying religion, we have already seen that it has always and everywhere been insufficient, imperfect; but at the same time they also saw that it always existed everywhere. The question is: where did it come from? History has refused to answer this question because it is younger than religion. Even the legends do not speak clearly about this, because religion is older than them. However, through many centuries one constant voice passes from some impenetrable depth, that religion was given to man from above. Is this voice fair? Didn't man himself create it? Three most excellent philosophers, who by the mere authority of their names and their mutual agreement can inspire us to trust in themselves, and who thought about this subject without any attachment to religion, three such philosophers: Kant, Fichte and Schelling - unanimously attributed the beginning of religion to God. This is how it should be in the natural order of things. Religion passes from generation to generation according to legend. With the babble of language, the child receives religious concepts from his father, who himself was also taught from another, and so on. Thus, an unbroken chain of learning goes back to the very first person. Who taught him religion? Let us assume that he had good abilities, but if they were only abilities, and if they were not to remain without religion, then for the abilities there had to be some kind of teacher - God Himself, or some kind of spirit, who instilled religious concepts in the abilities. Without this teaching, man would not have had a religion. Some philosophers (for example, Rousseau), who did not want to accept natural religion as Divine, assumed that man was at first in some kind of bestial state, that his abilities were still hidden under the crust of animality and he lived, guided only by natural inclinations, that religion was formed and developed in him much later, with the discovery and formation of his abilities. This view is completely wrong. For if the truths of religion are so sublime and abstract that they can come into the consciousness of a person only with the full development of their powers; then God Himself had to take part in the poor man. The natural need of the mind and heart could not remain unsatisfied, and God could not leave a person appointed to higher goals without religion. God himself had to arrange a religion for him. Thus, there is, strictly speaking, no natural religion in experience. The best thinkers were aware of this; and thinkers like Rousseau paid no attention to the state of things. Moses rightly says that man first talked with God; in this legend the view is truly philosophical! Why is philosophy similar to religion in this case? Because they are based on one idea, and the mind cannot imagine the origin of religion otherwise than that it was implanted in man by God Himself. If religion in the human race is the work of God, then God must preserve it in it and make up for its shortcomings. Being the work of God in the beginning, it must be preserved by God: man himself could not produce it in the beginning; it must also depend on God for its existence, destiny and fulfillment. The human mind in itself is very weak and imperfect; he cannot have any solid knowledge that he cannot doubt, for he can never be completely confident in the correspondence of his ideas with the properties of objects. He cannot go into the thing itself, and he bases all confidence in the truth of his thoughts only on the laws of his activity, that is, on faith in the mind. The foundation is the most shaky, on which the thought can always come: is this really so? Critics said: between the mind and the world lies an impassable abyss, an impenetrable curtain hides the existence of things from us. If this is the property of the human mind, then how necessary is it for a person to be assured of religious truths through some other testimony! How necessary it is for him that some being should pass through this impassable abyss, tear apart for us this impenetrable veil and, seeing everything that is distant from us, tell us that everything we believe is true, everything we hope is immutable, everything we undertake to do is just! How necessary for us is such a being who would be our path, truth and life! (This being is obviously the God-man, Jesus Christ. He sees and knows everything, because he creates everything; he represents a perfect example of activity, for he is the Most Holy Being in the flesh; he serves as an immutable guarantee of the promise, for he participated in the Eternal Council and took upon himself its fulfillment). The lack of such evidence (the God-man) has always made philosophers waver in their speculations, since their reliability has always been based only on ideas and concepts. Plato and Socrates always felt the need to reinforce their truths; they were more confident in them with their hearts than with their minds. How much does the confidence of a Christian commoner exceed in this case the confidence of a philosopher! On the other hand, religion must exist for the whole human race or for many; must exist in appearance and be expressed by the Church. Who will establish the Church? She cannot get along without a public model: who will compose and write it? If you entrust this to the wisest among the nations, will the authority of one person be sufficient to force all nations to follow the model he compiled? In any nation, two classes of people can be distinguished: one class is enlightened, the other is unenlightened. The first will not follow the accepted model, because he is the work of a man similar and equal to him; the second - because he cannot persuade him to do so; for again the sage in his eyes is nothing more than an ordinary person. So, in both cases, more than a person is needed. And if natural religion was firmly founded in the human race, it was only because it was revered as Divine, communicated from above. Otherwise it could not exist for long. The example of the French Theophilanthropic Church undoubtedly convinces us of this truth. She existed only for three years - until then, until the enthusiasm of her defenders and admirers had yet worn off: along with it she disappeared. And very natural! When someone was called to profess this new religion, he asked himself: “Why should I go to this church? – Recognize and profess her teachings? But I myself can compose such a doctrine. So, it’s better to stay at home.” Thus natural religion could not exist at all, or at least would not survive, if it were not based on Revelation: the name of revelation alone saves it from destruction. It is also impossible to think that natural religion would and could rely on an imaginary revelation if there were no true one. A counterfeit coin always presupposes the existence of a true one. Hitherto we have considered religion in relation to people; Now let's look at it itself, regardless. Let us imagine that natural religion in itself is reliable and convincing, that it can of itself establish itself in humanity; the question is: what benefit can she bring to him in his state of corruption? Religion must contain a union between God and man. But the union between God and man is broken by the disobedience of the first man. Man is at enmity with God and the harmful consequences of enmity are visible. Only small minds rejected the fall of man; for thoughtful philosophers it was undeniable. How was this union broken and how can it be restored? Natural religion has always attempted to solve this problem, trying to bring man out of his disastrous state. But her decisions were different, and she did not determine the way to achieve the true goal. Many looked for the sources of evil in matter, others - in the so-called evil principle, a few looked for it where it should, that is, in the human heart. Today's philosophers are just as unsatisfactory about this. One cannot read without regret how Kant strives to reach the beginning of evil: he becomes a sophist and scholastic. He is so tense here that, reading him in this argument, one cannot help but laugh. Ascending to the beginning of evil, he plunges into the abyss; the fall of man is combined with existence. His very being and consciousness is a falling away from God. What is the reason for this? In response to this, he becomes lost in self-awareness. The human mind is also lost when it wants to decide: how will the restoration of man take place? No one doubts that this restoration will take place, but no one knows the image of this restoration. The sensual side presents sacrifices to man, but they are imperfect; The blood of goats, according to the Apostle Paul, does not cleanse anyone from filth. The rational, philosophical side wants to reconcile a person with God through repentance. But does repentance correct a person? Does evil go away on its own? No, many die with a feeling of complete repentance, and despite this, their evil skills remain. And this happens even to the best of people; what can we say about the villains? Let us even assume that through repentance a person can correct himself; but how will he correct the disorder he has caused in nature? We do not see in things the disorder produced and produced by our sins. But our sins act on the sun and beyond, only our damaged gaze does not see this. This is possible and is proven by experience. The physical sun can and does act on us with its rays; Why can’t our thoughts act on him? That thoughts have such a property is evident from magnetic experiments, for those in magnetic sleep cannot tolerate the bad thoughts of people present with them: it causes them pain. Why? Because at that time the soul is in such a close connection with external objects surrounding it, in which it is with its own body, and therefore disturbances in others are as sensitive to it as disturbances in its body. Imagine that millions of spirits act in this way on the system of the world: what will then happen in it? Greatest mess! Who corrects him? Who does not allow a person to create a complete disorder in nature, and nature to pour out its enmity on a person? Without a doubt, God does all this. Thus, is it enough to correct the shortcomings of the faith in God that Kant commands? No, this faith does not solve anything. To solve all such and similar questions, you need to know the world and eternity. In this case, Revelation is the greatest benefit for the human race. So, natural religion is not sufficient in relation to: a) its beginning; b) to continue; c) to reliability; d) to the solution of some important questions, such as: about the origin of the primitive state of man and the world. Natural religion is transmitted from father to children always under the shield of true or false revelation. Let's imagine that she is thin: how can I fix her now? The people, considering it Divine, make it completely inviolable and, fearing the Divine, are afraid to make the slightest change in religion, the source of which, in their opinion, is in God. This was expressed in the religion of the Greeks and Romans. While they were engaged in the arts, they did not engage in religion, for they were afraid to touch it as a Divine Revelation. From here comes the desire for the Divine to come to the rescue and provide proof for faith, impart strength to activity, and give guarantee for hope. From this the pagans concluded that it was fitting for God to teach the rules of religion. This same thing served as the basis for the fact that their religion was always based on revelation, albeit imaginary. After this, can we say that revealed religion is not necessary? Does this lead to the conclusion that religious concepts must be communicated to man in a miraculous way? There are not yet sufficient premises for this. That a person needs help is obvious, but how it should be given is still hidden. The mind will not calm down until it learns that there are no other means except Revelation and that this means is the best. Without a doubt, God could have used other means, but since He used Revelation, Revelation is one of the best means. This ends our general survey of natural religion. So, we have seen: this religion was everywhere and always, more or less diverse everywhere; history cannot show its origin, it is older than it and even the most legends are younger than religion; the mind says that religion is based on the nature of the human spirit and develops with the development of spiritual powers, therefore, as a person is, such is his God. Religion is the union of man with God; there are two parts: God and man; the connection between them constitutes immortality, without which this union cannot exist. Subject of religion: God, peace and spiritual life; it is all directed to the mind, to its ideas, and the lower faculties are only interpreters, often darkening it and conveniently taking anti-religious directions. Since the objects of religion are supersensible, they therefore seem reliable. It exists in an impure and insufficient form both among peoples and among philosophers. Reason cannot give it perfection and strength. This insufficiency of natural religion makes man desire help. But where can he get it? Of course, from above, from heaven, for there is no one on earth to expect it from. The human race even believed that this help had already been given, for all religions existed under the name of revelation. Therefore, Revelation, as a universal and ever-present phenomenon, for that reason alone should attract all our attention. You might be interested in: