Лекция вторая. О человеке

Man is the first subject of study; Even in ancient times they taught: “Know yourself.” Why is the doctrine of man important? Because without knowing yourself you cannot act correctly: you need to know yourself. In addition, through knowledge of oneself one can more conveniently acquire knowledge of God and of creatures. As for God, to know Him it is necessary to know ourselves because all the best features that we attach to God when forming the concept of Him are mostly removed from us. Regarding nature, it can be noted that although we usually come from knowledge of creatures to knowledge of ourselves, the way back in this case is easier: it is much more convenient to move from a small world to a larger one than vice versa. How does the Holy Scripture portray man? It depicts him from all sides, in all states: past, present and future. Describing it in this way, it resolves what is most necessary - what a person could not know on his own. The mind clearly sees only the present state of a person, and the past (where is the person from?) and the future (what will happen to him?) remains dark and mysterious for him. The Holy Scriptures clarify and complete this. It speaks clearly about the origin of man and evil, and our future state. But as everywhere, so here, it speaks to common sense, and therefore does not go into metaphysical and logical details - it says only as much as is necessary for salvation. So, let us collect the features of such a teaching of Holy Scripture and bring them to certain questions. These questions are as follows. 1) Where did man come from in the beginning, and where does he come from now? This question at first seems only curious: rather, it seems, you need to know what a person is now and what he should do? But in fact, this question is very necessary. Looking at the beginning of man (where does he come from?), we see that it is absurd to imagine his origin either from chance, or from an evil principle, etc. 2) What is a person now, in what state is he? Is it the same as it was in the beginning? If not that, then how did he become what he is now? This question is divided into many specific questions. 3) What state did he fall into? 4) Are there any means to get out of this state, and if so, what are they? 5) What will happen to the person? But before we begin to resolve these issues, let’s formulate a concept about the essence of man and his aspects. So, what parts does it consist of? Holy Scripture teaches that man consists of soul and body, and constantly divides him into these two parts, as if integral. It distinguishes between the visible and invisible parts: the first is called body, flesh and dust (in Ecclesiastes), and the second is called soul (nefesh) and spirit (ruach). The body is an essential accessory of a person, for in the future life it will be resurrected and reunited with the soul forever, but not necessary, for the soul can live without it, and indeed lives from the time of the destruction of the body until its resurrection. The other half of the human being, known in the Old Testament under the name ruach, is called in the New Testament: φυχη, πνευμα, νους and others. Do all these names mean the same thing or not? This question has always occupied the minds and was solved in different ways. At all times, there was an opinion that the soul and body constitute the essence of man, but there was also another opinion that man consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit. Both opinions have support in Holy Scripture; and therefore this subject is worth special attention. The positive side of this question is that there are two parts in a person, and the doctrine of two parts is the general teaching of Holy Scripture. The opinion about the three parts was first formed on the basis of the different abilities of the soul among philosophers (Plato), then passed to the Jews, and finally spread to Christianity (1 Thess. 5 and Heb. 4:12). The Fathers of the Church in the 1st century divided the human being into only two parts. Ignatius and Irenaeus found three sides to a person. In the west, Tertullian argued the opposite, Lactantius also asserts the same, and Augustine completed the victory over those who recognized the triplicity of human nature. In the east, the opinion about the three components of the human being remained longer: it is found in Gregory of Nyssa; but then here too it weakened and fell. Let us examine the doctrine of the three components of man. His defenders say that the strongest basis for the opinion about the two parts is found in the Evangelist Matthew (Matthew 10:28). No, this is not the only place where this opinion is affirmed; it rests on the whole of Holy Scripture. Further, this teaching asserts that in the New Testament φυχη and πνευμα are used to designate different parts of the inner side of a person. No, that’s not what the history of their use shows. So, φυχη and πνευμα at first meant the same thing, but then to signify the highest and noblest side of the soul, the one by which it is united with the Divine, they began to use the word πνευμα, and to indicate the lower abilities of the soul, so to speak its earthly side, the word ψυχη. This is clear from 1 Cor. 2and Rom. 8:10, where the soul from the lower side is called spiritual, and from the higher side – spiritual. If so, then could the apostle in the same place say both ψυχη and πνευμα, soul and spirit? I very much could; We very often say in Russian: heart, soul, mind, using these names in the same sense, while they do not mean the same thing; foreigners say the same thing; The ancient Greeks and Romans also did not strictly distinguish between these concepts. The Apostle could express himself in this way especially since he wanted to strengthen his speech, both in the letter to the Thessalonians (Thessalonians) and in the letter to the Hebrews. They also say that the Hebrew ruach and the Greek πνευμα cannot mean souls, but mean another part of man - the spirit, because Angels in the Old Testament are called ruach, and in the New - πνευμα. But the Angels in the Old Testament were called melech, and only later they began to be called ruach. And this again proves that the word ruach previously meant the same as ψυχη. It is impossible to distinguish three parts in a person and on the basis of the different abilities of the soul. For from an examination of these abilities it is clear that they have one basis: in the understanding are the very ideas whose source is in the mind, and the activity of the mind has a need for judgments of the understanding. There is also no need to allow in man a special part that is completely different from the soul, a part that is similar to the soul of animals. It is enough to distinguish man from animals by his soul alone, if we recognize that what is in the soul of animals without development is developed in the soul of man. So, it is better to recognize two parts in a person: soul and body. The two passages of the Apostle Paul, in which the threefold nature of the human being is affirmed, are not at all decisive, for the apostle, as we said, could have used two words to denote one thing to strengthen his speech. The instability of the opinion about the threefold nature of human nature is also evident from the fact that its defenders differ in the definition of soul and spirit. Some by spirit mean reason and imagination - the highest abilities, and by soul - lower abilities: feelings, memory, etc.; others define it this way: the soul is a force endowed with reason and will, and the spirit is an instrument for connecting us with the spiritual world. What is this spirit? This, they say, is the hidden man of whom the Apostle Paul speaks, who may be a partaker of future blessings, and whom the Savior came to save. All this is extremely vague, and what spirit is is not clear from all this. So, we repeat: it is better to accept two parts in a person - soul or spirit and body, especially since Scripture adheres to this everywhere. True, Holy Scripture constantly distinguishes two sides (but not two parts) in the human soul, the higher πνευμα, and the lower ψυχη, and points to the higher side as an instrument of communication with the spiritual world. It constantly depicts man under the influence of the higher world, God, good and evil angels, and represents the higher side of man facing that world. This is a feature that distinguishes the teaching of Scripture from the teaching of philosophy, which represents man as more independent, independent of other beings. The idea of ​​the influence of the higher world on man appeared only among the Neoplatonists, and produced the so-called theurgy. However, it should be noted that whether to accept three or two parts in a person, the difference is not important. It would be important if one of these parts did not participate in damaging the others. But after the soul and spirit and body are sinful, the whole composition is damaged, whether you take two parts or three, it doesn’t matter. Behind the trinity of parts there may also be a trinity of Divine persons; for man is the image of the Divine. This thought led the holy fathers, among other things and our Demetrius of Rostov, to the assumption of three parts in man. But is she strong? Couldn't the trinity of Divine persons be reflected by something else in man? Is there no other special teaching about the essence of man in the Holy Scriptures? The Holy Scripture also ascribes to man, as an essential accessory, the power of miracles, but reason does not know it. In the New Testament, the Savior bequeathed it to believers as an essential accessory. Philosophy only accidentally came to the conclusion that man is a miracle worker, but Scripture clearly says that nature depends on his powers and that he can command it. Now let us turn to the very doctrine of man. Where is the person from? This question has two sides: where did man come from at the very beginning, where did the human race come from, and where do human souls come from now? This question has always occupied man and is nowhere so well resolved as in Scripture. The ancient world gave different answers to this question. Others said that man was created by God (Chinese, Indians); but this opinion is taken from Moses, or from tradition. Those who themselves investigated the beginning of man said that people originated either from the earth, like mushrooms, or from water, or from fish, and so on. In recent times, efforts have been made to resolve this issue, but they were unsuccessful. It was assumed that the earth was previously in such a state as a mother’s womb, and that therefore the human race could be born from it by itself. But this is nothing more than a comparison that little expresses the essence of the matter. The Holy Scriptures teach about the origin of man in detail in the book of Genesis (Gen. 1:26–27). The main idea here is that God created man in His image and likeness so that he would possess the whole earth. This brief description, contained in the first chapter, is presented in more detail in the second: “God takes dust from the earth and from it creates a body, then breathes a soul into it.” Consequently, the body was without a soul for some time, and this very clearly refutes the opinion that the soul is a consequence of the combination of the organs of the body, or that it is the color of the body. From the fact that God inhales the soul, one can see the origin of the soul: if a person breathes, then the breath comes from him; in the same way, if God is represented as breathing in the soul, then the soul must come from God. And thus... “man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7), that is, he became a living and active being. After this, God plants “paradise in Eden, in the east” (Gen. 2:8), (hence, paradise was planted especially for man, and man was created outside of paradise), introduces man there and grows, in addition to other trees beautiful and necessary for food, two more trees - the tree of life and the tree of the understanding of good and evil. Moses goes on to describe the four rivers that surrounded paradise, and refers to the commandment and commandment given to Adam; for this reason, God seems to disapprove of man in the form in which he was created by Him, and begins to create a wife; but this is preceded by the naming of animals. After this, Adam comes into some special state of sleep, and at this time God creates a wife for him from his rib. Why from a rib? In addition to moral reasons, one can also imagine physical reasons for this, namely the fact that God had already created man, extracted, so to speak, the race of people from two worlds - the body from the visible, and the soul from the invisible; Why make a new extract for the creation of the same person, only in a different form? The rib or bone here is not something simple; it must mean the whole half of the being separated from Adam during sleep. How this happened, Moses does not say, and this is a mystery; What is clear is that first a common organism had to be formed, which then divided into two types - husband and wife. After the creation of the wife, Adam awakens, recognizes her origin, and God pronounces the blessing of marriage upon them. This is the essence of the picture! Is it a story or a picture of a thought? Varro, Milton and the ancient poets in general have similar pictures, and with them in mind, some doubt the authenticity of the legend of Moses. But these doubts are not grounded: Moses’ account of the creation of the first people is true history. What the entire book vouches for: firstly, it cannot be that an allegorical beginning was introduced in a historical book; secondly, the simplicity and detail of the story: it does not serve as an allegory to imagine man created outside of paradise and to describe in such detail the geographical position of rivers; thirdly, this is confirmed by the fact that all peoples have traces of a similar story about the origin of man. What is the basis of this story? Maybe a story written by one person? But in that case, could it have spread like that? Is it possible to believe that it was invented by some of Adam’s closest descendants? But to assume such a deliberate composition in ancient times would be too much: antiquity had never known anything like this. Thus, the source of the story about the origin of man flows from the deepest antiquity and makes us think about the truth of the Mosaic legend. Finally, fourthly, the reliability of the Mosaic legend about the creation of man is confirmed by the fact that it is imperative to assume the cause of creation. Previously, they assumed the existence of the world from eternity, but now this dream has passed. So, we need to ask: how did man come into being? Is it wonderful or natural? It is obviously wonderful, just as Moses describes. It is necessary to assume, as Moses says, that the body is formed from earth, for it turns into earth, and that the spirit has a higher origin, for it is immortal, but in this world everything is perishable, mortal. After this, particular features found in the history of Moses may or may not exist; they are random. So, having eliminated Moses, we will of necessity come to him if we take the path of common sense. They say that Moses asked himself a philosophical question about the origin of man and solved it in his own way. But this objection is very weak. The existence of fiction does not destroy the existence of history. For the historical property of the story of Moses, in addition to the many reasons we have calculated, all of Christianity vouches for it, for it restores what man had in the state described by Moses. Those who do not accept Revelation also object that Moses could not have known what he wrote. But besides the fact that the Holy Spirit himself could have inspired a lot of things in Moses (and inspiration is confirmed by many very important testimonies), he could have known this from tradition, which after six or seven generations, in all its integrity, could have passed from Adam to Moses. Adam, of course, knew about his wife’s origins, and therefore could pass this on to his descendants; As for the origin of himself, he could have known this either from God or from the Angels, for it must certainly be assumed that man in the first minutes of his existence, living alone in a completely new world for him, was guided by God or the Angels. In addition, in confirmation of the truth of Moses’ narrative, it must be said that all the writers of the New Testament refer to him as a true historian. How does Moses describe the perfection of the first men? This description sounds more like a passage in which there are strong points, but few of them. The New Testament writers are not included in the study of human origins. They look at his present state and future, but do not delve into the past: they rarely look back, and if they do, they always stop at the legend of Moses. However, they have very few such places. Thus, there are few direct sources from which information about the primitive state of man can be gleaned. But in this case there are methods that are not direct. The first method is the doctrine of the state of a reborn man in Christianity: from the properties of this man one can draw a conclusion about the properties of primitive man. The second method is the doctrine of the future state of man, which will be either the same state in which innocent people were, or at least similar to it. Using these methods, three opinions about the primitive state of man were formed. Two of them go to extremes. One poetic-philosophical one, which represents the primitive state as very wonderful, full of light, according to this opinion, man is the visible God of all creation. Legends of this kind are found in Bem’s “Divine Philosophy” and in other works. Another opinion, opposite to this, is the opinion of non-believers, who say that stories about the primitive state of man are dreams, that the first man should be thought of as a rude, wild man, for the further we extend into antiquity, the worse we find the condition of people both in relation to enlightenment and in relation to citizenship, and the first man should therefore approach animals. The third opinion is the middle one, adhering to the narrative of Moses. It represents the state of man as incomparably better than the present, both in internal and external life, without, however, making him God, as is the first opinion. Let us listen to Moses as he represents the human mind. Does he represent him cum sapentia innata, as some think, does he say that man had great knowledge in a primitive state? He doesn’t directly talk about this and doesn’t call the person perfect. After naming the animals, God approved of Adam, but did not call him wise. Therefore, in order to form an idea about the mind of the first man, one must go by inference. So, from what traits does Moses present one can judge the intelligence of the first man? The first feature is the names given to the animals. Adam did not undertake to give these names himself, but God forced him to name the animals. Why didn’t God Himself name them? Without a doubt, in order to provide Adam with an opportunity to exercise his mind, his cognitive powers. In addition, through the naming of names, animals seemed to come into subordination to man: in ancient times, naming a name meant the dependence of the named on the naming. From the naming of animals made by Adam, it is clear, firstly, that Adam had great strength of mind, for God would not have given such a high commission to a weak-minded person; moreover, if all the names given by Adam were approved by God, it means that Adam had enough rational and cognitive power; secondly, it is clear that his mental strength needed development and that he received a lot of perfection from this exercise. That naming was necessary for experience is evident from the fact that God brought the animals to Adam “to see what I would name” (Gen. 2:19). This exactly represents a mentor who wants to test his student. Adam's successful naming of animals is in itself very important, for through his survey of the entire animal kingdom he learned a great deal. In addition, through this not only Adam’s mind could be perfected, but also his word. If he named all the animals, it means that his language was quite perfect, and accordingly his mind was also to a large extent perfect, for the perfection of the word follows the perfection of the mind: Many languages ​​are still insufficient to name all animals; we, for example, often use Greek names in this case. It follows from this that the mind of the first man had very good information about the animal kingdom. Imagine a person who would give appropriate names to all the animals brought to him: what would you think of his intelligence? Wouldn't you say that he is very perfect? So, the naming of animals made by Adam shows that his mind had significant power, that his word was very extensive, therefore, that his mind was perfect to a significant extent - he knew the animal kingdom. And since this kingdom cannot be known without knowing the other kingdoms of nature, especially the plant kingdom, it means that he knew all of nature quite well. But mystics exaggerate this feature, suggesting that, firstly, Adam, as soon as he looked at any animal, immediately gave it a name; and that, secondly, these names completely expressed the properties of things, their essence. Against them, it must be said that God could have approved names without this, for the naming of a name is done so that one thing can be distinguished from another, and this is possible even without knowledge of the essence of the thing. At least it is known that the foundations of the mystics are very shaky, and that Moses does not show that the naming of names happened suddenly; while in the very nature of man lies the basis that this should have happened gradually. The second feature is finding out the origin of the wife and giving her a name. But, on the one hand, this can show Adam’s greatest wisdom, but on the other, none. If we assume that Adam recognized this by his mind, then we must assume that his mind was extraordinary. But couldn't Adam have learned about this from another source? Being in a frenzy incomprehensible to us, he could have a dream in which he could feel everything that was happening to him and above him. In this case, there will no longer be any wisdom in knowing the origin of his wife. What seems more likely? The last thing, that is, that Adam learned about the origin of his wife from the passion and dark sympathy that occurred in him during the action itself. There are no more such features. But there are opposite traits, from which one can see the weakness of the mind of the first people. The first is the desire for equality with God. A developed mind imagines the honor of God as unattainable and, therefore, will not encroach on it. But the first people believed the absurd idea of ​​the devil; and this represents the mental side of them as weak. But they will say: Adam wanted to be equal to God only in knowledge, he wanted to have knowledge similar to God’s: “and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5), and did not want to be equal to God in everything. So be it; but what then would the second feature mean—the idea that God can be envious? The devil tells the first people that God forbade them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because they would not receive knowledge equal to His knowledge: “For God knows that if in the same day you take away from him, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like a god, knowing good and evil,” that is, he forbade it out of envy. How much intelligence does it take to imagine that God cannot be envious? Which of us would believe this? So doesn't this show weakness in the minds of the first people? Here, no matter how you explain it, it is impossible not to notice some kind of gullibility in the minds of the first people: they did not believe God, but believed the serpent!.. If we assume that they considered God’s commandment to be temporary, then some weakness of their mind will still be visible. Thus, in the tale of Moses there are features that show the great strength of mind in the first people, but there are also features of their feeble-mindedness. Some were afraid to admit the latter features, but in vain: Adam was, so to speak, a spiritual baby, and therefore not all sides were developed in him; Especially the side with which he came into contact with evil was very little developed. For all that, he could have the greatest mental strength. And now there are people who combine with infantile gullibility and simplicity a very great mind; history presents us with many such experiences. For example, they say about the thoughtful Bonnet that he was simpler than a child; the same is said about Franklin. Many saints are called simple, and one is called most simple, no doubt, from his childish simplicity: but there is no doubt that these simple people were together very thorough and intelligent. That is why one father of the Church, it seems Augustine, calls the first people the children of God (puerili Dei). Providence has arranged for a person to gradually acquire information: suddenly it is impossible to give him wisdom and experience; it was only possible to make sure that he would quickly acquire one and the other, and this, without a doubt, was done. So, according to the teachings of Moses, the first people had a mind that was very good on the theoretical side, but inexperienced on the practical side. How does the first man appear in Moses from the moral side - is he with solid virtue (sit firma virtute), as theosophists think? No! It is only clear that he had no sin, but whether he had virtue is not clear: a good direction is visible, but this direction could change into evil. And from the moral side, the inexperience of the first people is also visible. For example, what is Eve tempted by? The beauty of the apple, its taste... This shows that sensual things, even not very attractive ones, like apples, could occupy our first parents more than the law of God, which was abandoned by them. And history also provides examples of this. We see many people who, with great kindness of heart, combine some quirks, strange inclinations and habits. So, the first people, in a state of innocence, were, according to the legend of Moses, with a developed mind, but without experience; with a good heart, but not established in goodness. There are no more detailed instructions anywhere else in Scripture; other writers in a few places repeat only what Moses said. One can also judge the primitive state of man by the state of regenerated people. It is accepted as an axiom that everything was in a primitive state and is in a state of rebirth. Theologians often took it as an axiom: quidquid regeneratur, id in homine integro fyit. But this axiom is incorrect; it requires many restrictions. The primitive state was initial upbringing, and the current one is also upbringing, but further, more perfect: there the mind and will were just beginning to develop, but here they are already quite developed. Consequently, those who are reborn have more prudence and experience. Of course, the first people could have had more perfections than now - regenerated people - if their primitive state had continued: but due to the brevity of this state, they did not have what truly wise and pious men have now. In the primitive state, if everything that Christ acquired for us existed, it was not in reality, but only in possibility. Put the New Testament righteous in the place of Adam when he was tempted. For most of them this test will seem small, for what temptations did they overcome? Much bigger and stronger. So, a little can be learned about the first man from the state of man regenerated. But even less can one learn about it from the doctrine of the future state of people: it is more perfect than the state of rebirth, and this, in all likelihood, is more perfect than the primitive state. Moses characterizes all the perfections of the first people with one trait, concluding them in the image of God. What is it? This shows that man is like God, but in what way and how is not visible. Without a doubt, he could not have those perfections that belong to God as an absolute Being. True, from one place in which it is said that Adam gave birth to a son in his own form and in his image, it seems as if one can conclude that whatever similarity there was between Adam and his son, the same should have been between him and God. But the basis for such a conclusion is very shaky and incorrect. Opinions about the image of God are different: some extend it to the soul and body, while others limit it to one spirit or soul (see Notes on the Book of Genesis by Metropolitan Philaret). But the opinion of the former is more just: the whole man was the image of God, and not just one part of him - the soul. But how could the image of an incorporeal Being be reflected in the body? The same as in spirit. This seems strange to us because we imagine the body to be too gross. But what is it in itself—is it different from spirit or not? – we don’t know. Well, if in its essence it is identical with the spirit? In this case, all temptation disappears. One can believe that it is so, for it is much better to imagine a person’s being as consisting of one something, and not of two dissimilar ones. Recently a thought appeared regarding the image of God in man, which has both a dark side and a clear one. They say that Moses wrote in simple, common language. But since in ancient times they represented God under human guise, and therefore described Him as walking, flying on the wings of the winds, and so on, then the expression: man was created in the image and likeness of God means only that man was created as he is: accepting this image of explanation, it will still be said: that man was created in the image of God, and that he was created in his own image; the words will only be different, but the thought will be the same. We have seen the condition of primitive man. It is different from the subsequent state. Man walked at that time with God Himself; With such leadership, he would have accomplished a lot soon and a lot. What was a person like then from the outside? Moses represents Adam as immortal in body. “If you eat it one day, you will die by death” (Gen. 2:17): therefore, if you had not eaten, you would not have died—there would be no death. What kind of death is meant here? Adam and Eve did not die that day when they ate from the fruit of the forbidden fruit. What kind of death is there? Shouldn’t this be given such a meaning; if you eat, you will sooner die; if you do not taste, you will live longer, although with will you die over time? This explanation is very elegant: from the words of God it is clear that death would not have happened if there had been no sin. Among the punishments, God also considers this: “you are earth, and you are returned to earth” (Gen. 3:19), therefore, if a person had not eaten from the forbidden tree, then although he was from the earth, he would not have returned to the earth. In addition, we have clear evidence from the Apostle Paul that death is from sin (Rom. 5:12). So, immortality also belonged to our body. They doubt how the body could be immortal. All physiologists say that the body had a need for maintenance, for labor, and that its material composition could not be eternal. A look at the current state of our body leads to this. But whether our body is similar to Adam’s is unknown. It must think that it is different from him. We now see phenomena in the human body, by which we can judge that it may be in a completely different relationship than it is to the physical world, to its elements. We know that cold and heat have the most important influence on it: both health and illness depend on it, for all illnesses have the properties of either heat or cold. Take the body out of the influence of the elements and give it action on the elements: then the opposite will happen. And that the body can be removed from the influence of the elements is proven by phenomena. Recently one of these phenomena occurred in Germany. A wild man was found in it, who, for some unknown reason, was kept prisoner by a barbarian until he was sixteen years old, then thrown ashore and left here, it seems, near Nuremberg. Those who found him put him under supervision, observed him and noticed that he was in a different relationship to the forces of nature than we are. When lightning flashed, his eyes threw sparks; when the moon appeared, he could not stand it: it pressed on his chest; when he touched a jar of mercury with his hand, convulsions occurred in his hand, but meanwhile he was healthy; and other similar phenomena happened to him. Итак, вот в какое отношение к природе может стать человек, спустя шесть тысяч лет после Адама! What can we say now about the body of the first people? Эти опыты показывают, что настоящее состояние не есть состояние естественное, и что оно, ниспадая постепенно, теперь слишком уже подчинилось влиянию стихий. It can be said without exaggeration that immortality belonged to the body of the first people. It depended on the fruit of the tree of life. And now herbs drive away disease and delay death, but then it could have been distant forever. Recently, doctors and chemists have been searching for a universal cure. This universal medicine was the tree of life. But if people were immortal, what would happen to them? This particular question turns into a general one: what would have happened to people if Adam had not sinned? It is obvious that everything would be different than it is now: with the fall of man, the forces of nature fell, therefore, now changes in nature are consistent with changes in man. But exactly what would have happened if man had not fallen, what state it would have been, we cannot answer this satisfactorily. We only know that this state was temporary, and that it had to end. Let us turn to the second question: in what relation was man in an innocent state to visible nature? He was made its ruler. This dominion consisted in the possession of land; but is it like it is now? Moses does not explain this. So, the concept of this possession is not formed directly. It is derived, firstly, from the naming of animals, which shows that man was then in greater power. How much work it costs zoologists now, and what dangers they expose their lives to in order to know the animal kingdom! This means that in a fallen state, man has less power over nature. But was the power of the first man so great that fire could not burn him, water could not drown him, the law of gravity could not act on him, poisonous grass could not harm him, as theosophists and mystics claim? No! This opinion has no basis. However, one must imagine the union of the first man with creation as a closer union than what it is now; Otherwise, it is impossible to explain the fall of creation as occurring from the fall of man. The remnants of Adam's primeval greatness are still visible in some people, for example, in ascetics who brought the wildest and most ferocious animals into submission with one glance. There were two trees in paradise, one was the tree of life, and the other was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life was the tree of health, healing. Moses does not say this directly, but this can be deduced from the fact that the Angel was appointed to guard the tree so that Adam would not eat its fruit and live. This means that it could impart life and - which is very remarkable - even to sinners, despite the fact that sins cause illness and death. Is it likely that this tree had such power? Do we have anything like this now? We have it, but on the opposite side: some trees suddenly kill with their shadow; the same is the effect of poisons and so on. But the same healing power is no longer found in trees. However, if now there are deadly trees, then there certainly should have been life-bearing ones. It is remarkable that the soul of man was subordinate to God and the law, and the body depended on the tree. Is this addiction natural? Obviously not! The law of nature requires that the lower ones depend on the higher ones, that a person preserves the trees, and not his tree. From this it is clear that the then, as well as the present, state of man was temporary: Adam was made dependent on the tree for testing, and over time this order would change. Another tree of the knowledge of good and evil is so named because of its action. The Jews had an opinion, and from them it passed to Christians, that this tree communicated intelligence; but it's unfair. Is it possible to explain this idea in such a way that the fruits of this tree had a strong effect on the nerves, and hence on the mind, just as today some substances greatly inflame the imagination, and a person comes into a state of delight from this? But the fact is that in this case a person does not gain intelligence. Does Moses have a hint about the destructive power of this tree? There is no clear hint. God threatens death after eating from the tree; But where death will come from - Moses does not talk about this, and therefore you can think in two ways: either you will die from the fruit of the tree, or I will punish you for disobedience. But the first is more likely, because it is indecent to produce death from God; and in a tree such murderous power is possible. This is confirmed by real experiments. But the thought may arise: why is this tree not removed? Partly it was necessary, because all nature consists of opposites, and they are necessary, just as opposite tones are necessary in music. Therefore, just as in the tree of life the power of good was brought to the possible degree of perfection, so in the tree of knowledge - the power of evil. Moreover, this was perfection only in relation to man, and not to the whole nature; and in relation to man it was a temporary imperfection. So, in Moses the primitive state of man appears to be spiritual infancy. But there is reason to imagine this state and the relationship of the first man to visible nature as higher than the present one. Nature could not have fallen as a result of human fall if its relationship to man had been the same as it is now, if it had been just as disconnected from man. One must imagine that man, not in a poetic, but in a historical sense, possessed everything; for God Himself guided him; the lower kingdoms were brought under his rule, and the elements submitted to him, although Moses does not clearly speak about such a close union of man with nature. That the state of the first people in Moses seems to be a state of childhood may seem strange if we mean here perfect childhood. But the childhood of the first people was spiritual, in many respects superior to our coming of age. Their mental side was not developed, but it was not damaged; they had a different relationship to nature than we do, were not subject to the influence of the elements and were immortal. Nowadays, the natural view of the primitive state has become stronger, according to which the first people are represented only as innocent, but in other respects completely as we are now. This view is incorrect. Current experiences force us to judge differently. The detailed description of the savage, whom we have already mentioned, made by his teacher, shows that man can now have a different relationship with nature. That savage, just because he was imprisoned in a dark room until he was sixteen, received such a device that lightning pierced his eyes, the moon pressed on his chest, etc., that everything seemed to him animate and alive (he talked to tables and chairs), that he looked at everything with a naive look. Meanwhile, he came from parents the same as all people. What can we say about the first man? The fact that he was in a completely different relationship to visible nature than we are now: the whole earth was his spacious organism. That a person can come into the closest connection with visible nature is evident in some diseases, for example, sleepwalking. Such a huge body of the world as the moon has some kind of close connection with one famous person. In addition, there are periodic diseases that recur at certain times of the year: no doubt this comes from the influence of the planets and makes clear to the mind the possibility of a relationship between man and nature that is completely different from what it is now. Moses describes in detail the location of the first people. Two of the rivers of paradise, the Tigris and Euphrates, are still known. By Pison we should mean the present Arake, for it flows from one ridge of mountains - from the same one from which the Tigris and Euphrates flow, that is, from the Army Mountains, and flows into the Caspian Sea, which in ancient times was called the Khvalyn Sea; and the coastal country - Kheviloy or Khviloy - a name very similar to the name of the country of Evilat, in which Moses puts this river. Geon should receive the Ama River, which the natives now call Higon, but in ancient times it was called Oxus and formed the border of the ancient Roman world: it flows into the Aral Sea. Thus, the first people lived in Central Asia. Their locations cannot be determined with geographic accuracy. The flood not only destroyed the trees, which were an essential part of paradise, but even changed the course of the rivers; and therefore we cannot find the fourth river of paradise, which would completely correspond to that described by Moses: the current Higon does not flow from where the first three rivers flow, but has a completely opposite course. Our guess may seem too bold; but we have geological evidence that changes of this kind are very possible. For example, geologists found that the Caspian Sea was formerly connected to the Black Sea and that the southern part between the Black and Caspian Seas was occupied by water; but then, when water cut through the Strait of Constantinople, which had not existed before, the dried up highlands of the Caucasus separated these two seas, and a significant part of them turned into mainland land. Therefore, it is very likely that in Central Asia the first elevation of the earth was located where the Tibetan mountains are now, which are higher than the American mountains, considered the highest in the world - that, starting from this elevation, the land was gradually drained and populated - that the first people appeared on the ledges of this elevation, on the plain of the Army Mountains, and that from here the human race soon spread to the left - to China, to the south - to India and to the right - to Syria and Egypt; for these countries have been inhabited since ancient times, and other parts of the world were occupied by people much later. One can also ask regarding the primitive state of man: was one man created or several? According to Moses, there is one, only in two forms - Adam and Eve. But the latest physiologists, based on some observations, of course superficial, claim that there were several Adams: four, seven, nine and more. The basis for this position is the different complexions of different peoples; for example, Europeans are white, Africans are black, Americans are copper-colored. But this difference can be explained without accepting many ancestors. This depends, no doubt, on the difference of climates: the heat of Africa produces black negroes; the humid-hot climate of America leaves a copper color on the faces of its inhabitants, and the temperate climate of Europe and most of Asia leaves a white color on the faces of the inhabitants of these countries. It is objected to that it is not the rays of the sun alone that make such a difference in people, for the very color of their skin is also different; Moreover, they claim that a Negro will be black everywhere, and a European will be white. For example, on the Cape of Good Hope there is a whole colony of Europeans, and they are white. This is true, but nothing follows from here either; for these experiments are still short-lived. If people do not change their color for a hundred or two hundred years; then this cannot yet prove that they will never change it. Thus, the difference in color in people, explained by the influence of climate, cannot refute the unity of their origin. They also say that people differ in the structure of their heads: the profile of the head of the Mongols is very different from the profile of Europeans. The same difference is visible among other peoples. But since this difference is allowed by physiologists even between people of the same, in their opinion, origin: why not allow it among all peoples, although they all come from the same root? So, the basis for the assumptions of many ancestors is not strong. On the other hand, the following considerations force us to believe in the unity of origin of all people: firstly, one couple is quite sufficient for the spread of the human race and the population of the earth; therefore, God, who does not use unnecessary means, created only one of her; secondly, the Mosaic legend, traces of which are visible in all human traditions, is history, and therefore there is no reason to deviate from it; thirdly, the resettlement of people in different directions and from one person is very possible; formerly doubted about the population of America; but now traces of how people moved there have also been discovered; finally, fourthly, the soul, in its abilities and laws, and the body, in its composition, are similar in all people. What was the occupation of the first man? His condition was one of education and testing. The test was not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Was such experience necessary? Wouldn't it be better to let human forces develop naturally? Adam could have sinned without it; he could have sinned in his thoughts, he could have thought: “Why am I not made ruler over the whole world? Why do I rule only the earth, and have no right over the sun? And so on. If so, then why did God not limit the testing of man to one natural law, inscribed in his mind and will, but prescribed a positive commandment for him? This question is worth solving. At first glance, such a test through a tree seems like an infant's game; but taking into account the fact that this is prescribed for a fairly perfect person, and is prescribed by God Himself, one cannot help but recognize this matter as very important. This external experience was needed for a person and it was needed in this form. This is, firstly, “because the positive law reveals to man a mode of action based on the unconditional submission of his will to the will of God; and this obedience invests a limited will with the power of an unlimited will,” that is, this law was needed so that a person could through it testify to God greater obedience. If a person followed only the internal law, then he would obey only his mind, that is, himself; meanwhile, obeying an external commandment, for which he does not find any basis in his mind, he obeys God alone. Thus, this opened up the opportunity for a person to make a sacrifice of self-sacrifice; and if he had brought it, then for all eternity his will would have submitted to the will of God, and thus, being itself limited, would have been clothed with unlimited willpower. As soon as the ideal, in school language, were united with the real, then our will would become divine and would bring into action what God would desire through us. And in general, pride is always a source of weakness, and self-sacrifice is a source of strength. All examples of heroism, both in spiritual and secular people, were shown in moments of self-sacrifice, and not petty pride. Secondly, “because this law tests and prepares the lower powers of man for elevation.” If there were no external temptation, then only the spirit would be tested by thoughts and desires; Meanwhile, in this way the eye, the sense of smell, and all the senses are tested and therefore purified. Finally, thirdly, “God foresaw the temptation from the devil that would follow, and therefore used an object in which it was easy to resist” (see Notes on the book of Genesis, p. 67). How do people in particular originate? Where do human souls come from now? There are three opinions about this: first, that souls were created before the body, or together with the soul of Adam, or even earlier. So thought not only Origen, to whom this opinion is attributed, but many philosophers (Plato) and all theosophists and mystics, in general, all those who exalted the primitive state of man too much, arguing that the narrative of Moses is a story or story not about the original state of man, but about the secondary, or tertiary. Those who accept the other side of this opinion, that all souls were created together with the soul of Adam, argue that they are in some special place, as if in the womb of souls. Some assigned this place to the sky, others to the air, and so on, each according to his own imagination. Another opinion is that the soul is directly produced, or created by God when it is needed; and this need is determined by the readiness of the body, but the readiness of the body was represented differently: some thought that the body was ready to receive a soul after several months (six) from conception; others assigned this readiness at birth itself. This shows that physiologists cannot determine the moment of such readiness of the body. This opinion was held by many Church Fathers, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Jerome, and in general, those who did not hold the first opinion held this one, for these opinions seem to be opposite, although there is no opposition between them; it would be the opposite if one opinion produced the soul from one world, and another from another, but they produce it from one. The third opinion is that souls are received by children from parents, just like bodies. Tertullian, Augustine and others held this opinion. The pre-existence of souls (preexistentia) is condemned by all Christians, and creation (creatianismus) and transition (traducianismus) are accepted indifferently. Among the pagans, the first opinion was especially respected, the third was also respected, and the second is almost exclusively respected by Christians. Why such a difference in opinions? Because this very subject is a mystery, inaccessible to our understanding. Which of these opinions, however, is better? They all have their advantages and disadvantages, their advantages and disadvantages. Let's discuss each of them in particular. 1. The pre-existence of souls is contrary to original sin. But it can be assumed that either all souls fell together, that is, they received an inclination towards evil, or that each soul receives this inclination from the body, upon union with it; and thus the soul either comes into the body already spoiled, or is spoiled by it. They also object: if the soul pre-existed, then we would remember something from our previous state. But experiments show that we can completely forget known states, for example, states of known diseases and the like; Is it only possible to say to this that we are now forgetting, so to speak, only parts of a known state, and not the whole state, which is the state of pre-existence. However, one can say against this that it is still impossible to affirm the loss of consciousness of such states. The soul, perhaps, is aware of this state, but with an internal consciousness that is not revealed at all, and therefore imperceptible to us. Defenders of pre-existence say that everything in the soul now is recollection, that when we acquire knowledge, we do nothing more than wipe off what has been worn out. But all these views are too fragile. We do not see or feel the need for pre-existence; so why take it? Experience says nothing and does not even hint at this state; The mind has no idea about this either. One can, of course, come up with something in favor of this opinion; but all this will not have any decisive significance. For example, the defenders of this opinion say that it is fitting for the soul, destined for eternity, to have a beginning that is older than the beginning of the body. But if we continue this thought, it turns out that it is fitting for the soul to be beginningless. They also say that without assuming such a state, it will be impossible to explain our present state. But this would be so only if there were no primitive state, from which all the contradictions, all the mysteries of the present state are explained. To weaken this opinion, we can finally say that its origin is not philosophical. It appeared in China, India, Persia, and came to philosophers later. These transformations of worlds, these ancient cosmogonies, these all the absurd modifications of this opinion, like it itself, do not have any philosophical support. 2. Against the second opinion it is said that there is no need to suppose a new creation. God again does not create anything: this, they say, is an axiom. But this axiom is incorrect; it was compiled by poor students who dreamed so much about themselves that they decided to put a limit to the omnipotence of God. It was strengthened first by Leibniz, and then by Wolf. This is a consequence of a limited view of God and the world, in the essence of which lies a godless thought. There may be objections to this opinion, but they are petty and scholastic, and therefore the fathers of the Church almost all came to this thought, that is, to the thought of a new creation of souls. However, this opinion also has its disadvantages. Against it, as well as against the first opinion, they say: how are souls created innocent, and yet participate in the damage of a person? Participate, you can respond, through the body; but again it is contrary to the justice of God to introduce an innocent soul into a guilty body. The Fathers of the Church and those who hold this opinion see this disadvantage, but eliminate it in different ways. They say, firstly, that souls enter an upset body and become upset themselves, and this does not seem to be contrary to the justice of God. In addition, God knows (defenders claim) that these souls are no better than Adam’s soul, chosen, one might say, by Himself from all human souls, and He foresees that they too will certainly fall; therefore, he does not put them in a state of testing, but directly puts them in the state into which they would go if they failed to pass the test. This way the disadvantages of this opinion are eliminated, and therefore it is accepted by many. 3. A third opinion also has advantages and disadvantages. It admits that the spiritual being comes from parents - that the soul comes from the same matter from which the body. Here, it seems, the spirituality of the soul suffers - this is the first disadvantage. The second disadvantage: such an image of the origin of souls is contrary to the image of the origin of the soul of the first man: there the soul originated from God. If the soul should not come from God, then it seems more appropriate for it to come from something equal to it, and not from its lower self, which is matter. But these disadvantages are only visible, not significant. For does the spirituality of the soul suffer in this case, if we judge strictly? The fear of this comes from the opposition that experience represents, and which philosophers sharply expose in their speculations, between the material and the spiritual, between the body and the soul. But is this contrast really so great? Not at all! True, experience represents this opposition, but it also represents its opposite - the closest affinity of the spirit with the body. From it we know how the soul and body help each other, take part in each other, and continue their development with each other. Not only in man, but also in the whole of nature, the material is closely connected with the spiritual. In nature there is an imperishable spirit, says the Wise One, which holds everything. On the other hand, what will spirit be if we imagine it to be completely opposite to matter? He will be something empty, an insignificant thought, a Leibnizian monad, which now sleeps, now wakes up, in a word, it will have nothing definite. In confirmation of the affinity of spirit with matter, experience shows a striking similarity or analogy of the forces of both: thus, in the soul there is a kind of heaviness - its persistence; there is light and warmth - her thoughts, heating up a person; in a word, everything is what we see in matter, only to the best and highest degree. From this it follows that only their visible opposition is great, but there is no internal essential opposition between them. Only the phenomena of matter change and are resolved, but its forces are immortal, and perhaps more immortal than us. That is why the soul, being in a higher state, sees everything alive, animated (this can be seen from the example of the savage we indicated); That is why “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mark 12:27): in His eyes, so to speak, everything is alive, animate. The assumption of the material origin of souls is beneficial both for philosophy and for the Christian religion. For philosophy: the idea of ​​a common principle of people can be established on it, and through it many absurdities associated with the first assumptions are eliminated. For the Christian religion: from it the universal damage is easily explained, its transfer to soul and body, the unity of the root from Adam, and by it the honor of the Supreme Being is completely saved. As for the fact that this image of the origin of souls is not similar to the image of the origin of the soul of the first man, then there is no need to demand such an image of origin for all souls; in the first man came the entire human race; and now separate types of it occur one by one; everything was wonderful there, but here everything can be natural. Does Holy Scripture relate to this? Are there any hints of such an origin of souls? Eat. Moses speaks about the birth of Seth by Adam (Gen. 5:3): “and bear a son according to your own kind and in your own image.” This means that Seth descended from Adam both in body and soul - otherwise Moses would not have expressed it that way. Also: “from one blood he created the whole language of man” (Acts 17:26): the sacred writer could not have expressed himself this way if human souls had not originated from one beginning. Briefly: all sacred writers adhere to the idea that children in all respects come from their parents, and that babies come out of their mother’s womb with the soul they received in it. In support of this opinion, we can also refer to the similarity of children with their parents in perfections and shortcomings, which sometimes extends too far. Here is the basis and motivation for parents to do the high work for which they are called, in purity of motives and fear of God. History provides many examples that the thoughts of parents, their desires and views on things have a great influence on the conception of a baby. And seeing this, one cannot help but be surprised how much a person in this case is subject to circumstances! So, the opinion about the passage of souls from parents to children seems to be more probable than the other two opinions. It requires further explanation and detailed disclosure in particulars, but this is a matter for philosophers and physiologists. The primitive state of men has been lost, and now all are in a state of sin or fall. How the happy state of people ended and how the unhappy one began is described in detail by Moses in the third chapter of Genesis. The same things are said against this description as against the first; they also recognize it as an allegory; but for the same reasons it should also be respected as true history. It seems strange to us that the serpent seems cunning. But in the east, where there are many snakes, their cunning is very visible; This is where the proverb came from: the serpent is cunning; “Be wise as serpents” (Matthew 10:16), says the Savior. The cunning of the serpent is visible in the fact that he protects his head when he sees danger, and also in his strangling of animals on whom he rushes and crushes. He was even more cunning in his primitive state, for now he has lost a lot, like us ourselves. Note 1. An unspoiled person could imagine all nature as animate and speaking. The first man heard the singing of birds, which is similar to conversation: the dignity of conversation lies in thoughts, the dignity of singing lies in pleasantness. It seems strange to us how the serpent could speak, and because our snakes are too small; but in the east they are large and therefore their voice can be quite sonorous. Note 2. The Author of the Notes on the Book of Genesis says that Eve added on her own behalf: “Touch him below” (Gen. 3:3). But it is better to assume that God Himself commanded this and that Moses first set forth God’s commandment briefly and incompletely. For it is very likely that the tree itself was harmful. From him came death, which is indecent to bring about from God. Note 3. The explanation of the fall of man found in the Notes on the book of Genesis must be taken with great limitations; for it was made in relation to the real concepts of people, and is not in accordance with the concept of Adam and Eve, who could not imagine everything as we now imagine. The spiritual meaning of the “seed of the woman” and the like, no doubt, was not well known to them: they looked at it all simply, without further conclusions and considerations. What does the Church say about the fall? Did she pay attention to the origin of evil? I did on occasion and from time to time. But her teachings on this subject are brief, because she was more concerned with controversial subjects, and this is not such a subject. True, it also became controversial in the West in the 5th century, on the occasion of the heresy of Pelagius, who rejected original sin; In addition, even in the first centuries the Gnostics touched on this subject, although little. They almost did not attract the attention of the Church, and Pelagius forced her to expound her teaching on this subject. However, even in this case she did not pay full attention to this subject. Thus, he did not fall under the judgment of ecumenical councils, but only private councils of the Roman and partly Carthaginian Church dealt with it. That is why in the symbols there is no teaching about original sin at all, although, however, not directly, this teaching can be deduced from what they say about the coming of Jesus Christ to earth, for why would He come if there was no need - there was no sin? So, the teaching about the fall of man should not be sought either in the symbols or in the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: it is found partly in the church liturgical books, partly in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In church books, the teaching about the fall is in the service for Cheese Week; but here the features of this teaching are presented historically and, moreover, very briefly. There is also a teaching about this in the twenty-third question of the Catechism of Peter Mohyla, but just as briefly and without new appendages. It is remarkable only because the view of the first man here is much more moderate and correct than that of the Protestants of the 17th century. It is remarkable that some fathers and teachers of the Church gave an allegorical meaning to the biblical narrative of the fall: such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and others. They were brought to this by the impossibility, or, let’s say historical truth, the inability to find true dignity in the literal sense; for example, Gregory could not understand what kind of tree it was... But for the most part the reason for this was the spirit of mysticism that dominated the Alexandrian school. However, these fathers also have nothing new that could serve as an addition to the stories of Moses. Their allegories can be accepted by us: they relate only to another fall, an internal one, which occurred in the soul of the first people through eating from another tree of knowledge - from evil thoughts. Thus, this source of the writings of the fathers is scarce in the present case. Let's turn to other sources. Doesn't the general meaning of the human race say anything about this? And what can be said about this from the principles of the mind? In the human race there are many legends about this subject, that is, about the beginning of man and evil. In these legends there are very remarkable similarities and dissimilarities that are also worth attention. The similarity is, firstly, in thoughts, and secondly, in expressions. 1) Similarity, in thoughts. All legends represent: a) that people originated in time - that the human race began. This already refutes the latest physiologists and philosophers who dream of the eternal origin of people, along with the world; b) that they came from God; some, it is true, produce people from animals of some special kind (Persians), but still, even here they allow the participation of the Divine; c) that there were two of them - husband and wife; some even admit that at first one person arose in a dual form - in the form of a husband and wife, from which two separate species later emerged, husband and wife; d) that the wife came after the husband; our northern traditions produce it even from a rib; e) that the first people lived in the garden; some believe that they lived in Central Asia, that they treated God Himself and that they were not ashamed of their nakedness, not wearing clothes; f) all legends talk about trees, springs, the desire for wisdom, eating fruits, and the presence of the Cherubim. What a similarity in thoughts! 2) Similarity in expressions: a) the names of husband and wife, “ish” and “isha”, many eastern peoples have almost the same thing - “mesh and mesha”; Adam and Eve are even more common in folk tales; b) the name of the country is similar for many, for example, the Persians believe it is near Iran, in the valley between the Araks and the Caspian Sea; This valley, one of the most beautiful, is called Edem in ancient Persian. What a similarity in expression! What's the difference? First, in opposites or contradictions. Three features of this dissimilarity: 1) the legend of many ancestors. Some Americans recognize six (Mexicans, Peruvians, Brazilians). But it must be assumed, and according to historical criticism it will be very true, that this difference arose from a confusion of persons and names. There really were such mixtures; for example, the Greeks call several persons Deucalion; there are also two Prometheus. Africans and blacks have three ancestors; but, probably, they begin their legends from the time of Noah, or from Adam, but they place his sons along with him, for in the fabulous names of Osiris, Isis and Typhon three sons of Adam are visible: Seth, Abel and Cain. However, be that as it may, this difference is insignificant. 2) Dissimilar legends about the condition of the first man. The Egyptians recognize the condition of the first people as savage and disastrous. This is similar to what the followers of the freethinking Rousseau are now saying. But this contradiction is destroyed by its uncertainty: it is not known what state of man the Egyptians represent as wild - the state before the fall or after the fall. If the latter, then their opinion is not unfair: for soon we see the descendants of Cain in a disastrous state, rude and almost wild. 3) Northern Icelandic Edda traditions recognize death as arbitrary and not a consequence of sin. They say that the first people descended from the earth into its depths of their own free will, in order to make room for their multiplied descendants. This idea came from the consideration of how people would live if they had not fallen. It is surprising that she went to the north, where the powers of the mind develop much more slowly. Here is a discrepancy, consisting in a contradiction to the legend of Moses! Secondly, there is also a dissimilarity, characterized either by incompleteness or excess, that is, there are legends in which either some features are missing compared to the narrative of Moses, or there are some unnecessary features that complement this narrative: a) in Moses, the opponent of the serpent appears to be simply the seed of the woman, or offspring (though in some, for example, among our interpreters, this seed is exalted); and among the Indians, in their temples, in one picture Krishna (the incarnate second person - Vishnu) appears to be killing the serpent, by which they mean the devil; and on the other, a serpent is depicted entwined around Krishna and stinging his heel. From this we can already conclude that the first people and their descendants understood the enemy of the serpent as the holy seed, Christ the Redeemer. A similar thing is found among the northern peoples: among them, the first-born leader breaks the head of the serpent; but the serpent manages to pour out his poison on him, as a result of which he needs to die. This feature is very important, complementing the story of Moses. Why didn't Moses say that by serpent he meant an evil spirit? Without a doubt, he knew that an evil spirit was at work in the serpent: for in the east this thought was common and very ancient; but in telling the story of the fall, Moses had to take into account the needs of his people, for whom the story of an evil spirit could easily give rise to superstition and temptation. For posterity, he also did not consider this necessary. They - he could think to himself - will find out for themselves how it happened; and the New Testament really revealed all this very clearly, b) For Moses, the fall seems to be instantaneous: the wife, according to his legend, listened to the serpent, looked and sinned, that is, she ate of the fruit. But the Church Fathers noticed that the first people first became unclean in their thoughts. This is explained by the Persians. They have two wives. The first husband comes from some special animal; he then dies, a tree grows from his corpse, from which ten pairs of people come: nine are exterminated, one remains. This remaining couple at first lives well, thinking of God as the Lord of everything. But soon Ahriman changes her thoughts; she begins to think that the earth, the sun and everything else is the work of Ahriman, and not of God: here is a mental, internal fall, which was not slow to reveal itself externally: this couple went hunting and drank some very sweet, but deadly juice, from which they died. No matter how ugly such a legend may be, it represents the feature that first the thought, the soul, and then the body lost its innocence. c) Some represent two Adams, one too high and one too low. Thus, the Greeks have two Prometheus, or one, but in two very often different states. The first was in heaven and possessed nature, but for his passion for Minerva he was cast down to earth. Here on earth he became another Prometheus, but even here he sinned by bringing fire from heaven, which should have burned only before the throne of Jupiter. The Persians also have a similar duality: their Crimon first dies, and then another is born. Why such duality? Is there a historical feature here too? Eat; This is precisely the concept of a primitive state, and an exaggerated one at that, according to which they could not combine in one person two such opposite states - good and bad. Even the fact that the Persians represent the first man as descended from an animal has historical significance, if we assume that man in body is, as it were, an extraction from the entire animal kingdom; and his close relationship to visible nature in a state of innocence forces him to admit this. d) Why did the serpent deceive people? Suppose some African, who has no idea about the Bible, begins to read it: what will he say when he sees that the serpent is tempting people? He will ask: why is this, what disposed the serpent to treacherously against man? Neither Moses nor the Church Fathers have an answer to this question; but in some legends there is such an answer, and a very wonderful one at that. They say that the first people had the ability to grow young: their body grew old, and from eating the fruits of the tree of life they became young. The serpent did not have this ability, and therefore tried to seduce man in order to get it for himself - and he really received it: he annually sheds his old skin and receives another. But an evil spirit was at work in this serpent; what prompted him to do this? Is it just envy? This is not enough. Without a doubt, he meant to hurt God through man, but the main motive here was the same as what usually happens to evil people, that is, interest, personal benefit. Which one exactly? One to stand in the center that a person occupied, and there to enjoy the sensual pleasure that is only possible for the spirit. This can be seen from the history of the possessed, e) There is a remarkable feature in the Lamai religion, which spread in India, China, among the Mongols and even near the shores of the Caspian Sea, and which has a metaphysical character: this is the doctrine that there was no sun, moon and stars before the fall of man, and that the first people were luminous. If you give free rein to your imagination and take some sayings of the Bible as a guide, then with the light of these people you can illuminate the entire universe. According to the Apocalypse, the future earth will be without sunlight; on this basis it can be assumed that the first earth was also without the sun. Where did the light come from if there was no sun? Previously they were perplexed about this, but now this bewilderment has dissipated: the earth could be what the sun is now: in this case, it did not need extraneous light and - the Lamai opinion would be fair; Even the thought of the Lamais will be true that people first lived in darkness after their fall, and that then God gave them lights. But can this endure the story of Moses, who speaks of the luminaries before the creation of man? Those who accept such a tradition (and all theosophists accept it) can say that God really created the luminaries before man, but created them for the future, foreseeing that man would fall and would need extraneous light. The basis of this legend, which does not constitute a true historical feature, is an exaggerated representation of the purity of the first people. However, based on the New Testament, which produces vanity, which the creation obeyed, directly from man, it is necessary to assume something similar - it is necessary to assume that in man there was the focus of all the forces of nature, and that the power of light was also concentrated in him, f) The Indians and Rabbis also add that Adam had two wives. This is probably an ugly legend about some patriarch mistaken for Adam. It is difficult to find anything historical in this story, especially since it is strange among the Indians, according to whom one wife seduced another; but it is even stranger among the rabbis, who believe that people were born from one wife, and evil spirits from another. g) Much more accurate is the Indian tradition that Adam retired from his first home to the island of Ceylon and died there, which is why the mountain located there is called Adam’s Mountain. This legend can be taken as a historical feature, for it can be assumed that Adam, living for nine hundred years, moved from place to place and moved away from paradise. He saw a Cherub placed at the entrance of paradise: a sense of decency and, so to speak, politeness should have forced him to leave so as not to cause this guard unnecessary worries. The desire to reassure himself by some oblivion of the loss should have led him to this; Moreover, he was prompted by the desire to survey the earth and the scattered offspring, as well as everyday needs. So Adam had to travel. Where would it be best for him to direct his journey, if not to India, where the land is better and the elements are more favorable? Here are all the legends about the first man - here are their similarities and dissimilarities! Some of them contradict the story of Moses; but these contradictions are easily explained; some are more extensive than the legends of Moses and serve as a supplement to it. The main benefit from them is that from them we learn that the tempter was a spirit of evil, and together we are convinced of the reality of the narrative of Moses. Why is Moses not as extensive in his story as the traditions? Because, as we have already seen, this was required by the practical goal of his people, who were not yet time to be introduced to the spiritual world, as well as to the immortality of the soul. Consequently, the brevity of the story of Moses is intentional; and if Moses wanted to make his story more complete, it would not have cost him any effort. For he, without a doubt, knew those legends that at that time were wandering throughout the east. How can we be convinced of the reality of the Mosaic narrative from these traditions? Firstly, their general similarity with the Mosaic narrative in the description of the whereabouts of the first people; this trait is present in all traditions, therefore, it was not invented by Moses. If one feature here is historical, then everything must be accepted as history - this is the law of historical criticism. Secondly, their extreme antiquity and universality. If these legends were fictitious, then judging by their tone, especially by the way they are transmitted by Moses, they should be attributed to later times; but, having appeared later, they would have lost their universality. So, these legends are true; therefore, the story of Moses, containing in itself the same thing that is contained in the traditions, is true. Let us now bring the frank teaching about the origin of man and evil under the gaze of reason. a) According to the teachings of the Christian religion, people originated from God with sufficient perfection. Is this good for the mind? Nothing could be more favorable for him. He sees that man cannot come from himself, that it is also unusual for him to come from the elements, or from any of the lower beings; therefore, it is most likely for him to come from the highest Being, from God. That man was created with sufficient, but not yet developed perfections, to think so is also very akin to reason, because it is very common for a freely active being to develop and improve itself. b) Further, Revelation teaches that man is fallen, that the source of evil is in man, and that God is innocent of this. What will the mind say to this? He shouldn’t judge it any other way. Transferring the source of evil to a higher world is terrible! Looking for some kind of eternal evil principle is absurd! To posit the beginning of evil in man himself, in his freedom - this is the most decent thing! c) True, some aspects of the Christian teaching about the first man seem surprising, and this surprisingness serves as a source of objections to this teaching. How, for example, could a body be immortal? This makes the mind wonder. But this side is presented in the Holy Scriptures with a limitation: the immortality of the body was possible under the condition of eating from the tree of life. Even if it were not limited, then even then one would still not be able to doubt it, for it is still impossible to infer from the present body to an innocent body. Moreover, doubts about this are based on the position that everything complex of the elements must collapse. But the organism of the world is also, only on a larger scale, composed of elements, however, despite this, it does not collapse and will never, as these freethinkers claim, will collapse. Consequently, it is possible for our body, which has the same organism, only in a smaller form, not to be destroyed. They will say: the organism of the world is stronger; but how do we know this? So, the only basis for doubt about the immortality of the body is unsteady and untrue; therefore, doubt itself is inappropriate. d) Another point of contention here for some is the special attitude of the first people to God and creatures, which the Christian religion teaches. But this feature catches our eyes and, so to speak, pricks them when our gaze stops at the current state of a person. Judging by the primitive state of man, it is impossible not to admit that man really was in the closest relationship with God and nature, that God and Angels appeared to him and directly guided him. So, this teaching is completely favorable to the mind; it is the only thing that can calm him down. Philosophers, not knowing or not accepting this teaching, very poorly resolved the question of the origin of evil, or stopped at it as insoluble. Let us turn to the practical side of this teaching. Does it need to be presented to the people? Need to. Our life is mostly filled with disasters, and the happiest are not without sorrows. The denouement of all this, the answer to why we suffer and for what, is here, in the doctrine of the primitive state of man. On the other hand, people may have thoughts about this state that are offensive to God, they may ask: is it not He who is to blame for the fact that we are unhappy, that we have fallen? There are also misconceptions among the people about Adam's sin; They say: he sinned, and we who are right are being punished for him, and the like. All this needs to be explained, and therefore it is necessary to put in the church pulpit the doctrine of the primitive state of man. Are people familiar with this teaching? In general, there are concepts about this in it, but not in proper completeness and clarity, fragmentary, tied to the letter, and not to the spirit of writing. Have we had preaching experiences of this kind? There were, but they were very few. This kind of Notes on the Book of Genesis; also some conversations of the Right Reverend Michael. When is the best time to talk about this? During Lent, which begins with the remembrance of the fall, and during which proverbs from the Book of Genesis are read, it is very good to select texts from them for sermons about this. But, unfortunately, we don’t do this... Interpretations of St. Chrysostom and Notes on the Book of Genesis can serve as a guide for such sermons. How to present this teaching to the people? Briefly and more from the moral side; There may also be mystical views here, of which there are many in the Notes of the Right Reverend Philaret. Which points should you mostly pay attention to? The following: you need to know that the person was good; that he became thin, and it was his own fault; that he fell, and not from simply eating fruits, but from sin; that at first he made a mistake in thought. We need to eradicate the idea that we are innocent and Adam is guilty; it is necessary to affirm the idea that the harm caused to us by the fall of Adam was eliminated by Jesus Christ, and that therefore we ourselves are now the cause of our destruction, we ourselves fall. Let us turn to another question: what consequences did the fall of the first people have for the entire human race? According to the teaching of Holy Scripture, the entire human race is experiencing the disastrous consequences of this fall; the complexity of all these consequences is known to us under the name of original or innate sin (rescatum originale vel innatum). Where does this name come from, and is it good? From the Apostle Paul we read: “one man sin came into the world, and death came through sin; and so death came to all men” (Rom. 5:12). But here by sin we do not mean the whole complexity of the harmful consequences of the fall, but only part of them - the unfortunate custom of sinning, the habit of transgressing the will of God. In this sense and on the same basis, Tertullian, and then Augustine called this corruption sin (rescatum), and this name gave rise to doubts and disputes, because it does not express the matter. By sin we usually mean the action of freedom; and actions that do not depend on our freedom are not sin. Therefore, freethinkers argued that the teachers of the Church imposed on us original sin, of which we ourselves are not guilty. And indeed, Adam’s sin, as a free action of his will, could not pass on to us; but the harmful consequences of this sin could and did come to us, as the word of God itself teaches. Therefore, instead of calling it sin, it is better to call it innate corruption, or a fallen state, or the continuing falling away of man from God: these names will much better express the essence of the matter, with them there will be no room for bewilderment and disputes. Holy Scripture nowhere speaks of this condition in general, but in many places only points to its particulars. For example, calling it "the law of sin" (Rom. 7:23), it indicates only the tendency to sin, and not the whole complexity of evils; calling the old man, it means the internal corruption of the human being, but does not indicate physical corruption, death, etc. We will call this hereditary damage. Does this hereditary corruption exist in the human race? Does Holy Scripture affirm its existence? He resolutely asserts. Let us consider separately his indications of this. The most important passage in this regard is the following: “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). What is the idea of ​​this saying? Since the teaching on this subject is well understood by the Church, let us turn again to it. The Church teaches that Adam's sin is passed on to his descendants by birth; that it is blotted out only by grace; that whoever is not baptized remains with original sin; that as a result of the first sin, an inclination towards evil was obtained in the mind and will of people; that all people are subject to sin and punishment, but with all this there is also an inclination towards goodness in people; and although the image of God is lost in us, it is not completely lost. Our taxonomists deviated from this teaching of the Church many and often. For example, the Reverend Irenaeus Falkovsky in his Theology says that man, as a result of sin, has lost all freedom in relation to spiritual things and that he is free only in relation to civil affairs - to external actions: liberum arbitriym, so he argues, ad spirituale penitus amissum, etiamsi ad civile datur. Why is there such a difference between the teachings of theologians and the teachings of the Church? It came from the influence of Protestantism. The Eastern Church has always maintained that damage exists in the descendants of Adam, that it spreads through birth, that man is therefore deprived of God's favor; but she never accepted the idea that he had completely lost his freedom as a result of the fall. This was also taught in the West until the time of Pelagius; from this time a movement appeared, known as Augustinianism. Augustine, refuting Pelagius, who denied hereditary corruption, went to the other extreme - he began to teach that man, as a result of the fall, lost everything and became completely evil in all respects. But the Church rejected his teaching, and the West again turned to the moderate view that dominated the Eastern Church, which survived until the time of the Reformation. Protestants resurrected Augustine's exaggerated view in order to oppose the Western and Eastern Churches: for this it was very favorable. The Western Church, asserting that in man and in the state of his fall there is a remnant of arbitrariness, found in this the basis for good deeds, and then for indulgences and the so-called treasury of supererogatory deeds (operum superrogatoriorum). To undermine all this, Protestants only needed to destroy the remnants of arbitrariness in man - to resurrect the old teaching of Augustine; then all works of piety: repentance, building churches, calling saints and others - will fall of their own accord. Protestants accepted this view; but soon after Luther and Melanchthon, a certain Flacus extended it even further, so that the whole being of man turned into sin: “The whole man,” he said, “and in all respects is sin.” The Protestants themselves did not like this, as can be seen from the Formula concordiae cum catholicis. What can we say about this difference? It is very important: the entire moral teaching depends on one or another view of original sin. What are the main points of church teaching on this? 1) There is original sin, or hereditary spiritual and physical damage; 2) it spreads to the entire human race; 3) passes by birth; 4) no one can get rid of it themselves; 5) although our freedom suffers a lot from it, it is not completely destroyed: there is in man the ability to turn to goodness and become a child of God. Here are all the main points of church teaching about original sin. Let us now turn to the Holy Scriptures. Does it teach about all this? Teaches clearly and repeatedly. There are passages in it that speak of the general damage of people, not from freedom, but from innate corruption. Thus, Jesus Christ in a conversation with Nicodemus says: “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). What does it mean? No doubt Nicodemus came to Jesus to inquire; Having learned that he was the Messiah and King, he came to find out under what conditions one could enter His Kingdom. This occupied all the Jews at that time, and in this case their answer was already ready: the first condition for this they recognized the carnal birth from Abraham. Nicodemus, in all likelihood, expressed thoughts of this kind, and Jesus Christ answered him that all this means nothing, that this requires another condition - one must be born again, for fathers give birth to children incapable of being in this Kingdom, of being children of God, and therefore give birth to bad children. Thus, the thought of Jesus Christ in this place is that man in himself is bad, and that only God can correct him by His special means. The Apostle Paul, speaking about the pagans, says: “children of wrath are by nature” (Eph. 2:3). This shows by nature that moral damage is innate and not accidental, that it is not an abuse of freedom, and the very abuse of freedom is already its consequence. Thus, the first point of church teaching agrees with the teaching of Scripture. The second point - the spread of corruption through natural birth is affirmed by the same passage of Scripture: “born of the flesh...” and the words of the Apostle Paul: “bechom...” that is, “bechom” through birth. The third point, that this evil cannot be corrected by anyone other than God, is confirmed by the entire teaching about the incarnation, for why would the Son of God be incarnate if there was no need for it? In addition, there are many clear passages on this in the Epistles to the Romans (in the first chapter), Ephesians, Hebrews and others. The fourth point, that this innate evil makes us the subject of God’s wrath, is affirmed on the fact that grace is given on the basis of Christ’s merits and it is directly stated: “For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which it is fitting that we should be saved” except the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). The fifth point, that there is a remnant of freedom in us, is evident from what the apostles instill in people and demand that they watch, strive, and improve. If a person were completely dead, had no arbitrariness at all, then he should not have demanded anything from us. So, comparing church teaching with biblical teaching, we see that it is completely in agreement with it. Let us see, in particular, where do our theologians disagree with this teaching of the Church and Scripture? On what grounds do they assert their opinion about the complete loss of freedom in man after the fall? The Right Reverend Irenaeus, in his Theology, enumerates the passages of Scripture that seem to speak in his favor, that is, on which, it seems, one can affirm the opinion that in fallen man there is not the slightest arbitrariness in relation to spiritual actions. These places are as follows: a) Eph. 5:8. - “sometimes there was darkness, but now there is light in the Lord.” Does it follow from this that natural man has no freedom? It may or may not follow. If by darkness we mean the complete darkness of the mind, then there is obviously no freedom. But the apostle does not mean such darkness here. The complete darkness of the mind, which destroys freedom, consists in ignorance of God, the law and the purpose of one’s existence. But the same apostle in other places (Rom. 1) ascribes to the pagans the knowledge of God and the law and their purpose; therefore, it does not ascribe complete darkness to them, and therefore does not destroy freedom. b) 2 Cor. 3:5. - “We do not think that we are satisfied from ourselves, but that our contentment is from God.” From the context it is clear that here the Apostle Paul looks at himself in a certain respect, that is, in relation to his service. But this attitude of the apostle does not apply to other people at all, and therefore his very saying does not apply to them. True, he says we; but this is because the apostles often liked to express themselves this way. But let us assume that the apostle here means all people, and then the conclusion that our taxonomists draw from here will not come out. “We do not have the ability to think what is from ourselves, as from ourselves”: what does this mean? That we cannot act on our own, on our own; but it is by no means that they were not able to desire good, that they did not have the will to do good. c) 1 Cor. 2:14. - “A spiritual person does not accept even the Spirit of God, for he has foolishness.” The Apostle says first that God tried, so to speak, to correct people with wisdom; but, not having time to do this, he used the opposite method - violence; and therefore, he says, we preach contrary to the wise, simply. It follows from this that the wise men who studied in Greek and other schools did not accept the Spirit of God, but it does not at all follow that there is absolutely no desire for good in man. By “spiritual” man here we mean not a natural man in general, but a natural sage. In addition, we must always remember that the apostles were not as scrupulous and deliberate in their speeches as we are now. As an example of this, one could imagine many places. That the Apostle Paul by “natural” man here does not mean every person, but only an evil person, this is also evident from the fact that an explanation contrary to this would be contrary to experience, for who received the “Spirit of God” if not the pagans - natural people? This means that natural man, generally speaking, receives the “Spirit of God.” But let us assume that by “spiritual” man here we mean every person, then only the word “does not accept” should be limited, that is, it should be: “often does not accept,” and the true truth will emerge - that natural people often did not accept the Spirit of God, although they were always capable of accepting Him, although the ability to accept what He inspired was in all of them. And that the word “does not accept” can be limited in this way - there are sufficient grounds for this in the Holy Scripture itself. For example, it is often said that Jesus Christ died “for all”; but the Apostle Paul in one place says that He died “for many.” This is a consequence of the imprecision of human language. d) Eph. 2:1. - “And you who are dead sinners and your sins.” This is, apparently, the strongest support for those who destroy all arbitrariness in fallen man! They take the metaphor “dead” in the strictest sense. Augustine, refuting Pelagius, and Protestants - the Catholic teaching about works and merits, meant here perfect death; meanwhile, the apostle, saying in another place: “Arise, sleep, and rise again, from the dead” (Eph. 5:14), thinks completely differently, affirms the opposite thought, for can someone who is completely dead rise and come to life? But they will say: if you do not give a strict meaning to the word “dead”, will it turn out that it was used unnecessarily? No, it is not used without need: most people are really like those sick people who can only get up a little, or, even more, can only try to get out of bed, and who therefore hardly differ from the dead, however, they are not completely dead, since it is still possible to heal them. d) In. 8:34. - “Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” But what kind of slavery does this mean? An arbitrary thing that burdened the Jews (who are being discussed here) not because they could not avoid it, but because they did not want to. There are, of course, places in the New Testament in which the conversion and correction of man is attributed to God alone; but on the other hand, there are many places in it in which much is required from the person himself. This means that first places should be accepted with a restriction, and not unconditionally; This means that we must assume that in man there is the ability to be elevated, which consists in freedom, without which it is impossible for God Himself to raise a moral being. The struggle between flesh and spirit means, they say, the loss of freedom to do good. On the contrary, it means the remnant of this freedom, for what fights in a person with an inclination towards evil, if not an inclination towards good? Those who affirm the complete loss of freedom in fallen man find something else favorable to their view in the Fathers of the Church. But this only seems so to them and depends mostly on the inaccuracy of their fathers’ expressions, and not on the fact that the fathers actually thought so. The author of the system we are talking about himself says that Chrysostom, Cyril, Epiphanius, Theophylact thought on the contrary, that is, not like him. Why shouldn’t he follow these first luminaries? This teaching is one of the most important in the Christian religion; Therefore, it is not useless to draw the attention of the mind to it, it is not useless to ask how it judges this matter according to its principles? Let us first briefly repeat the points of church and biblical teaching that are relevant here. 1) The human race is not in the state it should be in: it is now in a state of decline. 2) This unhappy state is not an initial state, but a secondary one, much worse than the first state that it followed. 3) The current disastrous state of the human race is contemporary with the first man, and arose from his sin. 4) It spreads and multiplies in the human race through natural birth. 5) The consequences of this evil are extremely great: in the body - death, in the soul - deprivation of an eternal inheritance and the right to become one of the truly moral beings. 6) Man, finally, cannot free himself from this evil - he cannot correct himself. Here are the six main points of the church-biblical teaching about original sin and its consequences. What will the mind say about them? On the first point, that is, that a person is now in the state in which he should be, reason cannot but agree. For what is the purpose of man? That is, in order to fully express one’s humanity - in order to live as it is fitting for a morally free being to live, that is, to live a life of truth, having a mind for this, to live a life of virtue, having a heart for this, and accordingly enjoy bliss, having mastery of feelings for this. But if this goal is fulfilled by people, then very few; most of them live for the opposite purpose; most of them walk in darkness, moving away from the light of truth; strives into the abyss of vice, as if fleeing virtue; lives in poverty without even knowing what bliss is. In general, we can say that the area of ​​darkness and vice is very vast, and that the range of disasters, illnesses and death is too great. From this the mind cannot help but conclude that the human race was not and should not be what it is now. History confirms this conclusion by the universality of disasters and traces of damage in all ages and among all peoples. All nations have imagined this. Whoever could rise above the state and spirit of his time was always horrified by the gloomy behavior of people, and whoever had a voice shouted loudly against it. The Holy Scriptures in the Old Testament present many complaints of this kind; but these complaints are small and brief in comparison with those that we find in the history of pagan peoples. Is it possible not to be horrified by the gloomy pictures in which the Greek and Roman satirists represent the human race? So, regarding the first point, the mind agrees with Scripture and the teachings of the Church, and all its efforts, if it only acts correctly, are directed toward the liberation of man from evils; thus acts in this case at the same time as Revelation. And regarding the second point, reason also asserts, in accordance with Revelation, that the disastrous state of humanity is not the original state. True, some thinkers, not illuminated by the light of truth, stumbled over the idea that the original state of man was not a state of perfection, but was a state of savagery; that a person who usually moves from the lowest to the highest begins with what is lowest; that he was first guided by instinct, then moved into the realm of reason and passions, and by the end of the world he will achieve the freedom of the children of God. Thus, these thinkers imagined the primitive state not behind, but ahead. But this thought cannot resist the following indisputable considerations: a) It is contrary to the goodness and wisdom of the Creator. The goodness of God requires that man emerge from the hands of the Creator with sufficient perfection so that the purpose of his existence lies in himself, and not in distant descendants; he must exist in order to achieve perfection himself, and not in order to serve as a tool for others and, as it were, a preparation for perfection. b) Even if a person forgot that this state is not characteristic of him; the animal kingdom would remind him of this. For animals, although guided by instinct, nevertheless, with very few exceptions, achieve their goal. Is it possible that one person was created in such a way that it would not be possible for him to achieve his goal soon? If he was created as a harmonious being (and this was required by the wisdom of God), then, without a doubt, his powers were in harmony - the higher ones acted, and the lower ones did not overcome them; and this is already enough to prove that the first state of a person was better than the one that followed him, better than the present. Thus, we must assume that the present state of the human race is not a state inseparable from it, but alien, alien, not peculiar to it. The third point is that the present disastrous state is contemporary with humanity. Reason will also quickly and easily agree with this when it begins to ask: how long ago did the human race begin to corrupt and act? History, to which he proposes this question, will not give him a satisfactory answer: it will say that in its eyes a person always appeared thin and poor, but when he began to appear like this, he will not say that. And from this it already follows that human damage is extremely early; but since the beginning of history is not far from the beginning of humanity, it follows that evil in man is contemporary with man. In this way, the mind comes to the first half of the point of the church-biblical teaching that we are examining, that is, to the fact that the damage of a person is almost contemporary with his origin. But reason can easily come to the other half of this point, that is, to the fact that the source of this damage is in human freedom. He will immediately come to this when, firstly, he begins to ask where the beginning of evil is. Reason cannot in any way affirm that this began in God: it drives away this absurd thought; He again will not agree to posit the cause of evil in the physical world, for this means transferring it again to God; and to regard the abuse of freedom as the source of evil is very consistent with his principles. Secondly, this can be arrived at by analogy with the origin of current evils: today the most common family vices stem mostly from some private abuse of freedom; in the same way, without a doubt, a universal evil arose from Adam’s private arbitrary misconduct, extending not to just one family, but to the entire human race. Thirdly, all traditions force the mind to produce evil from human freedom, the echoes of which it must listen to, because apart from them, others, so to speak, given in this case, it has no data; and they all produce evil from the freedom of the first man. So, the mind agrees with this point too. Only one side here seems to push him away from himself: the mind is perplexed how such a series of evils and disasters could have happened from Adam, and moreover from his one act. Isn't Adam already internalizing too much? To answer this question, we must first resolve what Adam actually assimilates. Do Scripture and the Church entirely produce the full amount of evil from Adam’s offense? Some sides produce, and some do not; But which disasters are caused by Adam and which are not, Scripture speaks about this vaguely, and in theological systems it is mixed. However, with the help of common sense, it can be argued that the following types of evil are produced from Adam’s act: a) loss of a heavenly physical-spiritual-moral blissful state; b) loss of balance of human forces - loss of harmony; c) the resulting disharmony - death; d) finally, God’s displeasure towards a disordered, disharmonious being. From these points of view, the present distressed state of man comes from Adam’s offense. But on the other hand, it comes from other sources. For example, that the corruption of the human race intensified over time, that it was expressed differently - this cannot in any way be derived from Adam’s offense, and it depended on other reasons. So, from Adam’s offense, all types of evil arise only by one, so to speak, possibility, and not by the fact that they all actually degenerate from it: other reasons acted on their degeneration, spread, strengthening and multiplication; their growth depended, so to speak, on the growth of the human race. Having accepted such a limitation, let us now turn to the court of reason and ask it: is it possible for one sin of Adam to spread evil in this form? Very possible! Reason cannot but agree with this. The fourth point, that is, that evil spreads by birth, is beyond any doubt. Physiologists have noticed that there is a law in nature according to which beings, being born one from another, gradually become diminished and become, as it were, worse, even though nothing evil comes to them. Because of this, some animals, remaining without mixing with other breeds, degenerate; Therefore, marriages concluded between consanguineous people have the consequence that people degenerate and surnames are finally exterminated. If there is such a law in nature, then what should be said about its action and power after evil has been mixed in, promoting and accelerating its progress? If, according to natural law, what is born is subject to the great influence of the one who gives birth, then even more so it must be subject to him according to the law of corruption. Therefore, one should marvel at how Providence still preserves the human race from complete degeneration! For this purpose, perhaps, he, among other things, uses the migration of peoples, in order to prevent their destruction by mixing them. So, that the body can be damaged by parents, there is not the slightest doubt. But how can the soul borrow it? She borrows it from the body, being dependent on it: the body can conveniently impart this damage to her, especially in her, so to speak, youth, when she, still weak, finds it difficult to cope with it. If it is true that the soul arises depending on the same matter from which the body is formed; if its origin is determined by the form of development of this matter, then it is clear that the disharmony and properties of bodily matter can and should be reflected in the soul. However, no matter how they are reflected, and even if this image is unknown, we know well that they are reflected: this is proven by the similarity of children with their parents in dispositions, habits and actions. So, reason completely agrees that primitive evil spreads through birth. Fifth point: the consequences of the first crime extend far; namely, in temporary life, in relation to physical nature, they extend to death, in relation to moral nature - to the darkening of the mind, to the inclination of the will to evil and almost to the destruction of freedom; in eternal life - to the point of deprivation of eternal bliss and the right to participate in God's favor. The superficial mind, looking at these consequences, imagines them too distant and deep and does not want to believe in their reality; but in reality this is how it should be. A common mind will agree with this if it takes this teaching apart. a) He cannot help but recognize illness and death as consequences of the fall, otherwise where could they have come from? For death to be natural to a person, the mind will never agree to this. Even plants turn their branches away from a withered tree: so death is not akin to them! And a person, looking at his brother lying in a coffin, can he think that such a position was natural?.. Physiologists think of producing the death of a body - but what kind of body? The real one, already upset, from the structure, and not Adam’s body, innocent, similar to that spiritual body about which the Apostle Paul speaks (1 Cor. 15). Thus, bewilderment about the physical consequences of sin is only imaginary. That the shortening of life is not natural to man, but by chance, the evidence for this is at hand. Animals, both in other cases and here, teach us. Physiologists have noticed that they live eight times longer than they grow; Accordingly, a person who now spends twenty years growing tall should live at least two hundred years. This means that the time of human life, as the apostle notes, “has ended.” That the material, the complex cannot live long, but soon disintegrates - this objection, previously strong, now, with a deeper look at the world, has weakened. The structure of man is the same as that of the world; man is a small world, but the physical world is not destroyed, and physiology claims that it will not be destroyed - why can’t the human body exist forever in the same way? Immortality is even more characteristic of it, because it is the subtlest, and therefore less susceptible to destruction, extract from the visible world. Holy Scripture, lifting the veil of the future, also shows the way in which the body can be immortal. Death now occurs because man feeds on mortals, because he lives by the destruction of other creatures, because his composition includes what remains after decay. But in the future life everything will be immortal and man, perhaps, will feed creatures as they feed him now. If we assume something similar in the primitive state (and this is quite possible and should be assumed), then this is the method of primitive immortality! However, even if all these proofs were not valid for us, as long as there is death, original sin will be recognized as its cause. For death also reigns over those who do not have their own voluntary sins, over infants; This means that it occurs in them from hereditary damage. b) That hereditary corruption extends to the darkening of the mind and the inclination of the will to evil, in general to evil enslavement or, as it were, the transformation of spiritual nature into sensual nature - one cannot argue against this. From youth, a person develops evil thoughts: in infants, who have not yet used the use of reason, there are already sinful movements. We do not deny that moral evil in a person largely depends on time, circumstances, upbringing and other reasons; but let us not forget that its germ lies further and deeper - in the human heart. That is why both ancient and modern thinkers, speaking about the origin of evil, believed that its cause was something preceding freedom - they noticed that man fell, so to speak, before he became. Thus, the followers of Plato assumed some kind of pre-temporal existence of souls; Kant, seeking the beginning of evil, assumed some kind of act of another freedom; Fichte derived evil from the structure of nature, that is, he affirmed the Manichaean thought - that in the first cause there are two sides: good - the cause of good and evil - the source of evil. So, in this regard, the mind sees that the Holy Scripture says no more than what it actually is. c) That the effect of innate corruption extends to the deprivation of eternal bliss is also in accordance with the nature of things. Reason firmly believes that the world's well-being is connected with moral goodness. With this faith, it is difficult for him to allow those exceptions that sometimes occur in the world: it is difficult to allow well-being to be combined with moral evil. If he sees such a connection somewhere, then he more readily explains the reason for it by the special will of God than by his own principles. According to the law of justice, he always demands that good follows good. Why not carry this law into eternity? What is unclean cannot be pleasing to God, and therefore cannot be an object of favor, but becomes an object of God’s wrath, as Scripture expresses it. And God does not take revenge on man by His displeasure towards him, but out of necessity, by His very essence, He does not favor him. In this case, it is good to compare a morally evil person with a physically ill person. Just as you will not feed a sick person when he has lost his appetite, no matter how much you are disposed towards him, so God will not make a person who has lost the taste for spiritual goods blessed, no matter how much he loves him! Thus, reason agrees with this point in all respects. The last, sixth point of the church-biblical teaching is that people themselves, neither in particular nor in general, can free themselves from their corruption. Would anyone who does not know the history of the human race not agree with this truth? How many means were invented and efforts were made to stop the flow of evil! But everything is in vain! True, there are bright places in the history of mankind, but their foundations are always gloomy; and, looking at the events that took place in nations and centuries, we see a lot of evidence that the human race is more prone to evil than to good. For how many means have been used to correct a person! But no one ever taught corruption; at least, if there were such malicious people, then there were very few of them. And yet, there is little good in the world, but a lot of evil, and the latter sings better than the former. Why is this? They will say: because the sensual takes precedence over the spiritual. Yes, but why does the sensual take precedence over the spiritual? After all, it's not natural. Thus, a person is not able to correct the corruption that is in his own soul and, apparently, consists of his will. What can we say about the external actions of sin? It is impossible to even think about correcting these actions. For example, who could save themselves or others from death? Who could stop the disturbances in nature? Nobody! Man gives some parts of nature a beautiful form, but in the essence of the matter the result is insignificant. These decorations, made by man in nature, are like cemetery monuments, which, no matter how beautiful they are, always remind us that underneath them lies decay. But these are not all the disastrous consequences of the fall: we now do not see all the corruption of nature, we do not hear all the sighs of creation. What if we saw the full power of evil? We would then be horrified by both this power and our weakness in correcting the damage we have caused... The Holy Scripture says that at the end of the world everything will be so reborn that it will be almost completely new: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1); This means that the world is very damaged when, in order to be good, it needs to become new. So, a person does not yet see all his weakness; and therefore, deeper than any philosophical position, the following expression of the church song: “Only knows the weakness of human nature!..” Yes, God alone sees everything that is in man - his present state is so pitiful in comparison with the past, Eden and the future, Zion. Moral weakness is also visible in holy people. They enjoyed all the benefits of indemnity; many of them achieved such perfection that they produced miracles in nature; however, even in these creatures, sharply separated from us, many weaknesses remained to the end, not only in physical nature, but also in moral nature - in the soul. That is why they, not only out of humility, but also with justice, complained about their own uncleanness. The remorse of the serpent was so strong that even those people who were angels in the flesh felt it strongly! And this greatest disorder came from Adam. The usual view in this case is this: God Himself robbed nature of its perfection when man became unworthy of it; and Jesus Christ, the Restorer of order in the world, also seems to Himself to remake the world in order to make it a worthy dwelling for His followers. But this view is superficial. In fact, it was not God who produced and is producing what is, but the thing itself, so to speak, produces itself: physical disorder naturally followed from Adam’s destructive sin; in the same way, from the beneficent death of Jesus Christ, the restoration of nature will naturally follow. Thus, original sin, being understood correctly on the basis of the teachings of the Church and Scripture, does not contain anything inaccessible to reason. Everything that confuses him in this case consists more in the name than in the thing. The name - sin rescatum, with which the concept of a private free act is usually connected, has been the cause of controversy on this subject. Wolff's school, with its teaching about imputation, which is impossible without freedom, made many objections to this sin. But all these objections will be easily destroyed when we accept sin in its only sense, we will understand the corruption that passes through birth, which has the power of sin, since it deprives us of benefits and gives direction to evil. Thus, this sin is similar to a misfortune that many suffer innocently: for example, someone who travels to contaminated places and receives an infection from this is innocent, but despite this, he cannot be accepted in a society of healthy people. Many theologians, without this in mind, have made many arbitrary assumptions and needlessly tormented their imaginations in devising a way in which Adam could communicate his sin to his descendants. So, for example, Mozheim called Adam a representative head, in which all people seemed to have entered into an alliance with God; and therefore if he sinned, they also sinned; if he lost the benefit, then they also lost it. This was invented out of necessity, because it was necessary to respond something to objections. The last side question regarding this subject is this: is any man free from original sin? Scripture says clearly that “you have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). This teaching was universal. But in the Western Church for some time, the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary has been formed. Although it is not a dogmatic teaching there, Catholics nevertheless firmly adhere to it; they have the feast of the “Immaculate Conception of Our Lady,” and they do not give an academic degree to anyone who does not undertake to recognize this teaching. Our Church did not accept this teaching. Although we celebrate the conception of the Blessed Virgin on December 9, this holiday is not the same as a Catholic one. This is evident from the church songs sung on this day, in which there is not the slightest hint of what the Catholics claim, but only says that this day is dedicated by the Church to the remembrance of the beginning of our salvation. Catholics say that the Church has always taught as they teach, and in support of this they refer to St. Augustine. But this teacher says nothing in their favor; He, touching the Holy Virgin, only asked a question about Her sinlessness, but did not give any answer to this question. They also cite opinions from Damascus, Amphilochius and others, but these opinions are also indecisive. Our holiday began in the 7th century; but the entire Ecumenical Church until the 10th century did not teach that the Holy Virgin was exempt from original sin, although, comparing Her with all the Old Testament men, she placed Her above all of them. True, we have a prayer: “undefiled, unblasphemous” and so on, compiled in honor of the Mother of God. Is it possible to find Catholic thoughts in it? No. This expression is used to strengthen the idea of ​​the holiness and purity of the life of the Blessed Virgin, and not to express that She was removed from general hereditary corruption. The Fathers of the Church also do not teach about this: it is not true that She was conceived in sin; but this is because the height of the Blessed Virgin made them seem to forget that She was from a race of people subservient to us. The teaching of Catholics on this subject is an accidental teaching. The scholastic Duns-Scotus, who was engaged in fragmenting opinions about original sin, said that although there is no teaching that the Holy Virgin is free from original sin, one must think that She is free: it was possible for God to make Her free from original sin, and for Her, as the Mother of God, it was more fitting to be born without sin. This assumption of Duns Scotus subsequently became a reliable truth; Jesuits and Franciscans came to him. The Dominicans first rebelled against him, and then they themselves accepted him. When the Spanish and Portuguese kings asked the pope to say something about this teaching, he did not give them a decisive answer. Two more questions regarding this subject. 1) Why do we, looking at other people, often not notice in them the harmful consequences of Adam’s sin; sometimes it’s as if they don’t even have them? Because the sinful state is innate to us; we have become accustomed to it and, not knowing the value of the previous state, we cannot appreciate the present: for someone who is always sick, a painful state seems natural. This also happens because we cannot survey the condition of all people at once; we see only a small part of this gloomy picture; and at the same time, it is very possible that some of the darkest parts of the picture will appear bright and even shiny if a ray of sun falls on it. Therefore, it is not surprising that the disastrous state of people in their parts sometimes seems bright from the rays of our spiritual sun, Jesus Christ, that clarified it - from bringing to earth the light of hopes and future promises. But if we look at the significant parts of this picture, at illness and death, we will involuntarily shudder. The cry of thirty thousand unfortunates who were supposed to kill each other by order of Tiberius; the cruelty with which the wild eat their half-bloods; a look at thousands of corpses defeated on the battlefield - such pictures represent humanity in the darkest form!.. Moreover, what does the preference given in all states to military rank mean, what does the multiplication of military schools mean, in which they are formed (are educated) not for the killing of animals, but for people? This again shows how pathetic man is! Babies die and through death are deprived of everything, without having yet committed any crime. Is this well-being for a person? We see that sick parents give birth to sick children, and vicious children with a great inclination towards evil. Is this the happiness of life?.. 2) What would happen if God did not deign to restore the human race? – The present temporary death would become eternal; the soul would not die, but would live separately from the body, and without correction it would remain with a gradually increasing inclination towards evil; The visible world would become worse hour by hour, whereas now it is good and bad: bad because moral evil still continues in it; good because it is based on the germ of restoration. From this point of view, the truth of the words of the apostle is visible that everything that is “in heaven and on earth” is headed by Christ (Matthew 28:18). How to teach the doctrine of original sin to the people? It must be proposed from a practical point of view, and at the same time explain it well; for the people have few correct concepts and views about it. Of course, this is a deep subject, metaphysical in many respects, but there are aspects to it that are generally understandable, suitable for simple preaching. In this case, it is necessary to imitate the Apostle Paul, who, speaking about Adam, also represents Christ there. This way of preaching will prevent the despondency that may arise from this. The doctrine of the innate powerlessness of man constitutes the first and main basis for the need for redemption. But just as this powerlessness is not felt by everyone, the very basis of redemption does not seem important to everyone. And therefore something else needs to be said about active sins. This teaching will form, as it were, the second basis for the necessity of atonement, which will be the stronger the more obvious our sins are to us. Here, as a sample, are a few questions about active sins and the answers to them. a) What is sin? Sin is a transgression of the Divine law. This law is revealed in the conscience and is a natural, eternal law. How the will of God is expressed in our soul, why and how the voice of God is heard in it is incomprehensible, mysterious. This revelation, which takes place in the soul independently of its will, is more important and more wonderful than all other revelations; for these will pass away, but it will remain forever. For example, God miraculously revealed himself in the tabernacle through appearances: but here there are no appearances; it seems to us that all this comes from the soul; but what the soul is and how it comes from it are again mysteries. b) How are sins divided? They are usually divided into sins against God, against one’s neighbor and against oneself; also - for sins of omission, when only good is abandoned, and for positive sins, when evil is produced; also, in order of importance: mortals and non-mortals. But this division of sins according to their importance is incorrect. Every crime against the law is equally important. The law is a line that no matter how much you cross, everything will be a sin. This division comes from a superficial glance. Every sin in itself has endless consequences. Physicists say that if one atom were gone, the world would change, because as a result of the law of cohesion, all parts of the world would receive a different relationship. Such harmony should exist in the moral world. We do not see the immense effects of any one sin, but they exist, otherwise there would be no harmony in the moral world. c) Why does a person sin? The main reasons for this are the following: firstly, innate sin, passing through hundreds of generations and increasing. He is the father of all other sins, although children are not necessarily born from this father. This first reason is invisible in its depth; but it is strong even in renewed people. The apostles themselves complained about her. Secondly, the causes of sin lie in man and outside of him: in man, in the perverse concept of the mind, to which a thing appears differently than how it really is, in the weakness and stubbornness of the will; outside of a person - in the circumstances of birth and upbringing and so on. d) Do all people sin? All; all wise men and kings recognized and recognize themselves as sinners: a sad trait, but showing something good. e) What are the effects of our sins? The same as the first sin. But we note that we do not see the whole series of their consequences; we only see a few of the consequences of sins. What are they? The first consequence is torment of conscience, expressed weaker in some and stronger in others. The sinner's conscience is sometimes awakened with extraordinary force. How severe is her punishment, and how soon does it follow the crime? The natural course of punishment is to follow the sin immediately; and no court is as swift as the court of conscience. It acts strongly and horribly; it often produces what no external courts can produce. Sometimes its effect extends to such extraordinary force that it surrounds the criminal with ghosts ready to rush at him. But in this life she still does not act the way she will act beyond the grave. Here a person has fun, and this fills the fire of conscience burning inside him; but in eternity this will not happen: there it will burn, but here it is as if in ashes, only smoldering. What is the essence of conscience? Just as the essence of the soul is incomprehensible to us, so is the essence of conscience incomprehensible. What is remarkable in this case is the comparison in which conscience is likened to fire. Isn't conscience actually a fiery property? We compare thoughts to rays of light; The basis for such a comparison is provided by the structure of the brain nerves, which are radial. Conscience in the same way can be recognized as something fiery, for it either shines or burns: it shines when it pronounces the law, it burns when it punishes for violating it; in the latter case it is like a burning glass. The second consequence of sin is the weakening of human nature in general. The human soul is like shadow-like bodies in which there is no solidity. If there is any strength in them, then it breaks off, so to speak, at one point. The reason for such weakness of sinful souls is in itself natural: the strength of nature is united with the law, with God; therefore, outside the law and God - powerlessness. Now we don’t see this, because disharmony has become as if natural to us. But if the strength of the primitive state were returned to us, we would be horrified by our true powerlessness. The third, more common consequence of sin is darkening of the mind. That virtue enlightens the mind is evident from the example of Christian ascetics, who (one cannot help but marvel) reasoned very subtly and deeply, and wrote very correctly, without having studied either philosophy or grammar. This means that all the knowledge necessary for a person is innate to him and, through a virtuous life, can be developed. Vice, on the contrary, makes a person frivolous, absent-minded, inattentive, and the immediate consequence of all this is a weakening of mental activity. The same thing happens here as with light. Thought, like a ray, is refracted by conscience; if conscience does not let these rays through, does not fulfill the law, then they either, gathering in it like rays of light in a burning glass, darken, or take an indirect direction and, becoming slanted, become dimmer and weaker hour by hour. And can there be light in the mind of a sinner when the images with which it is filled are removed from dark objects? If the sinner’s mental world were to come true, he himself would be afraid of it. The external consequences of sins are as follows: firstly, frailty and private illnesses of the body; secondly, the breakdown of societies and entire nations; thirdly, the disorder is of a visible nature. f) Can a person free himself from sins? According to everyone, it cannot. True experts on nature, both Christians and pagans, argued that without God it is impossible for a person to stop sinning, it is impossible to destroy sin within himself, much less it is impossible to destroy the consequences of sin outside himself. So, whoever is not convinced of his damage and the need for higher help due to his innate corruption, let him look into the abyss of arbitrary sins and be convinced. You might be interested in: