About spirit, soul and body. The essence of disagreements in the teaching of Bishops Theophan and Ignatius about spirit, soul and body

From the scholarship report of Archimandrite Pimen “Christian teaching about spirit, soul and body according to the works of Bishop. Feofan and Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov" (1957) The essence of the Christian doctrine of spirit, soul and body, or, as they say, the doctrine of trichotomy in the composition of human nature, lies in the recognition in human nature of not only two basic substances - soul and body - but also a third, highly spiritual principle - spirit... In the Holy Scriptures we do not find a special and sufficiently detailed interpretation of the question of the tripartite nature of human nature. In the sacred books there are only “accidental” (of course, not in the literal meaning of the word) indications of trichotomy 1, because in the Holy Scriptures direct coverage is aimed at the moral side of one or another psychological subject, which is certainly of paramount importance in the matter of salvation. Nevertheless, those indications of the Word of God on trichotomy, which do occur, are quite sufficient to see that the Holy Scripture not only does not contradict the teaching of trichotomy, but imparts to the latter a certain validity and persuasiveness (See, for example, Pres. Sol. 15, 11; 20, 24; 1 Sol. 5, 23; Heb. 4, 12; 1 Cor. 15, 44; 2, 14–15; Luke 1, 46–47; In the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church, the doctrine of spirit, soul and body receives wider coverage, but most church authors limit themselves to only a more or less brief mention, speaking about the composition of man from spirit, soul and body, as something taken for granted. Since trichotomy among the holy fathers and teachers of the Church most often did not have the character of a detailed teaching, this circumstance made it possible for some of the church writers to speak out against trichotomy and insist on strict duality in the structure of the human being, and therefore they interpreted the corresponding passages of Holy Scripture in the direction of simple terminological instability, believing that in the Word of God the concepts “spirit” and “soul” are unambiguous. These disputes, in turn, did not go beyond simple remarks or brief objections, and therefore in such disputes “the truth was not born,” a detailed, in-depth study did not arise on the issue of human anthropology from the point of view of trichotomy... Nevertheless, it must be said that some holy fathers of the Church, in some individual cases, clearly and convincingly affirmed the three-component nature of man, so that if this teaching did not receive detailed development, it was not rejected or forgotten; on the contrary, it was often supported and widely used in the doctrine of Christian moral improvement. In the first centuries of Christianity, the trichotomous view of human nature was dominant, and the dichotomous view (that is, recognizing only the soul and body in the composition of the human being) was very rare. More or less trichotomous views were held by St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Nilus of Sinai, St. John Cassian, St. Hesychius of Jerusalem, St. John Climacus, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Seraphim of Sarov and others... Such views were expressed in their writings by Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Philo, Fichte, Schubert, Schelling, Du Prel, Jacob Boehme, prof. Lopatin, the famous Russian doctor N.I. Pirogov and others... The statement of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow regarding the doctrine of the tripartite composition of human nature is very interesting. This is what he writes to Archbishop Alexy of Tver, who asked Metropolitan Philaret to prove the inconsistency of the trichotomy: “I cannot, Father Rector, give you help in your battle with the thought of the tripartite composition of man. Enough is the need to fight against enemies, against teachings that are contrary to dogmas; what is the need to fight against opinions that are not hostile to any true dogma? In the monthly menia of June 25, in the canon you will find the following words: wash the body, cleanse the spirit, and sanctify my soul. Wouldn't you like to fight with this church book? For the word spirit is placed here in such a way that it cannot be understood in the sense of a gift of grace, in order to evade the concept of the composition of man. I think that the solution to this dispute lies in the depths to which the disputants do not penetrate. February 26. 1848. Filaret M.M" 2.… Usually you have to deal with two main, most pronounced theories. The first theory is that the human soul, by its nature, is completely immaterial, completely spiritual and is, as it were, the lowest manifestation of the spirit, and therefore only the human body is unconditionally recognized as material. The second theory recognizes the human soul as either directly material, or “participating” in materiality, and therefore the body and soul are to some extent united into something single, one material (sometimes designated by the biblical term “flesh”), while the spirit is considered exclusively immaterial and the only spiritual part of human nature. Let us agree to call the first theory immaterial-spiritual, and the second theory we will call the material-spiritual theory... In connection with the importance and special position of the question of the three-component nature of man, great attention is drawn to the works of our compatriot church writers - the ascetics of Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) and especially Bishop Feofan (Govorov), in whose works a large place was devoted to consideration of the life of the spirit, soul and body of man. His Grace Bishop Theophan was a supporter of the immaterial-spiritual theory, Bishop Ignatius was a supporter of the material-spiritual theory, and, moreover, he was close to the opinion of the “subtle” materiality of not only the soul, but also the human spirit. Both authors (especially Bishop Theophan) worked hard to study this complex problem. They abundantly drew in support of their opinions both passages from the Holy Scriptures and passages from the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church and from the writings of other thinkers. In addition, they themselves, with their highly moral lives, testified to the truth of many of their theoretical positions. This work will be devoted to the study of the statements of these two authors... It is necessary to immediately clarify that Bishop Ignatius, like many trichotomists, does not consider the mind - the spirit - to be a completely independent “third” substance of human nature. In his opinion, the mind - spirit is only the highest manifestation of the soul, its highest “part”, which invariably remains a soul in its essence. Therefore, Bishop Ignatius often speaks in his writings about the body and soul, as only the two main components of man. For example: “Death painfully cuts and tears a person into two parts, his components, and after death there is no longer a person: his soul exists separately and his body exists separately” 3. Only in one place with the bishop. Ignatius can find a more or less clear answer to the question of his view of trichotomy. Thus, in “Addition to the Word on Death” 4, Bishop Ignatius says: “The teaching that man has a soul and spirit is found both in the Holy Scriptures (Heb. 4:12) and in the Holy Fathers. For the most part, both of these words are used to designate the entire invisible part of the human being, then both words have the same meaning (Luke 23:46; John 10:15, 18). The soul is distinguished from the spirit when this is required to explain the invisible, deep, mysterious ascetic feat. The spirit is the verbal power of the human soul, in which the image of God is imprinted, and by which the human soul differs from the soul of animals...” To support this thought of his, Bishop Ignatius immediately cites the words of St. Macarius the Great, who, in response to the question: “Is the mind (spirit) different, and the soul different?” answers: “Just as the members of the body, which are many, are called one person, so the members of the soul are many, the mind, will, conscience, and condemning thoughts, but all this is united into one by literature, and the members are spiritual, but the soul is one - the inner man...” 5 . Based on all of the above, we can draw a very definite conclusion: Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) cannot be called a trichotomist in the literal sense. He only agrees with some views on trichotomy, which he has in common with “trichotomists in the literal sense.” Hence, all the works of Bishop Ignatius, this work will be considered only from the point of view of those places that either he has in common with Bishop Theophan, or, conversely, are in clear contradiction with the concept of the Right Reverend Theophan. But even if, to some extent, Bishop Ignatius could be considered a trichotomist, it should be noted that his trichotomy is special. If Bishop Theophan considers the human spirit to be the highest manifestation of the soul, or the “soul of the soul” 6, which quite definitely refers both the spirit and the soul to the spiritual, immaterial realm, then Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) quite definitely and firmly adheres to the opinion that the human soul is material, corporeal, substantial 7. This view creates the main disagreement between the two eminent authors. Therefore, if we classify Bishop Ignatius as a trichotomist, then he would be a “spiritual-material” trichotomist, as opposed to the “spiritual-immaterial” trichotomist Bishop Theophan 8 . Moreover, in the writings of Bishop Ignatius there is a view according to which the spirit itself (human and angelic) is to some extent material... In his famous large work “The Word on Death” (published in 1863 as a special book and then included in his collected works), Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov), unexpectedly for the Russian Orthodox world, expressed very bold thoughts about the essence of human and angelic spiritual nature. “The soul,” said Bishop Ignatius, “is an ethereal, very subtle, flying body, having all the appearance of our gross body, all its members, even hair, its facial character, in a word, complete resemblance to it...” 9. Referring to passages from biblical narratives and to passages from the works of the Holy Fathers, Bishop Ignatius also argued that human souls, like angels, although very subtle in their essence, they are material, corporeal, substantial, despite the fact that “their substance is incomparably subtler than the substance of earthly objects visible to us...” 10. Regarding the appearance of an angelic being, Bishop Ignatius asserted the same as regarding human souls: “Angels are similar to the soul: they have members, a head, eyes, mouth, breasts, arms, legs, hair, in a word, a complete likeness of a visible person in his body...” 11. According to Bishop Ignatius, only God is spiritual and immaterial; everything else, be it a soul or an angel, is material, gross. If a soul or angel is called incorporeal, it is only because they do not have the rough, visible “our” flesh. And Bishop Ignatius also supported these last arguments with abundant references to passages from the Holy Fathers. Naturally, many readers of “The Word on Death” were surprised by the courage and originality of the new teaching. Various articles began to appear in the press, drawing attention to the danger of such views. For example, in the September issue of the magazine “Wanderer” for 1863, a bibliographic article by the priest appeared. P. Matveevsky about the “Teachings of Ignatius, the former Bishop of the Caucasus and the Black Sea,” where the author wrote the following about “The Tale of Death”: “Despite the fact that the dissertation was compiled on the basis of ascetic traditions, there is a lot in it that we can only regard, from a theological point of view, as negative. Among the opinions that the author hastened in vain to elevate to the level of positivity, we include: 1) the doctrine of the corporeality of the soul and spirits...” “We cannot but admit,” the author continues, “that no other eschatology... has ever included such a detailed solution to these issues... Theology, as a science, did not assume the responsibility to solve these questions in the same way as the compiler of the “Tale on Death” resolved them, because, referring such and similar questions to the area of ​​​​human inquisitiveness, which wants to extend even beyond the limits of human limitations, it always reported indisputable information about the soul, heaven, hell and evil spirits, based on the Holy Scriptures and the consistent teaching of the universal Church ... "12. Less than a year had passed since Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov), apparently prompted by the text of the articles that had appeared, wrote his new work, “Addition to the Word on Death.” In this work, Bishop Ignatius tried to bring new arguments in defense of his opinion about the corporeality of the nature of the angel and the soul. A few years later, both of the above-mentioned works of Bishop Ignatius were subjected to crushing criticism by the Right Reverend Bishop Feofan (Govorov) in his book “The Soul and the Angel – Not the Body, but the Spirit.” In this small but profound theological work, Bishop Theophan examined in detail the main provisions of the “new” teaching, considering for this purpose the evidence of the Word of God and the Holy Fathers, as well as examining considerations of reason on the issue of the nature of the soul and angels. Based on all the evidence taken together, Bishop Theophan tried to prove the unchurchishness, falsity and harmfulness of the doctrine of the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angel. Bishop Theophan ended his work with the wish that the new teaching, defeated by many weighty evidence of its inconsistency, “disappear,” as will-o’-the-wisps disappear in the distance, leaving no noticeable trace...” 13. Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov), as can be seen from his various works, not only “held” his special, private opinion on the essence of the soul as a material, corporeal thing, but he persistently tried to refute the opposite opinion (i.e., the opinion about the unconditional spirituality of the soul), which he calls almost heretical, which appeared among “Western” Christians. In the “Addition to the Word on Death” he writes: “The Westerners, who have recently accepted many teachings that are alien and contrary to the Orthodox Church, have recently accepted an alien and contrary teaching about the complete immateriality of created spirits, and have attributed to them spirituality to the extent that God has it. They put God, the Creator of everyone and everything, in the same category of beings with created spirits, recognize their independence from space, deny in them the ability to move like bodies ... " 14. Then Bishop Ignatius, unfortunately, notices that the “Westerners” think to base their teaching on the Holy Scriptures, and promises to present a “satisfactory refutation” of this teaching. Next, Bishop Ignatius cites several evidence from the Holy Scriptures, which, in his opinion, should prove the reality, the materiality of the human soul and the angelic being. For example, quoting the words of Jesus Christ “You do not have flesh and bone as you see Me” (Luke 24:39), Bishop Ignatius derives from here the idea that the spirit here is called incorporeal only in comparison with our earthly flesh or in comparison with the earthly flesh of the God-Man Himself. But in this case, Bishop Ignatius forgets that Jesus Christ uttered these words after His glorious Resurrection, that is, being not in ordinary human flesh, but having glorified, deified, changed flesh, radically different in its properties from the things of the visible world. This means that if the Lord spoke about the spirit, that the spirit does not even have such a “special” flesh, then this emphasized the complete immateriality of the spirit (in this case, the “soul”, for the apostles thought that they saw the spirit of Jesus, i.e. that side of His human being that is not amenable to sensory perception). Bishop Ignatius in the same work tries to confirm the idea of ​​​​the materiality of the spirit - soul with the consideration that many biblical books talk about the appearance of angels or deceased people to living people, and in all cases the appearance of the person who appeared was similar to the appearance of a person. Examples are given of the appearance of angels to the myrrh-bearing women who came to the Holy Sepulcher (Mr. 16:5; Matt. 28:2–6), the appearance of an angel to Cornelius (Acts 10:3). However, there is absolutely no reason to infer the solidity of the essence that appears under one form or another. Any spiritual entity can, by the will of God, either remain incorporeal or temporarily take on a visible form. God Himself, invisible, absolutely spiritual, immaterial and immaterial, appeared to Abraham and other biblical persons. However, one cannot conclude from this that there is any involvement of the Divine Being in something material or substantial. In the “Sermon on Death,” Bishop Ignatius, based on the words of the Gospel “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), concludes that only God, as an infinite Being, is not subject to any form, cannot have any form 15. While fully agreeing with the absence of any kind or form in God, it is not at all necessary to follow Bishop Ignatius in believing that therefore everything that is outside of God must have a form and form. Here is a logical error in conclusions that coincide in some parts of their volume, but do not coincide in other parts. And therefore, the Church can imagine the existence, apart from God, of other beings, invisible, formless and immaterial, for immateriality and invisibility do not necessarily have to be the exclusive properties of the Divine alone. Let us consider what the Right Reverend Bishop Theophan says regarding the testimony of the Word of God about the nature of the soul and spirits. First of all, while polemicizing with the “new” teaching, he emphasizes that, while citing some texts of the Holy Scripture that suit him, it completely ignores those passages that are usually cited by supporters of the immateriality of souls and angels. Bishop Theophan calls these places “sedes doctrinae” 16. The first such place, says Bishop Theophan, is the image of the creation of man in the image of God: “This image is not in the body, but in the soul, for God is not corporeal. What exactly is the image of God in the soul? Either in the nature of the soul, or in its aspirations, or in both. But no matter what you stop at, you must recognize the soul as spiritual. If the image of God is in the nature of the soul, then it is spiritual, because God is spirit. If the image of God is in the highest spiritual aspirations, then just as spiritual phenomena and actions cannot come from a bodily being, but must come from a spiritual being, the soul must again be recognized as spiritual, so that spiritual actions can be carried out from it...” 17. Bishop Theophan adds that this thought was universal in the human race, the expression of which is the words of Ecclesiastes: “The dust will return to the earth, as it were, and the spirit will return to God, Who gave him” (Eccl. 12:7). Citing words from the New Testament, Bishop Theophan sees the immateriality of the soul in the Lord’s commandment not to fear “those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt. 10:28) and in the instruction of Jesus Christ to worship the Spirit - God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). The following reasoning by Bishop Theophan is remarkable. “Little attention is paid to the last place, yet it is very decisive in the dispute that occupies us. To bow to God in spirit, you must be in spirit. Even if by spirit we mean here only one spiritual appeal to God, i.e. an indication not of the nature of the soul, but of the spiritual actions emanating from it, like truth; then in this case, the conclusion will be the same, that the soul must be a spirit, for spiritual actions, so necessarily assigned by the Lord to the soul, cannot come from the body, no matter how subtle it may be. The combination in which it appears here does not allow this word to be interpreted in any other way. It is applied here to both God and the soul. If in relation to God it means pure, immaterial and incorporeal spirit, then by what right, in relation to the soul, is it given a different meaning? 18... The above reasoning of Bishop Theophan, imbued with the spirit of patristic understanding and interpretation of the Word of God, explains his idea about the incorporeality of the spirit much more clearly and simply than the evidence given above by Bishop Ignatius in favor of his opinion about the materiality of the soul. It should be noted that Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) repeatedly says that the very term “spirit, soul” both in the Holy Scriptures and in patristic works is supposedly used more often in the sense of “wind, breath, steam, air, gas” 19. According to the fair remark of Bishop Feofan, such an explanation is unsuccessful. If the words spirit or soul are used in this or a similar meaning (sometimes figuratively), then such meanings are secondary, not proper. The direct meaning of these words in the Holy Scriptures is “spirit, a rational being, immaterial and incorporeal” 20. Bishop Theophan considers the strongest example of this to be the words from the book of Genesis: “And he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Bishop Theophan also provides a corresponding explanation of this text according to the interpretation of St. Gregory the Theologian: “That’s the minute the soul became known.” St. Gregory the Theologian says that “the soul is the breath of life” (vol. 4, p. 240) and that “the life God puts into man is known under the name of soul” (ibid., p. 158). This is the true Christian production of the word soul and behind it the spirit! 21... Indeed, if you deeply delve into the text and meaning of all those places of Holy Scripture that speak about the nature of the soul, then it is much easier to accept Bishop Theophan’s concept of the complete immateriality of the soul than the reverse theology of Bishop Ignatius about its “subtle” materiality. It is enough to recall such testimonies that speak of the immortality of the soul. Everything material has an end, a limit to its existence. If the Word of God teaches about the immortality of the soul, it means that this essence is not material in any degree or in any part. No matter how subtle matter is, no matter how “refined”, “light”, etc. it is, it will always remain matter, and therefore there can be no talk of its immortality. And this consideration also speaks more in favor of the teaching of Bishop Theophan than of Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). The teaching of Bishop Ignatius is not without strong stretches in other places when he presents the meaning of passages from Holy Scripture in a broader sense than it actually is. For example, in “The Word on Death” the author says: “The Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers constantly call them (created spirits) disembodied and immaterial; but they are called this way only relatively: in relation to gross human bodies and to the gross material world...” 22. In this case, Bishop Ignatius seems to admit that the Bible everywhere, constantly talks about the immateriality of spirits, however, true to his unique concept, he tries to convince his readers that all such passages from the Word of God say exactly the opposite of what is perceived by the mind of the reader of the sacred lines. This assertion is, to say the least, unsubstantiated. According to the critic St. P. Matveevsky, it is also dangerous because it leads to an arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of the Holy Scripture, which is reminiscent of the examples of ancient heretics who tried to base their errors on the Holy Scripture with the help of peculiar interpretation techniques. Absolutely rightly St. P. Matveesky says: “By allowing such arbitrariness in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, we could evade any evidence taken from the Bible... and confirm any thoughts with the provisions of the Word of God, interpreted in our own way...” 23. Indeed, if we cite several texts of the Holy Scriptures, which speak about the soul - spirit in contrast to body - flesh, we will see that the Word of God did not allow any “relativity”, but directly taught that the spiritual world is, as it were, the complete opposite of matter, substance, flesh, and therefore did not contain any hint of the need to understand all such places “relatively”. This is what the New Testament scriptures say: “...Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul...” (Matthew 10:28)... “...The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak...” (Mr. 14.38) “...For the spirit does not have flesh and bones...” (Luke 24.39)... “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...” (John 3:6)... “The Spirit gives life, but the flesh profiteth nothing...” (John 6.63)... “His soul was not left in hell, neither did His flesh see corruption...” (Acts 2.31)... “For as the body without the spirit is dead...” (James 2. 26)... “So that they, having been judged by man in the flesh, may live according to God in the spirit...” (James 2. 26)... I Peter 4:6)… “The body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness…” (Rom. 8:10)… “To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace...” (Rom. 8:6)… “And I, being absent in body, but present with you in spirit...” (1 Cor. 5:3). “...The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit...” (1 Cor. 7:34)... “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption does not inherit incorruption...” (1 Cor. 15. 50)... “Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the spirit is against the flesh..." (Gal. 5:16-17)... "He who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life..." (Gal. 6:8)... "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against... spirits..." (Eph. 6:12)... etc. So the meaning of all the passages of Holy Scripture that speak of the soul - the spirit is such that in the concept of the created spirit no degree of materiality, no involvement in matter can in any way be conceived, and therefore it is necessary to admit that, from the point of view of the Word of God, in the dispute between the two saints, the truth was on the side of the Right Reverend Bishop Theophan. This truth was also imprinted on the general church consciousness. The Seventh Ecumenical Council at its fourth meeting, on the basis of the testimony of the Word of God and the wise reasoning of the Holy Fathers, proclaimed the immateriality of angels, and therefore of the soul, indicating that they are “alien to any corporeal shell” 24. The “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East” says: “Finally, God created man, who is composed of an immaterial and rational soul and a material body, so that... it could be seen that He is the Creator of both worlds, both the immaterial and the material...” 25. “...The human body comes from the seed of Adam, and the soul is given from God, as the Scripture says: “The Lord, who spread out the heavens, and founded the earth, and created the spirit of man in it...” (Zech. 12:1) 26. Both eminent authors abundantly cite numerous extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers to prove their views. One is in favor of the materiality of the soul, spirit, angels; the other - in favor of their immateriality, immateriality. There are a lot of these quotes. Let us first dwell on those places that are the most “sharp”, the cornerstones of both views. Bishop Ignatius in his “Sermon on Death” cites the following words of Saint Macarius the Great: “Just as angels have an image and a vision (appearance), and just as the outer man has an image, so the inner man has an image like an angel, and a vision similar to the outer man...” 27. Another place is given in some paraphrase: “Every creature - angel, soul, and demon, by its own nature, is a body; because, although they are refined, yet in their essence, in their distinctive features and in their image, according to the refinement of their nature, they are subtle bodies, whereas this body of ours is plump in its essence. So the soul, being refined, is clothed with an eye with which it sees, and an ear with which it hears, and likewise with a tongue with which it speaks, and with a hand; and in one word, having clothed itself with the whole body and its members, the soul dissolves with the body, as a result of which all vital functions are accomplished...” 28 . Paraphrasing these passages somewhat, Bishop Ignatius writes in the same “Sermon on Death”: “The coarse human body serves as clothing for the subtle body - the soul. On the eyes, ears, hands, feet, which belong to the soul, similar members of the body are put on...” And then Bishop Ignatius gives his own thought: “When the soul is separated from the body through death, it takes off its clothing, as it were...” 29. Bishop Ignatius also refers to the following words of St. John of Damascus: “An angel is an incorporeal being... An angel is called incorporeal and immaterial in comparison with us. For everything, in comparison with God, the only incomparable one, turns out to be crude and material. Only the Divine, in the strict sense, is immaterial and incorporeal...” 30 . Bishop Ignatius adds: “By nature,” says the same Saint, “only God is incorporeal; angels, demons and souls are incorporeal by grace and in comparison with gross matter.” (Ibid., chapter 12; About man...) 31. It will be more convenient to begin the analysis of the evidence of the patristic writings with St. John of Damascus, and then analyze the teaching of St. Macarius the Great and then the rest of the Holy Fathers of the Church. And Bishop Theophan, in his polemical work “The soul and angel is not a body, but a spirit,” writes in this way: “Of all the paternal testimonies with which he wants to protect himself, the new teaching is only the testimony of St. John of Damascus and Macarius the Great, and it can at least somehow pull on its hand. The testimonies of other holy Fathers cited by him do not say at all what it wants...” 32 . The teaching of St. John of Damascus about souls and angels (in the volume that interests us) is found primarily in chapters III and XII of his second book and in chapter XII of the first book of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. At the beginning of Chapter III of the second book, Saint John of Damascus says: “He Himself is the Creator and Creator of angels, who brought them into existence from non-existence, in His image He created them, an incorporeal nature, as if a certain spirit and immaterial fire, as the divine David says: “Create angels Your spirits and scorch Your servants with fire...” “So, an angel is an essence mental, always moving, possessing free will (autocratic), incorporeal, serving God, by grace having received immortality in its nature, the nature of which only the Creator knows the form and limit of. She is called incorporeal and immaterial in comparison with us; for everything compared with God, the only incomparable one, turns out to be both crude and material, because only the Divinity is truly immaterial and incorporeal “...Angels are the second lights, mental (conceivable, comprehended only by the mind), having enlightenment from the first and beginningless Light; not needing language and hearing, but without words spoken (by the tongue), transmitting their thoughts and desires to each other...” “Like minds, they reside in mental places, not being describable like bodies, for by their nature they do not have a form (image) like bodies, do not have three dimensions, but mentally they are present and act where they are commanded, and cannot at the same time be and act both here and there...” (Still from Chapter III of the second book)... “...So, the soul is a living essence, simple and incorporeal, by its nature invisible to bodily eyes, immortal, gifted with both reason and intelligence, having no form, using a body equipped with organs...” “We understand the incorporeal and the invisible and the formless in two ways. One is incorporeal by essence, and the other by grace; and one is by nature, the other by comparison with the grossness of the substance. In relation to God - by nature, in relation to angels, demons and souls - by grace and in accordance with the coarseness of matter ... "(Until now from Chapter XII of the second book). “...There is also a mental place where it is (mentally) contemplated and where mental and incorporeal nature is located, where it is inherent and acts and is not embraced in a corporeal way, but mentally. For it does not have the (external) form to be embraced bodily...” (So far from Chapter XIII of the first book) 33. Having before your eyes the context of those thoughts of St. John of Damascus, on the basis of which Bishop Ignatius developed his unique teaching, one can see that the Holy Father did not at all intend to say and indeed did not say what Bishop Ignatius “read”. Based on the proposed passages from the “Exact Exposition of the Faith,” one can understand the following thought of St. John of Damascus: Almighty God, possessing an immaterial nature, created in His image, that is, immaterial, the spirits He created. The very essence of the spirit cannot be seen or felt. It can only be thought of. How to think? As a kind of spirit, as an immaterial fire, as an ever-moving entity, moreover, moving according to its own free will, but with the purpose of serving the Creator. By the grace of God the spirit becomes immortal. The spirit does not need either hearing or language, it does not have three dimensions, resides in a special “imaginable” place, has no appearance, no form, no limit. True, if we compare the created spirit with the Spirit of God, then there is an immeasurable gap between them: even the most perfect of created spirits is very far from the perfections of the Spirit of God, and therefore the created spirit can be spoken of almost as non-spiritual, almost as a material entity. And yet the spirit, by the grace of God, is incorporeal and immaterial. How to understand this? The type and limit of this essence is known only by the Creator, Who alone is truly incorporeal and immaterial. Such knowledge is not given to man. A type of spirit—the human soul—under earthly conditions uses a material body equipped with special organs of perception. Nowhere in Saint John of Damascus is there even a shadow of a thought about “subtle” materiality, about the materiality of the spirit or soul. But what about the testimony of St. Macarius the Great? At first glance, it contains a very clear teaching about the corporeality of spiritual beings (except God), about the external appearance of souls and angels, attributing to them the presence of arms, legs, eyes, mouths, etc. In his “Sermon on Death,” Bishop Ignatius cites the following testimony of the Monk Macarius: “Below wisdom with their wisdom, below understanding with their minds, they were able to understand the subtlety of the soul, or to say how it exists, except for those to whom, through the Holy Spirit, comprehension and precise knowledge of the soul is open. But do you think here, judge and listen, and hear that it exists? That is God, but she is not God; He is the Lord, and she is the slave; He is the Creator, and this creature; He is the Creator, and she is a creation; there is no similarity between the nature of This One and This..." (Conversation 49, chapter 4) 34. Can we consider that St. Macarius the Great actually contained such a unique doctrine about spiritual beings? To clarify the meaning of the statements of the Venerable Macarius, we will quote the entire 9th chapter from his 4th conversation. Here's what it says: “I intend, to the best of my ability, to utter some subtle and thoughtful word. So listen wisely. The boundless, unapproachable and uncreated God, by His boundless and unimaginable goodness, embodied Himself and, so to speak, diminished in unapproachable glory, so that He could enter into unity with His visible creatures, I mean the souls of Saints and Angels, and they could be involved in the life of the Divine. And every creature - angel, soul, and demon, by its own nature, is a body; because, although they are refined, yet in their essence, in their distinctive features and in their image, according to the refinement of their nature, they are subtle bodies, whereas this body of ours is plump in its essence. So the soul, being refined, is clothed with an eye with which it sees, and an ear with which it hears, and likewise with a tongue with which it speaks, and with a hand; and in one word, having clothed itself with the whole body and its members, the soul dissolves with the body, as a result of which all vital functions are accomplished...” 35 . First of all, you need to pay attention to the opening words, in which St. Macarius warns that he wants to utter a “subtle, profound word” and invites readers to listen to him “reasonably.” This warning alone suggests that a teaching will be presented that is unusual for the entire Church, and therefore, perhaps not necessary for all members of the Church to accept it on faith. On the other hand, this warning speaks of the extreme complexity, the “subtlety” of the issue, in which many provisions may cause confusion among readers. The Monk Macarius seems to say this: “It seems to me that one can think about spirits in this way. But you, readers, do not rush to object, listen to me to the end. Maybe you will agree with my opinion.” With what opinion? Apparently, with an opinion about the corporeality of the spirit and the angel. But what is “subtle” about this teaching? This teaching can rather be called “crude,” almost materialistic. What is the “profoundness” here? Obviously, the subtlety of the teaching is not that this, at first glance, simple saying should be given a slightly different meaning, and, in all likelihood, the same meaning that we saw in St. John of Damascus, namely, that created spirits, although incorporeal, although immaterial, but in comparison with the Spirit of God they turn out to be rude and “almost corporeal,” or they have, as it were, a “lower degree of spirituality,” while God has highest and incomparably pure spirituality. But even let us assume that Saint Macarius wanted here to show his conviction in the corporeality of spirits and angels. In this case, the opinion of the Reverend can be considered only a private opinion, and not the belief of the entire Church of Christ. The Monk Macarius did not claim this, nor did he force all his readers to accept his view, as Bishop Ignatius does. What is the opinion of the Church in this case? This question will be answered by a small note from the publisher in the collections of conversations of the Monk Macarius, placed under the 9th chapter of the 4th of his conversations after the words: “...and the Angel, and the soul, and the demon, by their own nature, is a body.” Here is the note from the Moscow Theological Academy: “This should be understood in a sense not detached, but relative. John of Damascus (see the exact statement of the Orthodox faith, book 2, chapter 3) says: “An angel is an incorporeal being... An angel is called incorporeal and immaterial in comparison with us...” and so on 36. The already mentioned saying of St. John of Damascus is cited. This is the voice of the Church! Here is a theological indication of how to read these words: “Understand not in a detached sense, but in a relative sense”! And the very testimony of St. John here plays the role of proving that the corporeality of spirits cannot in any way be understood in the literal sense! We should not forget that such a note was made in all editions of the works of St. Macarius, and all these editions were censored by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. But perhaps St. Macarius develops his teaching more deeply in other places in his works? No, this does not happen. On the contrary, this is how he speaks in other places about the nature of the soul: “The soul is not from God’s nature and not from the nature of evil darkness, but is an intelligent creature, full of beauty, great and wonderful, a beautiful likeness and image of God...” 37 . Or this is what Saint Macarius says in his 46th Discourse: “...When the soul cleaves to the Lord, and the Lord, having mercy and loving it, comes and cleaves to it, and its understanding incessantly abides in the grace of the Lord, then the soul and the Lord become one spirit, one dissolution, one mind” (Chapter 3)... “...So, truly the soul is a great, Godly and wonderful thing. When she was created, God created her in such a way that there was no vice in her nature; on the contrary, he created her in the image of the virtue of the Spirit...” “In a word, he created her in such a way that he could become his bride and accomplice, so that he could be in unity with her, and she could be with him in one spirit, as it is said: “Be cleave to the Lord; you are one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17) ...” 38. How can a corporeal, material, even very subtle soul be “one spirit” with the Lord? This is possible only for an “intelligent creature” created as a “beautiful likeness and image of God.” This means that Saint Macarius, if he intended to express some special thought about created spirits, then this thought remained his personal private opinion, albeit a very “subtle” one. And therefore, no one in the Church of God should dare, having seized on such an opinion, to base on it a teaching obligatory for all believers. Bishop Ignatius cites the saying of St. John Cassian the Roman: “Although we call many beings spiritual, such as angels, archangels and other powers, also our very soul, or such as this subtle air, they should in no way be recognized as incorporeal. They have a corresponding body in which they exist, although it is incomparably subtler than our body. They are bodies, according to the apostle, who said: “... both the heavenly body and the earthly body...”, and again: “A spiritual body is sown, a spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. 15:40, 44), which clearly indicates that only God is incorporeal. (Interview 7, Ch. 13...)" 39 . As Bishop Theophan notes in his book “The soul and angel are not the body, but the spirit,” the above saying of St. John Cassian does not at all concern the essence of angels and spirits. St. John believes that angels and spirits have “a corresponding body in which they exist.” Therefore, it is implied that he who exists in such a body is not himself a body, but a spirit. This is also a peculiar opinion, not recognized by the Church as mandatory, but from it again one cannot deduce the idea of ​​the corporeality of the nature of created spirits. One may not agree with such a remark by the Reverend Theophan, taking into account the further expressions of St. John Cassian, where the corporeality of spirits seems to be directly affirmed: “they are bodies...” and “... only God is incorporeal...” However, the opinion of this saint only says that the realm of the being of spirits is an unexplored region of theological wisdom, in which one can work and reflect, but one cannot draw categorical conclusions about the actual materiality of the human soul and other spirits created by God. This is what St. Gregory the Theologian says, interpreting the words of the Psalmist in his 28th Sermon on theology: “Create angels your spirits and your servants a fiery flame”: “... this nature is called spirit and fire, partly as mental, and partly as purifying; because the First Essence will also take the same names. However, let it not be physical for us, or as close to it as possible...” 40 . The Great Theologian, as we see, does not share the “new” teaching. He believes that it is better to believe in “incorporeality” than in the corporeality of spirits, whose nature is “mental” and “purifying”, and not material, not material. Let us compare the new teaching about the corporeality of spirits with the sayings of some other holy Fathers. This is what St. John Chrysostom writes in his Discourse on the Book of Genesis: “When you hear that God “breathed into his face the breath of life,” understand that just as He produced incorporeal forces, He was so pleased that the human body, created from dust, had a rational soul that could use bodily members... First the body is created from dust, and then the life force is given to it, which constitutes the essence of the soul. Therefore, regarding the dumb, Moses said that “the soul ... of the body is its blood” (Lev. 17:14). And in man there is an incorporeal and immortal essence, which has a great advantage over the body, and exactly what it is proper for an incorporeal to have over the body...” 41. Saint John Chrysostom does not say a word about the “subtle” physicality of the soul. He directly calls the soul an incorporeal and immortal vital force, which can “use bodily members, but itself remains incorporeal, like other incorporeal forces. And nowhere in the works of the Holy Father is there a hint of the soul’s involvement in the material world. On the contrary, St. John Chrysostom often describes with admiration the high spiritual properties of the soul, exclaiming: “What can be compared with the soul? Name the entire universe, and then you won’t say anything...” 42 . St. John Chrysostom also has wonderful words about the unknowability of the essence of the human soul: “We do not know with certainty the essence of angels and cannot recognize it, no matter how much we think about it. But what am I saying about angels when we don’t know well, or rather, don’t even know at all the essence of our soul?.. But why do I say: what is the soul essentially? It’s even impossible to say how it is in our body...” 43. If it is impossible to know the essence of the spiritual nature of the soul and the image of its union with the human body, then it is even more impossible to attribute something new to the soul, to ascribe to it materiality, corporeality; and even more so, one cannot insist on the truth of precisely this and not another view (i.e., the view held by Bishop Ignatius). This is the conclusion from all the quoted words of St. John Chrysostom. Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his 38 Homily on Epiphany, describes in these words God’s creation of man, composed of bodily nature and spiritual nature: “The artistic Word creates a living being, in which both are brought into unity, that is, the invisible and the visible nature; creates, I say, man, and from the already created substance, taking a body, and putting life from Himself (which in the Word of God is known under the name of the rational soul and the image of God), creates, as it were, some kind of second world, great in small things; places on earth another angel, a worshiper made up of different natures, a spectator of the visible creature, the secret of the intuited creature, a king over what is on earth, subordinate to the heavenly kingdom, earthly and heavenly, temporal and immortal, visible and intuitable... creates a living being, here prepared and transferred to another world and (which is the end of the mystery) through the desire for God reaching deification..." 44 . He writes in Homily 40 for Holy Baptism: “Since we consist of two natures, that is, soul and body, visible and invisible nature, then the purification is twofold; namely: by water and by the Spirit; and one is accepted visibly and corporeally, while the other at the same time is accomplished incorporeally and invisibly...” 45. Again, St. Gregory the Theologian does not contain any thoughts about the corporeality of the soul. Both he and many Holy Fathers often use the expression “of two natures.” If a person consists of two natures, and besides the spiritual and bodily nature there is no third nature, then, therefore, in addition to the body, which is certainly material, the second nature - the soul - is an immaterial entity. Otherwise, if the soul were involved in materiality, constituting “subtle flesh,” why would we talk about two natures? Then both body and soul would be classified as one nature, with only some variation. St. Simeon the New Theologian, like St. Gregory the Great, clearly distinguishes two natures in man, calling the soul completely immaterial: “Indeed,” I marvel, “how the soul, being completely immaterial and having an intelligent eye of light, nevertheless uses a sensual image and bodily eyes...” 46. Elsewhere, the Monk Simeon the New Theologian says: “The soul, as an intellectual force, is single and simple and not composed of different parts...” 47. In his 13th Word, he calls the soul “immaterial, simple and uncomplicated...” 48, and in the 34th song of the Divine Hymns he says: “Truly in the image of (His) the soul of every person is the verbal image of the Word...” 49, which quite clearly implies the soul as a completely immaterial entity. This is what he writes in his 27th Word: “While it (the soul) is in this body, through the body it sees and cognizes material things; but as soon as it is separated from the body, at that very hour it is separated from intercourse with everything material, it ceases to see and think about it, and enters into relationships with the invisible and mental...” 50 . All the cited passages from the works of St. Simeon the New Theologian eloquently testify to his absolutely clear understanding of the human soul as an immaterial entity, absolutely incorporeal, without any signs of “subtle” materiality. The result of the review of the statements of the Holy Fathers on the issue of the nature of spirits will be the final conclusion that all St. The fathers unanimously recognized the immateriality of souls and angels. Even if some of them held a special opinion about the “secondary” nature of the spiritual essence of the soul, then none of them ever placed the soul in the category of objects involved in matter. And therefore, comparing both teachings about the nature of created spirits, we come to the conclusion that Bishop Theophan’s teaching about their unconditional spirituality is closer to the general patristic opinion, closer to the pan-Orthodox understanding of this subject, than the peculiar statements of the Right Reverend Ignatius (Brianchaninov)… Combining all of the above, we come to the following conclusions. Bishop Ignatius believes that created spirits (souls) are material, substantial, although their materiality is very subtle, unlike other objects of the material world, which have coarse materiality. The soul of a person, for example, has the entire appearance of a person: eyes, ears, face, head, arms, legs, etc. The soul can be measured and weighed. In a word, the soul is some subtle, ethereal, gentle copy of the human body. Bishop Theophan claims that the spirit, soul, angel are certainly immaterial, do not consist of any material particles. The human soul, for example, has neither body parts nor organs similar to the organs of a living person. The soul cannot be measured, weighed, felt. As stated above, neither the Holy Scriptures, nor the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, nor the data of the humanities and natural sciences provide sufficiently strong evidence of the validity of the teachings of Bishop Ignatius, while they present a lot of data in favor of the teachings of Bishop Theophan... To what extent is the doctrine of spirit, soul and body conducive to the salvation of man? His Eminence Bishop Theophan himself answers this question in this way: “We have understood that a person has three tiers of life: spiritual, mental and physical, that each of them provides its own sum of needs, natural and characteristic of man, but some are higher, others are lower, and that their proportionate satisfaction gives a person peace. Spiritual needs are higher than all, and when they are satisfied, then, although others will not be satisfied, there is peace, and when they are not satisfied, then, even if all others are richly satisfied, there is no peace. Why is their satisfaction called “the only thing needed”... “51. All the works of Bishop Theophan, which speak about spirit, soul and body, are imbued with this desire: how to teach people to achieve this “one thing they need.” Great fatherly love, concern for salvation, concern for spiritual life emanates from the instructions of His Eminence Theophan, who invariably divides a person’s inner life into three spheres: spirit, soul, body. If all the works of Bishop Theophan could be collected into a single large book and it would be necessary to give it an independent title, then it would rightfully be called by only two names: “What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it,” or “The Path to Salvation.” And if it were necessary to briefly answer the question: what is spiritual life, then the answer would be this - this is the path to salvation. And if the question were asked: what is the path to salvation? – The answer would follow: in spiritual life, in the growth of a person in the spirit, in the dominion of the spirit over the soul and body. Saint Theophan says: “When spiritual needs are satisfied, they teach a person to put in agreement with them the satisfaction of other needs, so that neither what satisfies the soul, nor what satisfies the body, does not contradict spiritual life, but contributes to it - and complete harmony of all movements and manifestations of his life is established in a person - harmony of thoughts, feelings, desires, enterprises, relationships, pleasures. And lo - paradise! 52 ... This is what the Right Reverend Theophan leads his followers to - to achieving heaven on earth through the correct development of spiritual life in themselves. From the Greek words: tricwz - in three ways - and h tomh - section, difference, separation. Letters from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. (1843–1867). Letter 26.– M., 1883.– P. 27. A Word about Death // Op. Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 585. Works of Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – pp. 745–746. Conversations and words by Rev. Macarius the Great: Discourse 7, chapter 8, Translation Moscow. Spirit. Academician – 1820. Ep. Feofan. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it? – M., 1904. – P. 49. A Word about Death // Works of Bishop. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II, – pp. 591–596. See the Introduction of this work. – P. 7. Works of the bishop. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. T. II. – P. 592. Matveevsky P. Teachings of Ignatius, Bishop of the former Caucasus and Black Sea // Wanderer. – 1863. – Sep. – P. 28. Ep. Feofan. The soul and the angel are not the body, but the spirit. – M., 1913. – P. 210. Works of the bishop. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 749. Ep. Feofan. The soul and the angel are not the body, but the spirit. – M., 1913. – P. 120. A Word about Death // Op. Ep. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 593. Ep. Feofan. The soul and the angel are not the body, but the spirit. – M., 1913. – P. 127. A Word about Death // Op. Ep. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 595. Matveevsky P. Teachings of Ignatius, Bishop of the former Caucasus and Black Sea // Wanderer. – 1863. – Sep. – P. 30. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. – Kazan, 1873. – T. VII. – P. 347. Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. – St. Petersburg, 1842. – P. 15. – Question 18. Ibid. – P. 26. – Question 28. Conversations and words by Rev. Macarius the Great: Conversation 7.–Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1904.– P. 67. Right there. Conversation 4.– P. 28. Works of the bishop. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 591. St. I. Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith. Book 2. Ch. 3. Works of the bishop. Ignatius (Brianchaninova). – St. Petersburg, 1865. – T. II. – P. 594. Ep. Feofan. The soul and the angel are not the body, but the spirit. – M., 1913. – P. 21. Translation by Archimandrite Pimen from the Patrology of Min. Patrologiae cursus complectus. Series graeca. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Tomus XCIV. 1860. S. Joannes Damascenus. Conversations and words by Rev. Macarius the Great: Conversation 4, chapter 9.–Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1904.– P. 27–28. Right there. Conversation 1, chapter 7. – P. 9. Right there. Conversation 4.– pp. 295–296. Creations. – M., 1889. – Part 3. – P. 40. John Chrysostom. – T. IV. – P. 104. John Chrysostom. Against the Anomeevs. – T. I. – P. 528. Creations. – M., 1889. – Part III. – P. 200. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Divine hymns. Song 44. – Sergiev Posad, 1917. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Words. Word 24. – M., 1892. – Issue. I.– P. 220. Right there. Word 13.– P. 127. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Divine hymns. Song 34. – Sergiev Posad, 1917. – P. 146. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Words. Word 27. – M., 1892. – Issue. I.– P. 242. Ep. Feofan. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it? – M., 1914.– P. 65.