About religion

Contents About religion in general 1. Religion in itself 2. Religion according to its inner dignity About revealed religion 1. About revelation in general 2. About the signs of true revelation 3. About the method of preserving revealed religion About Christian religion Introduction I. The divine origin of the Christian religion II. Composition of the Christian religion A. About the composition of the Christian religion and its relationship to the mind B. About the relationship of Christianity to other religions D. About different types of the Christian religion, or about different Churches E. About the difference between our Church and others In discussing religion in general, we need to show where it comes from in man and how it came about; how she expresses herself and what her spirit is; what is the goal and what are its properties. From here, its insufficiency and incompleteness will naturally appear to us, the need for another, higher and most perfect religion will be revealed, and thus the path to Christian theology will be paved. This treatise should actually occupy a place in the philosophical system, for natural religion is the subject of philosophy. But since philosophy does not look at religion from the side from which we should look at it, so that the doctrine of religion in general can be a good preparation for theology, we will offer it here in accordance with our purpose. Namely, we will look at religion from two sides: what is religion in itself, and is it sufficient in itself? Why will our treatise on religion generally have two sections: 1) religion in itself; 2) religion according to its inner dignity. Before we show what religion is in itself, let us make a few remarks about the name of religion. Perhaps concepts associated with its different names will help us understand its essence. Religion goes by different names. In the Holy Scriptures it is called “covenant,” “law,” “serving God,” “the way of Jehovah,” or simply “the way.” Considered in the heart of man, it is called “walking with God, the fear of God”; among our ancestors it was called faith; now among secular people it is known under the name of “the law of God”; more commonly and more often it is called religion. The word religio has three word derivations, each of which gives rise to thoughts about religion, one more edifying than the other. So, Cicero derives this name from relegre - “reread, sort through, examine.” Therefore, the name “religion” is nothing more than “reading, knowledge,” and is opposed to ignorance, is the daughter of light and is alien to any superstition. Christian Cicero, Lactantius, produces religio from ligo - “to bind, to unite.” Consequently, Lactantius calls religion a union between God and man; This name best expresses the essence of religion. St. Augustine characterizes religion even more, deriving it from religo - “to reunite, restore the union between two separated beings.” According to this concept, religion is the connection of God with fallen man; this name expresses the essence of the religion that has existed since the fall of man, and therefore the Christian religion. The names of religion in the Holy Scriptures do not fully express its essence. Thus, “covenant,” if by its name we mean promises on the part of God and their acceptance under certain conditions on the part of man, most of all can only befit the Jewish religion. The word “law” shows only the practical side of religion, which determines the way of our activity. “Serving God” is only the appearance of religion. “The Way” is a multi-significant expression: it also includes “descending” on the part of God: God descended to man in creation, descends in providence, and will descend in future judgment; – and “ascending” on the part of man: man ascends to God through faith, hope and love. “Walking” with God expresses the inner spiritual disposition of a person and the corresponding holy activity from the feeling of the omnipresence of God. “The fear of God” is a feeling that comes from the idea of ​​God’s justice, which curbs the evil inclinations of the will. Consequently, such a name is more suitable for the Jewish religion, which curbed the stiff-necked Jews with fear, but is not entirely appropriate for the Christian religion. We call it “faith.” This name characterizes religion from the point of view of its objects that exceed our understanding; but it embraces only the speculative part of theology. Among the secular people it is now called “law,” because they consider speculative knowledge unnecessary for themselves and understand by religion only the active teaching of faith. From these names it is clear that religion is the relationship of man to God and God to man. The question arises: what is it in itself? Where are the answers to this question? There are two of them: first, “history” can and should answer; the second – “philosophy” can and should answer. 1) In the field of world history, religion appears to us, first of all, as the “ever-present companion” of all peoples in general. There are degrees at which a man of science and art is left, where civil government and laws do not follow him, where he does not have a social life, where even the most settled life is unknown to him; but religion goes further than all this, does not leave him anywhere, follows him in all degrees of education, lives in all climates and countries, in a word: it is not subject to any conditions that modify human existence. So, for example, it is also found among the peoples most remote from the educated world - the Eskimos; The rude inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego also have it: they have their own religion and their own gods. Although some travelers found peoples who seemed to have no traces of worship; but from this we should in no way reject our position. For, firstly, such examples are very rare - both travelers and chroniclers agree on this; secondly, in a short time, travelers could not fully learn the morals, customs and social institutions of such peoples, especially since these peoples, in relation to religion, are governed by the laws of secrecy, that is, they tend to hide their religion from people alien to them and hostile, which was later confirmed when religion and worship began to be discovered among the same peoples; thirdly, if any people actually did not have any signs of religion, then judging strictly, it does not follow from this that they have no religion. It may be in the heart of the people, it may be contained in some of their dark thoughts about the Divine, on whom everything depends and by whom everything is controlled. No rudeness can be beyond the reach of religion. On the other hand, although there were enlightened people - philosophers, who rejected the Providence of God and the dependence of the world on God and destroyed all religion, but from this we cannot reject the truth of our previous position. Against this, one can say the same as said above, namely: firstly, these examples are very rare; secondly, most of these philosophers were only called by the name of atheists because they rejected the gods of their fatherland; but they could profess other gods; thirdly, moreover, almost the majority of them spoke out of vanity, writing godless systems out of the sole desire to show off their wit. And even if there really were such monsters in the moral world, they destroy and overthrow the universality and necessity of religion just as much as the monsters of the physical world overthrow physical laws. So, the first property of religion, considered in the field of world experience, is its universality. Therefore, it is not something accidental, but is a necessary accessory of the human race, a necessary element in the composition of our existence. But this religion, necessary for everyone, is infinitely diverse among all peoples. People do not agree on anything so much as on the fact that there is some highest Being - the beginning and end of all things; but they disagree so much on nothing as in their concepts about this Being. Without analyzing this diversity of religion by people, we can see it from the concepts that philosophers had about God, the systems of which are known to us. Popular concepts are even more diverse than the concepts of scientists. This diversity comes from different concepts about the three constituent elements of religion: God, man and the future life. Thus, some merged God with the world, others completely separated them. Merging God with the world, they looked for Him in the lower circle of creatures: in the kingdom of plants and in other soulless creatures of visible nature; or in the kingdom of dumb animals - they adored animals, birds, etc., or in the genus of rational beings - they idolized people; or, speaking from the circle of visible nature, they imagined seeing Him in the invisible forces of nature and worshiped its mysterious forces; or ascended to the stars to find the Divine; or descended to the underworld to worship Pluto, Neptune and others. Separating God from the world, people either represented two principles of the world - good and evil, or gave dominion over the universe to Jupiter alone, but with a heavenly court, and so on. What an endless variety of religions can come from here! But with this diversity, it is impossible not to notice, however, agreement on some points of religion among all peoples! No matter how much its image changed, there were and are, however, some constant points around which these changes revolved - some common features, without which the image of religion is impossible. We find three such points: 1) everyone recognized something invisible besides the visible, except the earthly - the heavenly, except the temporary - the eternal; everyone assumed a special, mysterious order of things, except for what we noted; 2) everyone recognized their dependence on the Supreme Being. Although man also worshiped lower beings, such as fetishes, he did not adore them, but those invisible principles of nature, of which they were symbols; 3) everyone was nourished by some sweet hope of moving to a better world after death, everyone dreamed of union with God. Having collected these features on the universal field of experience, we can give the following definition of religion: religion is faith in the union of everything visible with the invisible and in the dependence of man and the world on the Highest Being, combined with the firm hope of passing after death to a better world for union with God. This is how history answers the question of what religion is in itself. One should then ask: where does religion come from in man? History gives us only half an answer to this. She says that religion was passed down to us from our ancestors through our descendants, and takes us back to ancient times; but remains silent when we ask her about the first culprit of religion. Legends rise above history; but even those do not satisfy us. They say that man did not invent religion himself, but received it from God (Plato has a conversation about this), that he was once in heavenly palaces in cohabitation with God, fell from there through a crime and brought religion with him to this world; but for the mind all this is unsatisfactory: it seeks clear and solid knowledge. So, in order to solve this question, you need to turn to him yourself and ask him about what is not solvable for history. 2) But before we listen to the mind’s solution to the question we propose, we need to clear the mental path from objections and doubts in order to move unhindered towards the truth. First, it is said that religion may have been the work of one man; but such an assumption by French semi-scientists has no basis; for religion, being the work of one man, could not be universal. It cannot be thought that the priests invented it; for priesthood already presupposes the existence of religion. Secondly, they believe that religion is a product of rudeness and ignorance. Timor fecit deos (Latin, literally: “fear created the gods”), says Lucretius, but why does it exist among the most educated peoples? Thirdly, some people think that it is the fruit of the speculations of enlightened people; but why do we see it in wild ones too? Finally, fourthly, they say that external nature taught man religion, but even this cannot be established? The universality of religion must be based on human nature itself. External nature can only excite a person to religion; but to accept its impressions one must have the innate ability of the heart. Therefore, religion must be hidden in the heart of man and must have its origin in it. Ancient mythologists, that is, fabulists, rightly argued that a person would not have learned religion if he were not disposed towards it. We dare to say that if there were no germ of religion in a person, then neither nature, nor people, nor Angels, nor God Himself would have taught him religion. So we have seen that religion cannot be explained by accidental causes, that it has a basis in human nature. What is this reason? How was she born? Why did it take different forms? History, being younger than religion, cannot answer these questions. Here the mind must speak; only he, delving into human nature, can solve these issues, and we must pay all our attention to his solutions. Without a good knowledge of what constitutes the basis of religion, we will not even have an idea about it. This study of the mind about the basis of the possibility and origin of religion, without a doubt, can only be brief, for detailed knowledge of this is incompatible with the degree of enlightenment. So, the question is: on what is religion based in man and in the human race? how did it happen? Why is it always present in humanity? To solve these questions, we must turn to human nature. Man can be considered in two ways: either as a part of the universe, living a common life with all creatures; or as a special being, living his own life. In both cases we find in nature his foundation of religion; in the first - because it exists throughout the whole world, in the second - because it especially lies in the human spirit. Religion in Nature. By the name of the world we mean the entire system of the universe, the union of all celestial bodies and all creatures inhabiting these bodies. All parts of this universe, from the largest planets to the smallest bodies, are connected to each other by the closest common connection. What is the power of this entire connection of creatures? It is either visible - the sun (in our solar system), or invisible - God. All creatures of our solar system have a close relationship with the sun and clearly express their dependence on it. Let us rise to the starry sky: the sun holds all the planets with their satellites in a harmonious and strong connection, gives them constant and correct movement, sets boundaries for their flow and sends them life in the light. Let's go down to earth: the entire circle of earthly creatures is divided into three kingdoms: plant, animal and fossil; each of them has its own king in the sun and again reveals its dependence on him. All plants live by light; with the advent of day, the pores open, the leaves unfold, all the organs of life open to receive it from the light. Bring the plant into the room; no matter how its leaves are arranged, they will always turn towards the window, towards the light. Bring an American plant to us in Europe: here too it will show its connection with its native sun; in its development it will follow its own day and night, and not ours, it will unfold only at night, when it is day there, and not during the day, when it is night there. Let us move on to the animal kingdom: and here this connection and dependence of everything on the sun will be revealed to us even more, because animals come closer to the spiritual kingdom. Here this is expressed in two ways: gratitude or joy and fear; Animal language is not capable of other expressions. When the sun rises, a choir of birds sings a solemn song to greet him; animals leave their lairs and rush to open and elevated places to take part in the general joy of the creatures at the magnificent spectacle that opens; The orangutan, the animal most similar to man, turns to the east to bow to the rising sun. This is not poetry; no, this is the involuntary attraction of creatures to the Author of their life, a response to the omnipotent Word, which holds and revives everything with His power. A storm rises and rages - the opposite spectacle! Birds hide under branches, animals run away into caves, and the fiercest of them become meek, like lambs. What is this if not reverence for the invisible Lord of the world, who appears in terrible majesty? Thus, everything receives existence, strength and life from the sun, everything expresses this through its existence and through this reveals its relationship to the invisible source of existence, strength and life - God and shows Him worship and reverence. The sun is the dependent king of the world; it itself is held together by someone’s strength, it itself owes its existence and power to God. For the world, it is the representative of the invisible World Ruler, the organ of that omnipotent Word, which produces, preserves and lives everything - a union between the Creator and creation. All creatures in it worship God Himself, as the original source of everything. So, the whole world is nothing more than the vast church of God, in which God receives worship from creation, as the Creator and Ruler of everything. In this general, mediocre and direct service and worship of the creature to God, man also participates. Everything involuntarily expresses its worship of the light, and man showed reverence to it in times of unenlightenment; everything trembles and reveres the earthly sun, and he had it as an object of worship and awe. All of Central Asia and all of America worshiped light and fire. Perhaps they will say that this view of ours is unnatural, that it is either too learned or poetic. No! When David calls all creation - from Angels to creeping things - to worship and glorify the name of God (Psalm 148), this is not poetry or school thoughts. This view is characteristic of both common sense and the metaphysical mind. The said psalm expresses exactly the view of simple reason and feeling. We can find metaphysical views of this kind in the writings of some German philosophers. If by the name of religion we mean the connection between God and creation, then from what has been said it is clear that the whole world has its own religion, for everything feels its dependence on God and expresses its feeling to Him. But doesn’t the world have religion in the meaning in which St. Augustine defines it, that is, in the meaning of the union between God and fallen man? Is there not some falling away from God and a desire for a primitive state in creation? Doesn’t nature express through any actions that the union between the Creator and the creature is either dissolved or weakened, and that it seeks to restore or strengthen this union? We will find this in nature too. Without a doubt, we cannot see this in it in due completeness and detail, for our knowledge of it is very limited; but still one cannot help but notice in it obvious and striking traces of the creature’s falling away from God and the desire to draw closer to Him. First of all, let us note that this view of the world is not any fictitious or too scientific, arbitrary or unnatural. We find an immutable basis for it in the words of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 8:19–22), which clearly express this religious view: the creation awaits with hope the revelation of the sons of God, because the creation was subjected to vanity (not by itself, but by those who subjected it) in the hope that it itself would be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning and travailing together (as in childbirth) until now. The ancients also had the same opinion about creatures: they saw the imperfection and poverty of creatures, the state of vanity, believed in their future restoration to a perfect state, and imagined some blessed seed from which their restorer would be born. These opinions appeared in philosophical schools; but for the most part they were lost in the multitude of philosophers contradicting each other. They were preserved in the best purity by the Indians. We will find the same thing if we look at the universe with common sense and an unprejudiced feeling. In fact, let's look at our solar system. We see that some bodies, its components, constantly observe the laws and limits of movement prescribed for them; they are, as it were, obedient children of the sun, without leaving the boundaries prescribed for them and without moving away from it; others flow spontaneously wherever they want and sometimes seem to completely abandon the sun. Is this their natural state? Are these not angels who have lost their beginning? Why don't they have laws? Where do they wander, what happens to them?.. No, they themselves sometimes express a feeling of the unnaturalness of this state, they rush towards the sun, like its repentant children, they get so close to it that they seem to want to merge with it - and, carried away, so to speak, by fate, they go again to wander in the boundless abyss of the universe. Let's go down to earth. Here again her life appears pitiful; She, constantly changing, strives, as it were, to achieve some state and, still not achieving it, suffers in the pangs of birth. Her insides are boiling; through two hundred and thirty volcanoes it spews flammable substances, as if trying to resolve itself; from the outside - its middle is burning, its sides are freezing, the climates, like fetters, constrain their inhabitants, the elements are in a struggle. Is this really natural? No! The sun is not like that: there are no changes of darkness and light, heat and cold, and the struggle of the elements (Vellane). The earth should expect such a state, and will reach it when, according to John (Rev.), it becomes new. In the kingdoms of nature there is the same confusion: the forms of the three kingdoms of the earth are constantly changing; the vegetable kingdom seems to have no purpose other than to serve as food for animals; animals were apparently created in order to torment each other and saturate people with themselves. No, it can't be natural. We do not yet have the ear to listen to the groanings of the plant kingdom: but how clearly we hear the groanings of animals!.. So, we hear how the creature groans about the vanity with which it is subjugated by the crime of man, and how it sighs about the glory that is being prepared in the future! Religion in Man. So, since man is considered as a part of the universe, he in his nature already has the beginnings of religion, for it is in all creatures, although it is expressed by them in an unreasonable and sensual way. Being bodily, they are unworthy of the highest spiritual religion; for them the sun is God, but they cannot see the true God and worship Him. But man, as a special, rational being, has a higher religion within himself: it lies in his spirit. The basis of our spirit is the basis of religion, the development of its powers is the development of religion. From this development of spiritual forces, as from the very essence of the spirit, one can see why religion is universal, why it is diverse, and why, finally, everyone agrees on one essential point of religion - immortality. Let us remember what Fichte says about the first human consciousness. It is produced by the representation (dark) of two opposites: “I” and “not-I”. By nature, the “I” strives for infinity and cannot be conscious of itself unless it confines itself to something opposite and thus is reflected on itself. This opposition, which limits the endless striving of our spirit, is the boundless totality of everything that does not constitute our “I”: it is a boundless sea in which it sways like a point. What kind of dark idea is this of a limiting, or better yet, immense opposite that embraces our “I”, if not a dark idea of ​​God? Thus, a person, at the first awakening of his consciousness, meets God, the beginning of everything. Since the first act of consciousness is repeated in all other actions of our faculties, then in all cases our thought meets God. This really happens. With the opening of our consciousness, the limitless “not-I” disintegrates into an infinite number of individual beings. Thought strives to bring all this to the unity that it can, and through this it reaches the being in general, behind which it again meets God - the highest Being. This activity is accomplished through imagination and feeling and through the laws of reason. But the forms for all ideas of imagination and feeling are infinite: space is infinite, time is infinite. These are two veils in which all our sensory perceptions are wrapped. Here again our thoughts are reminded of God, infinite and eternal. There are two special laws of reason: the law of identity and causality. The law of identity guides us to the knowledge of the unity of everything that exists. The law of causality should lead us to knowledge of the cause of everything. Here again we recognize God as the one and Creator of everything. After reason on the ladder of abilities comes the mind. And he lives in God; eternity is his homeland and element; the three highest ideas: the being in itself, the absolutely necessary being, the absolutely whole being - its food; religion is his main subject. If we abstract from man according to the law of causality: then two more qualities are added to the above-mentioned image or appearance of the Divine: reason and perfect will. The practical abilities of our spirit tie the knot of religion even more tightly. “We recognize within ourselves the laws of our activity, which we could not prescribe for ourselves. We recognize, in case of failure to fulfill them, our guilt before the incomprehensible Being; We also realize that the fulfillment of moral laws must be accompanied by a reward - true happiness, but we see the opposite... From here we must certainly conclude that there is some mysterious Being who, having given moral laws, monitors their implementation, must help our powerlessness in their implementation and reward or punish in the future life. Hence God is the King of the moral world, the judge and the giver of bribes and the future life. Thus, we understand why religion is everywhere. If the beginning of religion is the beginning of self-consciousness, and self-consciousness is in everyone, then religion must be in everyone. It is also clear why religion is so diverse. The development of religion follows the development of the powers of the human spirit: but the powers of the spirit develop differently, therefore, the development of religion must be different. Just as one cannot expect the full development of the human spirit here, so the full development of religion in man, with his own strength, is impossible. Let us look at the development of the human mind, and we will see that the development of religion has always been consistent with it. Thus, savage peoples develop feeling and imagination, and partly conscience and reason, and all this is fused with instinct. Therefore, the religion of these peoples has a feeling of infinity and dependence on some higher being, a feeling that is excited from the outside and darkly expressed within. How does a savage express his religiosity? Without distinguishing the spirit from the body, the creature from the Creator, nature from God, he does not embrace the wholeness of creation, but sees only some manifestations of the Divine, hidden under the outer shell, and he idolizes this appearance, as a symbol of something infinite. He ascends a high mountain - and is struck by fear, which awakens in him a feeling or a dark idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Divine - and he reveres and honors this place. He enters a dark cave or approaches a waterfall - and here the same feeling of infinity is born in his soul, and therefore he adores not these things, but the feeling of Divinity generated by them in his soul. Since there are many phenomena in nature that produce such religious ideas, there were many gods. Then, when a person begins to become enlightened, appearance loses its former value for him. He begins to disbelieve that the gross matter of bodies has any power over him. As a result of this, he turns from soulless creatures to animate creatures, to animals. Here, in particular, he reveres those who, either by their enormity, or strength, or beauty, or their striking contrast, give rise to some vague and lofty thoughts in him. Thus he worships a dolphin, a whale, an elephant, a serpent of excellent and beautiful variegation, and also an eagle, which soars towards the sun and thereby expresses some desire for the Divine (that is why Jupiter was depicted with an eagle). Mystery forces us to look for the Divine in animals that cause harm or benefit, etc. But here, as before, man idolizes not animals, but the Divine, of which they are only symbols. Later, he begins to look for something higher in them; dreams of their intelligence and thinks that they can speak, but do not want to (blacks say that animals are silent so that they are not forced to work)... But as time goes on, this search disappears, and a person begins to recognize animals as insignificant. Therefore, he turns to the sky, worships the sun, the moon, and so on. This is how the religion of the Persians, Indians and others arose. After this, he makes higher views, and imagines a certain kind of rational beings, higher than man. This is how Greek and Roman mythology was formed. But since at this level of existence a person’s reason begins to develop, and with the development of reason the range of sensory ideas about objects visible to us also develops, then in this case a strange confusion of the great with the insignificant, the high with the low, occurs. To see this, it is enough to read Homer’s Iliad. There is a mixture of high, metaphysical, and low, experienced traits. Thus, when Jupiter says that all the gods will not drag him from heaven with any chain, but that he can shake them all, then his words contain a lofty idea; but her manner of expression is the lowest. This development of religion has been going on for centuries. Its completeness is determined by the complete development of the human spirit. But such completeness of perfection is inaccessible to man. The pagans do not even reach the middle of it. They stop at the deification of animals, plants and, much more, humans. The Greeks and Romans could have risen higher, but their aesthetic sense took over, where they stopped, without extending further. Only the Indian people crossed these steps and entered the metaphysical path. The Chinese followed the development of reason, but not theoretical - logical, but practical - everyday, and therefore their religion is adapted to social activity, but they do not have a theoretical teaching. They do not have the very name of God: they understand Him under the name of the infinite. Religion is passed on from fathers to children. In this hereditary transmission of religion we must look for the reason why entire nations do not go far in developing it. The father, passing on religious concepts to his son, also conveys that these concepts were received from God, and therefore the son does not try, and is even afraid, to perfect what his father passed on to him. That is why religion very often suffers and is humiliated. The development of the spirit goes forward, but religion remains behind; nations move forward, but the gods remain behind or become equal to them: people become better than gods. Thus, in the time of Augustus, many Romans were actually better than the imaginary gods. The Greeks tried to improve their religion, but in vain. Folk religion among them stopped at a lower level, and its further development was achieved thanks to the participation of only a few philosophers. In the minds of philosophers the difference of religion is as significant as in the minds of nations. For not one of them achieved the full development of spiritual powers, but only each more or less approached complete perfection. The path of development of philosophers for the most part stops in the sphere of reason, either theoretical or practical, and more - school, logical. The fruit of logical reason is that religion turns into dualism; for it is the nature of the understanding to represent, and it actually represents God in opposites. Theoretical reason, united with the practical, represents God as the cause of everything, the ruler, manager, judge... Religion did not appear in this form, or appeared, but very rarely among the ancients. This was partly the case with Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras, although, however, the influence of their ideas was too weak, dark and material. The view of the new philosophers, purified by Christianity, represents God under the form of a man with an infinite mind and an unlimited will, that is, he takes from the experience of people and does not ascend further. Of the newest philosophers, each is guided by some special ability of the soul; for example, Kant was guided by practical reason, and considered God only from the side of legislation, and recognized other sides as inaccessible to the human mind. Fichte, wanting to cleanse religion of anthropomorphism, took away the personality of God: for, not finding a single name that had nothing experiential, he called God the moral order. For naturalists, God turned into the world, and the world into God. So, the complete development of religion requires the complete development of the mind; but he is not in this world. If a person reached this fullness of perfection, he would become completely religious, for just as the first act of consciousness comes from God, so the last one would lead to God. Then man would not so much feel himself to exist as to feel God; then the “I” would be lost in the “not-I”. The elements that make up religion are: faith in God and in another invisible world, and faith in immortality or the hope of moving on to a better world. Therefore, having examined faith in God, we must also pay attention to faith in the immortality of the soul. Belief in immortality has always accompanied belief in God. The concepts of immortality are different among all peoples, but all peoples have them. The basis of this faith, as well as faith in God, is found both in the nature of things and in man. The concept of immortality is expressed in a mysterious way in the world. The world consists of phenomena that are constantly changing in their existence. But this motley, changeable and, so to speak, disintegrating shell in many places shows traces of eternity, leads to something permanent and unchanging. How? Nature in its educational actions represents the emergence of things from nothing and their transformation into nothing. This process of nature is nothing more than the connection of the visible with the invisible, the transitory with the eternal. This is noticeable and palpable for both the philosopher and the commoner. The plant kingdom develops from seeds; but seeds form a very small part of the plant kingdom. Where does everything that is in it besides seeds come from? What came from what we see in a tree, but what we do not find in its seed? Without a doubt, the beginning of this is where the end is, that is, in the invisible. The outer shell of all things we see changes; but the more we delve into such changes in things, the more we see in them something permanent and imperishable. Particular phenomena are brought to the general, and general - to the general forces of nature or to the known fifty-three principles, and these fifty-three principles are subordinate to the three main ones: light, heat and gravity - which are unchangeable, constant, eternal and which seem immaterial. Thus, our ideas reach constant objects and meet the principles of eternal life, and therefore in nature man finds the basis of his immortality. All visible nature can be likened to a tree, consisting of many different tubes, which the further, the thinner, more delicate and, as it were, more spiritual. This view of the nature of things is not new. Without a doubt, this is how the Apostle Paul understood it when he said: what is visible is temporary, but what is invisible is eternal (2 Cor. 4:18). In man, faith in immortality is based on the same thing on which his faith in God is based, that is, on the nature of the human spirit. It also develops along with the development of mental strength. Thus, when the lower abilities of the soul develop, the general and main law of which is time, then with each moment of time a dark reminder of eternity is born in the soul, for time is a symbol of eternity, it is, so to speak, its reverse side. With the development of reason, the idea of ​​eternity, or better yet infinity, develops, for, acting according to the law of identity, it sees infinity in the diversity of things, and acting according to the law of causality, it finds infinity in a series of causes. Moreover, striving for development, the mind sees that complete development on earth is impossible, and therefore certainly comes to the thought of eternity. The idea of ​​eternity develops even more with the development of the mind, will and feelings. There is nothing to say about the mind, for eternity is its homeland and element. With the development of the will and sense of goodness, the desire is born to improve in virtue and to bring happiness into equality with virtue; but since the first and second are not achieved in this world, the immediate consequence of this desire is the thought of eternity. In addition, faith in a future life develops and strengthens from self-awareness. Our spirit, purely aware of itself, cannot help but see that it is immortal. For what does it consist of? From the mind, will, concepts and desires; but all this is imperishable and indestructible. Consequently, conscious of himself purely, that is, separately from the body, he cannot find in himself anything corruptible, mortal, for the fear of death is born from the fact that our ideas about the spirit are not purely spiritual, but a mixture of the spiritual with the physical: we recognize the spirit not as it is in itself, but as it is expressed in our body, and therefore we recognize it as mortal. But if we were to realize it purely, that is, by removing everything that the flesh mixes with this consciousness, then the hesitation of faith in immortality would disappear completely. Thus, in holy people who were purely aware of themselves, the expectation of immortality was the firmest, and they would rather doubt that they were living than that they would once live. So, since faith in a future life is based on the nature of the human spirit and develops with the development of its powers, everyone can understand why it is universal and why it is different. Here we should remember what was said about the reasons for the universality and diversity of faith in God. Although religion must be based on the nature of the human spirit, although external nature could not teach a person religion if he did not have it within himself; however, it has contributed and continues to promote the development of religious feelings in a person. The development of religion takes place under the influence of nature. Let's look at the main points of this participation of nature in the cause of religion. Nature participates mainly in the development of religion by promoting the development of human powers. Consequently, external nature, giving us impressions of external objects, thus stimulates the activity of our spirit and protects it from sleep. Nature, striking our mind with its images, seems to wipe away the image of the Divine imprinted in it and clarify it. This is general participation. But she imparts religious lessons to each faculty of the soul separately. How? The activity of the human spirit begins with the action of feelings, which communicate to us concepts about things. But what are things? Those who look at them from a metaphysical point of view define them this way: they are the thoughts of God, portraits, lists of the Divine, and therefore nature is a panorama that contains many small pictures, each of which, in a certain respect, is an image of the Divine. So, if every thing is a small portrait of the Divine, then all nature is a portrait of the Most High, most perfect and complete. If this is so, then how many religious lessons it can teach us! True, not everyone can understand it, but at least everyone can more or less feel its instructions. We know that the lower faculties of our soul act according to the forms of space and time; We also know that these forms awaken in us the dark idea of ​​an infinite and eternal being. But to this knowledge we must also add that external nature greatly contributes to the awakening of the idea of ​​the infinite and the eternal. Its various dimensions, amazing us with their enormity, strength, and the striking contrast of their parts and positions, arouse in us the idea of ​​something limitless and eternal - God. Is reason developing with its laws of identity and causality? Nature does not abandon him either: she affirms these laws in him, letting him know that her phenomena, with all their diversity, must converge in something unified, and that the subordination of phenomena to causes presupposes the subordination of causes to one main cause. Moreover, reason is capable of remaining in the field of experience and being satisfied with what it finds in its sphere: but nature displaces it from this sphere with its contradictions, for it, not being able to solve them according to its own principles, is forced to go abroad and ask for advice from the mind. When a person reaches the mind, then nature (that is, experience) leaves him. Here he must converse directly with God without the guidance of nature. Here there is no longer assistance from nature, because the ideas of the mind correspond to the future world, and not the present. So, there is no direct assistance, but there is mediocre assistance. Namely: the ability that contributes to the development of the mind is feeling. The mind creates and contemplates lofty ideas, and feeling realizes them and represents them in images. Thus, for example, in the arts the ideas of the mind are realized by feeling. But nature has a very great influence on the formation of an aesthetic, high sense. In nature there are images that express eternal objects, which the mind cannot control and which cannot be brought under its ordinary forms. The main of these emblems are: 1) the rising sun: looking at it gives rise to the thought of something higher, something that existed at the beginning of creation; 2) the setting sun: a look at it gives birth to something uncertain in our soul and awakens a feeling of future life; 3) a rainbow after a storm: it excites similar feelings; That is why in Ezekiel it surrounds the throne of Jesus Christ. There are other emblems similar to these. A look on a dark night at a sky dotted with stars awakens a feeling of infinity and leads a person to the idea that he will not always remain on earth; here the words of Jesus Christ cannot help but come to mind: in My Father’s house are many mansions (John 14:2). Such emblems come even in small sizes. Thus, the picture, which shows an enraged villain and a baby praying at his feet, represents the struggle of two opposing forces - good and evil, and thereby inhales a feeling of the sublime. This is how external nature contributes to the development of religion! You just need to listen to her lessons and sharpen your ears from day to day. If religion is based on the nature of the human spirit, if it develops and cannot but develop with the development of human powers, then where does atheism come from, where do people who do not know God and the future life come from? “Such people are very pitiful.” Religion is an idea; Consequently, a person without religion is a person without an idea, without a mind, there is something unfinished, headless. But before we begin to talk about this, let us first say that atheists who reject religion meet us in the middle of the development of human powers, in the area of ​​logical reason. The area of ​​feelings and the area of ​​mind are free from this. The metaphysical mind has never allowed atheism. Of the ancient metaphysicians, Plato and Pythagoras, of the newest, Newton, Cartesius, Spinoza are the most pious; none of them were atheists. It is impossible for the mind to reject religion: by destroying it, it would destroy itself: for it would destroy the realm of ideas in which it lives. Only logical reason can reject religion, and it shows this effect mainly in those people who developed it too theoretically and kept it for a long time in the concepts of space and time; such are small mathematicians. The same is the action of reason in those who dealt a lot with small things, such as zoologists, doctors, lawyers. On this basis, reason is recognized in the Holy Scriptures as the enemy of God, although, however, epithets are given to it: “earthly, spiritual” and others; This is also what the school mind, the half-learned mind, leads to. Therefore, in mystical and theosophical books it is called the work of the stellar spirit - the devil. Now let's see why reason primarily tends to lead people to atheism? Mind and feeling are adapted to eternal ideas, for the former contemplates ideas and lives in them, and the latter delights in them and realizes them. Reason stands between them in the middle: it is not adapted to either one or the other. Experience is its own sphere, but experience and what is higher than it are always opposite to each other. Here is temporary, there is eternity; here is finitude, there is infinity. But religion lives in the eternal, and therefore it is contrary to reason, which deals with the temporal. Confined to its own sphere, reason does not see anything infinite and eternal, and therefore asserts that there is no God. To protect itself from this anti-religious trend, reason must leave its sphere and turn to the mind. But this is disgusting for him: he wants to be satisfied with himself. Therefore he strives to base his laws on experience; seeks the causes of the world in the world itself, and from this his gaze is limited to only the visible, the created. Instead of looking for the causes of things outside the world and thus reaching God, he seeks it either in the elements, like the ancient Ionian philosophers, who considered water, fire, etc. to be the beginning of all things, or in the forces of nature, like the newest French philosophers, in whose opinion centrifugality and centripetal force are the first causes of the existence of the world. Contradictions that should force reason to go to reason and, therefore, to God, on the contrary, serve as a pretext for godlessness. For he by himself cannot reconcile them in any way, and therefore, without the help of his mind, he is left, from the existence of contradictions and disorder, to conclude the non-existence of God - the cause of order. So, reason, by its very nature, is a traitor to religion, or its friend, but the most fragile and dangerous. Let's look at his operation itself and see more. His first question is: do God and things exist? – A godless question, suggesting doubt and disbelief in the existence of God. For the mind this question does not exist, for metaphysics or the mind would rather doubt the existence of things than the existence of God. Having proposed such a question about God, reason tries to resolve it - it tries to prove the existence of God. But what does it mean to prove? To deduce the lower from the higher, the available from the available. The existence of God cannot be proven in either one way or another, for there is nothing higher than God or equal to Him. Instead of proving the existence of God, reason will weaken its power and, taking on something that is not its own, will end up with something that is not what it should be, because in the conclusion of its evidence there will be more of everything than in the premises. Therefore, proofs of the existence of God cannot be called proofs, but are only indications: ways by which one can reach God. That is why the metaphysical mind observes a completely different order: it presupposes the existence of God, and from here proves the existence of things. Thus, the course of the actions of the mind cannot produce the anti-religious direction that the process of reason produces. We said that those who deal with trifles can easily become atheists: for example, botanists, zoologists and others. This is because, like plants, they have the sun as God. For their mind, engaged in the study of plants, so to speak, assimilates their properties, and therefore, feeling its dependence on the sun, loses the feeling of dependence on God. Moreover, the same thing happens with the mind as with vision. Anyone who has been reading fine print for a long time or looking at small bodies under a microscope will no longer be able to see great objects. The same should be said about the mind. Anyone who has talked for a long time about small, private subjects is not able to judge anything important, universal. But religious objects are universal. Therefore, it is difficult for botanists and zoologists to study them, because the activities in which they spend their lives make their minds sluggish, coarse, and petty. Doctors are also subject to the same fate: the consequence of their practice is damage to feelings, which are necessary in the matter of religion. They look at a person from the most unfavorable side, from the side of his illnesses; In this way they become accustomed to decay, and their minds involuntarily acquire a tendency to dwell on what their hands are doing. The same is the fate of lawyers. They become atheists when they encounter untruth. Unable to reconcile the suffering of the innocent and the happiness of the guilty with justice, they claim that there is no just being - there is no God. These people are usually poorly educated, semi-scientific. They are pathetic: they are monsters in the spiritual world. But they fall into godlessness unintentionally. For to fall intentionally means to see the foundation and turn away from it; but they evade because they do not see the reason - they do not know the value of the object they reject. Having shown the basis of religion in human nature, let us now look at its essence; Let us show you: what is religion? what kind of creature is she? what are its parts? History has given us half an answer to these questions. She told us what is common in the religion of all peoples and all times, that is, she said that religion is always and everywhere represented by the union of man with God, their mutual relationship with each other. But such an answer from history is still dark and uncertain for us. What will the mind say to this? Let him define for us more precisely the essence of religion. But what should he do in this case? First of all, by considering the nature of man and the nature of things; then - by considering the mutual relationship of two beings united by religion: this means that you need to know the nature of both - God and man. But the being of God is incomprehensible in itself. The mind must look at it through its nature and through the nature of things; Having cognized the essence of his spirit, a person cognizes in part the essence of God, reflected in the ideas of the mind. Thus, religion on the universal field of experience appears to us as a union and a relationship. What union? Such as a person is capable of. Therefore, in order to see the essence of this union, let us ask: what is man? It has two sides: sensual - material, completely limited, and spiritual - rational, almost unlimited. Speaking about religion, we must keep in mind its last side - the spiritual, for in its sensual side, although religion is expressed, it is without consciousness, mechanically. On the spiritual side, man is completely united with God. If we could contemplate all the features of God’s nature, we would see that man is united, feature by feature, with God. But we are not able to know all the traits and being of the human being, which is only a list of the Divine being. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to showing the main nodes connecting a person with God. Three sides are mainly noticeable in a person: firstly, the rational side - cognitive powers; secondly, the active side is the area of ​​will; thirdly, the sensual side is the area of ​​feelings, not the one that is turned to the material, but mainly the one that is directed to the highest - to goodness and grace. These three main forces are the three threads that connect man with God. For what is mind? A force striving for knowledge - for truth. Where is the ideal, where is the source of truth? In God. Thus, striving for truth, the mind strives for the ideal of truth - God. Having lost God, he loses the truth - he becomes empty: his entire domain then turns not into the domain of truth, but into the domain of logical signs. By the name of truth we must here understand metaphysical truth, consisting in the correspondence of our ideas with the things we represent. Such truth cannot exist in the mind without the idea of ​​God, without the idea of ​​a being who alone produced the outer world and the inner world, and laid the foundation for the agreement of both. What is will? A limited force of activity, striving towards infinity according to its own laws. Where is the ideal of its laws and the goal that is achieved through their implementation, that is, the ideal of virtue? In God. If there is no God, then our will is the most pitiful ability. There is no ideal for her, therefore, everything that is good for man must disappear. What is a feeling? The ability to feel pleasant or unpleasant. His ideal is complete enjoyment of perfect bliss. But perfect bliss is in God alone, and in man can only be realized through God. These three nodes are inseparable. The mind connects a person with God by the desire for truth; the will is holiness, and the feeling is the desire for perfect pleasure. Therefore, “religion is the harmony between truth, virtue and pleasure.” Therefore, religion contains that which the sciences themselves would seek in vain. For all sciences depend on whether religion exists or is only a dream. With the fall of religion, all sciences that deal not with formality, but with reality, must fall, and first of all, philosophy must fall. Let's look at religion as a person's relationship to God. This relationship is living and mutual. God relates to man in accordance with the three abilities of the human spirit: He allows Himself to be known by the mind, to be loved by the will, and to be tasted by the senses. How? Also from three sides: firstly, as the source of being - the Creator; secondly, as the fault of order and structure - the Provider and, thirdly, as the administrator of rewards and punishments - the Judge, the Perpetrator. In all these respects He appears even now in relation to the world, both internal and external. As the Creator, in the external world He appears to have produced and completed everything; in the inner world - creative, constantly pronouncing moral laws in the conscience of man. As a manager, in the external world he controls everything by the power of movement; in the inner world - by the power of conscience, also through desires and movements. As the finalist and the Performer, he rewards and punishes in the inner world; in the external world it supports the forces of existence and preserves everything from destruction. Through all these relationships, God presents Himself to man, both ideally – in the area of ​​cognition, and really – in the area of ​​actions and feelings. In a similar way, a person should turn to God with these same sides. First, he must recognize God in all respects, that is, as the Creator, Provider and Perfector, both in the external and in the internal world. Such recognition in relation to the mind gives rise to faith. This recognition, if it is perfect, gives rise to the second attitude - the attitude of the will, expressed in its desire for God. If this desire is correct, then it produces a third relationship - unity with God, which is not achieved here, and therefore lies in hope. So, a person relates to God through the recognition of the mind, the striving of the will and the pleasure of the senses, which in real life is limited to sweet hope, or briefly: it relates to faith, love and hope. Do all religions express all these three relationships? In everyone. In religion alone the devil does not have this. His religion expresses only faith in God without love and hope, which is why it is said: even demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). This is what can be said about the essence of religion and its components! Let us now consider the components of religion separately in some detail. Previously we saw how or how religion is expressed in man, as the union of man with God. Now let us examine the essence of religion according to its elements. It has three elements, as stated above: 1) God, as the most perfect Being; 2) future life and 3) man himself, as a being capable of thinking, acting and feeling. So, first of all, we must enter into consideration about God. God . When embarking on the study of such a lofty subject, we, without a doubt, must turn with sincere prayer to God, so that He will enlighten our weak minds with the light of His wisdom and reveal Himself to us as much as we can contain Him within ourselves. We must have a special disposition for this and fulfill a certain condition on our part, so that what the eternal Wisdom will tell us about Itself will take root in our mind and heart and bear saving fruit—success in the knowledge of God. (See the instruction of Dionysius the Areopagite, which he gave to his disciple Timothy.) In our study about God, we must consider, firstly, what kind of knowledge does a person have about God, how does he recognize Him, how firm is his knowledge, is evidence needed for this, and what kind? Secondly, what is God, how does He reveal Himself to our knowledge, do we have concepts about Him that correspond to His nature, what should be the state of our spirit in which we can know Him? Thirdly, what is the best way to retain this knowledge and establish yourself in it? Man has three kinds of knowledge. 1) Sensual. This knowledge of things is true in itself and obvious: seeing a thing in fact, we do not require evidence that it exists and that it really is such. 2) Knowledge through concepts and inferences. Their obviousness is revealed only by evidence. 3) Knowledge through ideas of the mind. This is a rational faith in objects that exceed intellectual understanding - a faith that is firmer and more certain than any knowledge. The question is: can God be the object of sensory knowledge, or rational knowledge, or mental faith? 1) Is it possible to have direct sensory knowledge of God? Many answered this question in the negative, and, it seems, unfairly. God allows Himself to be known in the same way that things allow themselves to be known. Man is preserved, supported and controlled by the power of God: this means that between God and man there is a real union and a real, so to speak, touch of one to the other. This union and this touch must be tangible in our spirit, and they are tangible. We cannot clearly feel and understand this; for for this it would be necessary to comprehend the secret way of the divine action and the very Being of God, our spirit would have to refine itself to the simplicity of this being and renounce the bonds of the body: the impressions of divine power on our spirit should be darkly and vaguely announced to our sensation. And we really have dark sensations of the Divine. For what are the so-called innate ideas about God, if not traces of dark sensations of the power of God directly acting on us? Otherwise, where do they come from, what are the abilities of the soul, and how could nature instill them in us? No one has yet answered these questions. Maybe they will say: “What are these vague ideas, what are these dark sensations? If we do not see them with the spiritual eye, then they do not exist.” But this is obviously unfair, because we do not comprehend and do not define many things whose actual existence and reality are beyond doubt for us. Even this knowledge in reality should be much closer to us and truer for us than the knowledge of all the things around us, for man is not so closely connected with a single thing as with God: he lives and moves by His power. But it remains dark for us because we cannot comprehend it. Meanwhile, it is very close and true for us: it forms the basis of all secret concepts or ideas of our mind. In fact, in our mental knowledge there are two elements: positive and negative. The positive element consists of the concepts of our understanding, transformed and elevated by our mind. The mind acquires them in the realm of reason, from limited categories, from which it cuts off the boundaries in order to elevate them to the heights of ideas. But where does this positive element come from? What makes us cut off the boundaries of ready-made concepts of the mind and make them limitless? What voice is it that always tells us, when we expand the concepts of reason, that all this is not enough, that we need to transform them completely? Why does reason not go in infinitum (Latin, to infinity) in the gradual expansion of the mentioned boundaries? Isn’t this a consequence of a dark sense of the inherent Divinity and a dark comprehension of It? Without this, reason would not be so demanding; he would always be content with his own strength. Most philosophers did not reach this question in their study of our soul, but many felt this special property of it and tried to determine it. These dark sensations of the Divine can be clearly noticed in the heart, as the main force of our spirit, in which feeling and mind are nothing more than its two-way development. The existence of God is felt by the heart: it is sometimes filled with such feelings that have no relation to any external object - which can only be produced from communication with the soul of some mysterious Being. If we could make a correct analysis of our concepts and ideas, we would certainly reach these dark feelings, which, as has been said, lie at the basis of all our sensations, feelings and ideas of the mind. In uneducated people they are present in the physical and moral sense. This feeling of the presence of God in the great phenomena of nature, this inner impulse to do good, this self-pleasure after doing it and torment after an offense, are nothing more than a consequence of the impressions of the Divine acting on us, as an echo of these impressions. People have no reasonable knowledge of them; In this case, they are like children who, following their mother, say: father, father, and they themselves, following nature, say: God, God. That is why the ancients called both love for God and love for parents - pietas (Latin, piety, reverence, piety). This ability does not require proof in the existence of what it feels: it is completely confident in it; it would be unnecessary for her to prove. Ask a Samoyed: is there a God? He will be amazed at this question; the existence of God is an axiom for him. In the same way for people who are guided by the mind. 2) The mind is equally undoubtedly aware of the existence of God. At the first glance at the world, he finds everything random, conditional and turns directly to God, whose existence is unconditional and necessary. Seeing that God is the basis of everything, he sees God in everything and would rather doubt the existence of things than His existence. Thus, at the highest level of mental activity, as well as at the lowest, the existence of God is undeniable and does not require any proof. 3) On the contrary, at the average level of activity, all knowledge is acquired through inference and confirmed by evidence. Thus, reason needs proof of the existence of God (which, in fact, it cannot be convinced of even from the evidence). Indeed, by his very nature he does not know God; he was created to consider only the experienced, the limited, the creature, and not God. That is why he asks: is there a God? And the very question shows that for him there is no God. And in his very question about God there is, so to speak, an optical illusion. He cognizes and explores everything through its opposition to itself; therefore, he refers God to the external sphere, to which he contrasts his internal one; and this is already a wrong way of researching about God. God exists in both the one and the other sphere, and unites both worlds with Himself - the material and the spiritual. And what does the question itself mean: is there a God? Of course, nothing more than the question: does God fulfill the material conditions of the existence of experience, that is, is He a substance or quality, cause or action, etc.? But God cannot fulfill the conditions of experimental existence, for He is above all experience, and no predicates (logical predicates) of the understanding befit Him. So, the question about God is not befitting reason, or it cannot answer this question. A religious or sane person can ask about the existence of God only for greater confidence, for reason can confirm his confidence. But these confirmations are not evidence in the strict sense, but arguments for the existence of God. To the scientific, logical mind, in response to its question about God, we must say: do not investigate His existence, there is no God for you, for you cannot contain Him in your small cell. But should we leave our reason in this state of ignorance? No, it is necessary to take him out of it and show him God, it is necessary to free him from the shackles with which the categories constrain him, and lead him, through his own beginnings, to the mental sphere - and he will see God. Reason in the sphere of its forms is the same as a person imprisoned within the four walls of a prison from infancy. He sees the light and the sky only in parts: through the narrow and lattice windows, he always sees a very small part, and sometimes clouds pass in front of him, covering the sky; after this it is natural for him to ask: is there heaven? Are these particles of the sky and clouds not ghosts and seductions? But let him come out of his prison, let him embrace with his eye this boundless space and the clouds, like shadows, flickering on it: then he will not ask whether there is a sky. Take the mind out of its four walls-categories, let it look at everything not through the dull glass of space and time, but directly through the eye of the mind: then not the ghosts of eternity and Divinity will appear to it, but boundless eternity and God Himself. And can he then ask: is there a God? Thus, the understanding must rise to the heights of the mind. This is the same ascending path that philosophers called via ascendens ad Deum (Latin, the path of ascent to God), and to which they opposed the descending path - descendens (Latin, down, descent). The first way, through inferences, they ascended from the visible to the invisible, and thus reached the existence of God. The last to deduce from the existence of God and show the existence of things. If you leave your mind in a state of ignorance about God, if you leave it to itself in the study of God’s existence, then very harmful consequences can occur. Hence, for example, it happened that providence could not agree with human freedom; Cicero, the scholastics, and some of the new philosophers rejected this; and some human freedom had to be subordinated to necessity. God, truly understood, is not contrary to freedom; He has no present, no past, no future. It contradicts it only apparently and to the extent that it appears in the world of phenomena by reason, which has its own present and future. So, for the lower faculty of our soul, as for the higher, the existence of God is an undoubted truth: in our dark ideas, in the heart, in the moral feeling, we feel it as if by touch; the mind contemplates it in its ideas. Only the logical mind is condemned by fate to remain in the pitiful state of ignorance of God: striving for the knowledge of God, it becomes entangled in the networks supplied to it by experience and its own rules. Against these perplexities of the logical mind there is a special kind of conviction based on genera and species. Starting from particular objects, we can ascend through types and genera to the most general concepts, and, finally, to the idea itself, and thus, leading the mind out of its networks, lead to the mental sphere, where God and eternity are. Looking from the boundaries of his region into the region of the mind, he sees mental objects in a dark way and has some faith in them. Among foreigners, this kind of rational conviction is called an ideal view, since the mind embraces these objects, or also a premonition, since through the form in which they appear to the mind, it perceives their very essence. Some Church Fathers had such insight, who through a strict ascetic life cleared their mental eye, such as Macarius of Egypt. And here one cannot help but be surprised at how the active path, or the active striving for union with God, converges with the theoretical path, or the striving of the mind to know God; the Fathers of the Church became so close to the philosophers that they resembled them in thoughts, feelings and expressions! And for all of them, as for true philosophers, the existence of God seemed to be the first truth. If for any of us this truth is not so, then this is due to the lack of development of our mind. Now the question is: what is God? How does He reveal Himself to our knowledge, and does our knowledge of Him express His properties? In this reasoning, three opinions are known: some said that God completely reveals himself to our mind; others that He is completely incomprehensible; Finally, others said that He is partly comprehensible, and partly beyond all understanding. Among the first were people at the lowest level of education - savages, idolaters. It is not surprising that they imagined God in this way; for He was limited among them and for the most part was their own creation, which is why they could know Him completely, as they believed. Educated people who are guided by logical reason belong to this class. Such was Eunomius, who claimed that he knew God as much as he knew himself. When it was objected to him that God is incomprehensible to the human mind, he replied: although each of us separately cannot embrace all the properties and actions of God, the combined concepts of all people must certainly equal the fullness of His being. The error here is obvious, and it happened because Eunomius reasoned about God according to the rules of reason and imagined Him to be a great man. Finally, among such people are German philosophers (who, however, have the most sublime concept of God). They look at God as He expresses Himself in the world; hence they accept the highest ideal concept of the world as the very essence of God and claim that they know God completely. But it is obvious that they take a copy of the Divine for the very original: their absolute unities and indifferences are concepts of the world, and not of God; God remains unknown to them. Gregory the Theologian, refuting the opinion of Eunomius, says: to understand a thing means to embrace it with your thoughts, just as in geometry a smaller area is embraced by a larger one. But God is an infinite Being: how can the limited human mind embrace Him? Human knowledge is nothing more than the struggle of our “I” with the external world, with the “not-I”: how can he conquer this “not-I” when it exceeds his strength? So, it is more fair to say that God is incomprehensible. What about our concepts of God? Do they express anything real or not? Are they not sinful, since they are borrowed from the objects of the world? Indeed, everything we know about God is borrowed from objects of experience; according to the law of winemaking, through abstraction we assume certain properties in Him; according to the law of contradiction, we separate from Him what is indecent to Him and, raising the remaining properties to an infinite degree, we form the image of God. Here all properties are, without a doubt, removed from the external or internal world: we imagine God as the cause of everything, endowed with reason and will. This is nothing more than a perfect person. And it is clear that the understanding participates most of all in the composition of this image (although all the faculties of the soul also participate) with its categories, namely: from the category of quantity His infinity and unity are borrowed; from the quality category - perfection; from the category of relationships – substance, creativity and providence; and so on. Can this image express the very essence of God? Shouldn't we separate from God all the qualities that we attribute to Him? Dionysius the Areopagite teaches us to think about God in this way, believing that He who by excellence is the author of every intelligible thing is not himself one of the things comprehended by reason. “Again ascending,” he writes, “I say that God is neither soul nor spirit, has neither imagination or opinion, nor mind, nor understanding, is not word and understanding. You cannot speak Him or comprehend Him with your mind; He is not number, nor order, neither great nor small, nor equality, nor inequality, neither likeness nor dissimilarity, stands lower, moves lower, has no rest, lower than strength, and Himself is not force or light, nor lives, lower is life, is neither essence nor time, it is impossible to have mental touch with Him, He is not knowledge, truth, neither kingdom, nor wisdom, nor one, nor unity, nor bliss, or goodness, or such a spirit, which we understand, is neither sonship nor patronymic, nor any of those things that are comprehensible to us, or to anyone existing. It is not any of the things that do not exist, or anything that exists. For Him there is neither a word, nor a name, lower than knowledge, He is not darkness (he seemed to foresee that the mind would one day represent God under the image of darkness: this happened with the German philosophers), nor light, nor error, nor truth, nothing can be affirmed or denied about Him, and even when we make a statement or a negation about the persons existing through Him, then we neither define nor deny Him, since He is perfect beyond all definition and is the only fault of all kinds, superiority above all negation, a Being completely abstract from everything and exalted above everything.” Thus, according to the Areopagite and other fathers, such as Gregory the Theologian, no abstractions in any way express the essence of the Divine. This is how it should be, because all our concepts that we form about God are negative and certainly have some admixture from experience. In vain did the scholastics, and in the later times of Fichte, try to clear the concept of God from everything experienced. The first called Him actus purissimus (Latin, purest action), and the second - moral order. In this they discovered only the powerlessness of the human mind. Well, are all our concepts about God empty, completely and in no way expressing the nature of the Divine? Is it not possible to form a more accurate and true concept of Him? Eat. There is an internal path leading to true knowledge of God through knowledge of our own spirit. We have seen that our concepts of God are always lower than the Divine nature and do not express it. The best of the concepts about God is the concept of Moses: Jehovah asher Jehovah - God is God. This description of the Godhead in Moses expresses that God is above everything that we imagine Him to be, that His being is immense and incomprehensible to us. In addition to this concept of God, Holy Scripture presents us with something else, from the practical side: God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). These concepts are befitting of the Divine, for they express His essential properties better and more sublimely than all other descriptions of Him. Although even at an average level of spiritual activity, a person forms a fairly good concept of God, although in this concept there is some similarity with the nature of God, it is very insufficient and almost indecent to the Divine being. According to this commonly used concept of Him, we attribute to Him the kind of existence that other creatures have; as a result of which we subordinate it to space and time: we ask when the world was created, we cannot reconcile the foreknowledge of God with human freedom, and so on. But besides all this, there is a much more convenient means of approaching the knowledge of God and forming the truest concept of Him. This means lies in our spirit, considered not from the outer and lower side of it, as the mind views it, in order to form an image of the Divine by its properties, but from the inner and highest side, from where we can borrow the purest and most sublime features. The most incomprehensible properties in God for us are: 1) His existence from Himself; 2) omnipotence; 3) infinity or omnipresence; 4) eternity and 5) creativity. But these properties are also reflected in our spirit; by looking at it, we can know God. 1) We can easily comprehend the independence of God’s existence (aseitas) by looking at the existence of our spirit. This being always appears to our consciousness as independent, independent, self-existent. We do not feel in any way that we depend on anyone for the reasoning of our spiritual existence. Where are we from? Who created us? Who are we? – Consciousness does not talk about this. We, of course, assume the reason for our existence, and we do not attribute to ourselves such an existence as is characteristic of God; we say that we are from God, but reason tells us this, not self-consciousness; Knowing that nothing happens without a reason, on the basis of this law, we assume the reason for our existence. God created us and sustains us; but He hid it from our consciousness. He constantly carries us with His strength - we constantly rush over the abyss of insignificance; but we do not feel this: in consciousness our existence is independent. This sense of independence and self-existence, or better, this secrecy of the Divine who preserves us, was the reason that Fichte established the whole world on our I and produced everything from it. This property of our Self, without a doubt, is an expression of the independent existence of the Divine. 2) The infinity of the Divine being, or His omnipresence, is clearly reflected in the quality of our thought. Flying in thought across endless spaces in an instant, the soul seems to know no limits to existence: it exists wherever it wants. We are surprised at the incredible speed of light, but its distribution still occurs in a certain time; but we cannot determine the speed of thoughts. Of course, these omnipresent thoughts are ideal, and not real, like the omnipresent thoughts of God, but this is what distinguishes the existence of the human soul from the existence of the Divine. However, when we are freed from the bonds of the body with death, then there will be no such limitation of existence for us: its forms - space and time - will then be taken away, and we will exist where our thought is. 3) Eternity. To our consciousness our existence seems eternal: we do not know the beginning of our existence and cannot imagine the end; both in the past and in the future we can extend it to infinity. We are sure that we have a beginning; but this is what reason says, based on the law of causality, or very often on legends about the beginning of things; and consciousness does not suggest anything about the finitude of our existence. Thus, we carry in our spirit the image of eternal Divine existence. 4) God’s omnipotence is also reflected in us. The soul has freedom. What is this freedom? She is limited omnipotence. In form it is truly limitless; for God Himself cannot make me want what I do not want. It is limited in content, and this is what distinguishes human power from Divine omnipotence. Not achieving everything, she can want everything - she encroaches on everything. This is what prompted Horace to say: justum et tenacem... impavidum ferient ruinae! (Ode III: “Let the vault of heaven, having disintegrated, collapse - Alien fear will be struck down by debris” - translated by N. Ginzburg.). 5) We do not understand how God created everything out of nothing, how the rough world was formed without matter. But the same thing happens in our soul. Where do our thoughts, desires, feelings come from? - Out of nothing. Where are the concepts, feelings and desires that we transfer to memory stored? - Nothing. So, the entire mental world comes from nothing and rests on nothing. Of course, objects participate in the birth of thoughts, feelings and desires, but how? It is impossible to assume that material images are separated from objects and give birth to them in us, for they could not reach the soul. External objects only stimulate with their impressions the activity of spiritual forces, and do not produce anything in it; everything in it comes from nothing. They will say: these emerging thoughts are insignificant, empty. But this is unfair, because they are carried out in words, movements and actions. Revealed in sensory signs, they are, so to speak, embodied and, without a doubt, are then real. The commander's word moves thousands of people who perform extraordinary actions. Where is the reason for these actions? In the word. Where is the beginning of the word? In thought. Where does the idea come from? Out of nothing. How many saving actions did Karamzin’s story produce? How many courtiers did she keep from flattery, how many kings from injustice? And where does all this begin? In nothing. Evil wisdom, which does not allow omnipotent creativity in God, itself calls poets, artists, painters and others creators. They are truly creators because they invent new things; their ideas really are born out of nothing. For example, a newly built house is made of materials: marble, stones, lime and others. But what is most important in it - the arrangement of parts, their unity, the idea expressed in it - all this has its beginning in the mind of the architect and was born out of nothing. Why does the word Artifex (Latin, Creator, Artist), which Plato attributes to God, also belong to man? Thus, in the human soul there are features from which one can compose a pure, sublime and true image of the Divine. There is nothing to say about moral properties: a moral person is a living likeness of God. Their good is the same; Only man has virtue, and God has holiness. Now we should talk about how to convince ourselves of the true concept of God, how to avoid doubts? But first we need to examine another element of religion - the belief in immortality. Future life. Religion is the union of man with God. This definition of religion actually contains two concepts: the concept of God and the concept of man. But the third thing is also hidden: the concept of a future life. For the union of man with God must be eternal and presupposes a union closer than what it is now. The union between God and man can be viewed both superficially and in its very essence. Considered superficially, it can remain even when it is assumed that there will be no future life. God will also remain for us the Creator, partly the Provider and the Judge; for even in the consideration of one real life, a person owes his existence and blessings to God, and is often rewarded or punished. But if this union between God and man is considered in its very essence, then with the destruction of the future life it must be interrupted. For the union of religion should not be slavish, but free on the part of man: without this it will be cold and dead. But after the destruction of immortality, there will be no place for another union other than a slave one. Man has and must have a desire for God, as a creature does for the Creator. What kind of God is it that does not satisfy this desire when He can? And what kind of Creator is He for us when He did not suggest a purpose for our life? We must honor God as a Provider. What kind of Providence is it if it is limited to one continuation of our life? What kind of Providence is it if it does not correct the disorder that we never encounter in the moral world? God is our Judge; but what kind of Judge is it when virtue rewards only in our conscience and forgets its suffering, and leaves vice to bliss, punishing it with barely sensitive remorse?.. To such a God, instead of love, we will feel alienation. Therefore, without eternal life there is no true religious union between God and man. Therefore, there is not a single religion that does not have this element - the future life. There can be two questions about immortality: can it be the subject of rational knowledge, or is it the subject of rational faith? Is it comprehensible or not? Evidence of immortality is of various kinds. Theoretical - that the soul, like spirit, is immortal; that there is no reason to destroy it; that the future life requires the development of spiritual forces, which here either at the beginning or in the middle of their development stop; for example, Kant died when he came to the possibility of judging things sensibly; in the same way, many die when they reach a time in which they could curb their passions and so on. If there were no future life, then God would be a bad ruler of the world (this proof is stronger than others). The same evidence includes evidence borrowed from the simplicity of the soul. Practical - that there is no perfect proportion between virtue and its reward, between vice and its punishment. Analogous, borrowed from objects of experience. All this evidence can produce conviction and has firmness. But can’t immortality turn from an object of faith into an object of knowledge? Is it not possible to have a presentiment of the immortality of the soul, at least in the same way that we directly feel the existence of God? We will try to explain this as much as possible. At the same time, let us resolve some objections, which in themselves are insignificant, but can shake our faith in immortality and confuse our spirit. Here they are: that the soul grows with the body; that in crazy people it has no effect at all. There are refutations to this; but they are too school-like, so let’s look for the best and most convincing ones. In the present century, the truth of immortality suffers a lot from the disputes of people. That’s why you need to pay attention to it. Eternal life - immortality remains a subject of dark faith for many. Why is this truth dark? What puts her in such darkness? Eternal life is obscured for us: firstly, because it belongs to things to come and, therefore, is opposite to present life, which belongs to things present. It is this dissimilarity between the future life and the present that causes the former to darken in our eyes; Moreover, the whole future itself is dark for us. Secondly, because in man the mortal is united with the immortal: the body is united with the spirit. This duality of man is the reason that our feeling is always divided between mortality and immortality. The feeling of mortality often takes precedence over the feeling of immortality, because a person for the most part lives on the lower side - the bodily one. And since this temporary side develops more in him, it is very natural for the sense of mortality to develop more and dominate in a person. The union of the soul with the body is a great mystery. On the one hand, the soul is strikingly different from the body; but on the other hand, she is so closely connected with him that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Let's take as an example something rough, but one that expresses our thought. Let's compare the spirit with alcohol: what is in the mass of chemical alcohol, there is spirit in the body. It is very difficult to distinguish alcohol in a known mass from itself; this can only be done through strong chemical analysis. Likewise, the spirit can be distinguished from the body only through a strong deepening. These are the two main reasons that obscure the truth of immortality! Why was this darkening allowed? The moral purpose of this has been noticed for a long time. It lies in the fact that the uncertainty of eternal life makes virtue more selfless. With a clear idea of ​​it, a person would strive not for God, but for rewards. Virtue, in fact, consists of self-sacrifice; but then it would consist of self-love: a person would sacrifice himself, but not for God, but for himself. This is a more general goal, but there is another, in my opinion, more decisive. Eternal life, without a doubt, contains much that is beautiful and attractive. Therefore, if it were to open up for us, many would rush headlong towards it and suicide would become universal. This darkness, pushing us away from the future life, gives the correct course to the present life. If it were not for him, then virtue, moral order and civil life would have to suffer a lot. These are the purposes for which darkness was allowed, obscuring for us the light of eternal life! Let us now look at the very truth of immortality. This truth has two sides: firstly, the dark side, which is produced by the reasons we have outlined and which consists of doubts, and, secondly, the bright side, in which the light of evidence shines. 1. The main points of doubt are the following: a) the origin of the soul, as if material, and its development temporary, similar to the development of the body; b) daily eclipse of the soul in sleep, in which there is no rational activity and which constitutes half of human life; c) weakening of the abilities of the soul, such as memory and imagination, which occurs from the weakening of physical forces; d) disorder of the soul in certain diseases, for example, insanity, which is often very long-lasting. a) Can the temporary origin of the soul lead to its temporary existence? No. For the birth of the soul is nothing other than its appearance. Do we know the first moment of this phenomenon? No. We know the first development of the powers of the soul; but is there something that precedes this development? Eat. These are all the main laws of our activity, known under the name of innate ideas. The baby looks at a thing and forms a concept about it. This concept is formed on the basis of a well-known idea. But when did he get this idea? When did the ideas of the true, the good and the graceful arise in him? Without a doubt, before. This view led many (for example, Plato) to the idea of ​​the pre-existence of souls. Indeed, the soul must pre-exist. For what is she by nature? It is the thought of God, pure, spiritual. But the thought of God is eternal; therefore the soul is eternal; she existed entirely in God. But they will say: this existence of the soul is alien. No! It actually belongs to the soul; in God only it should exist. They will also say: the soul was not conscious of itself, and therefore did not exist. Can our real consciousness vouch for the existence of the soul? In a dream, the soul acts, although its activity often does not correspond to our ordinary consciousness. The experiments of physiologists have proven that in the human soul there are two consciousnesses: one is lower, our ordinary, and the other is higher, extraordinary. There are illnesses in which a person recognizes himself differently today, and differently tomorrow; Meanwhile, the activity of his spirit goes on regularly. It has been noted among mad people that after the illness passes, their consciousness of their previous state is either completely lost or is still being corrected; therefore, consciousness is not a guarantee of existence, and ignorance of the state that preceded our present existence does not deny the fact that our soul previously existed and that its present actions are memories of previous actions. It is necessary to speak about the initial union of the soul with the body like this: “It is not the soul that enters the body, but the body that approaches the soul and becomes its instrument.” Even if we assume that the actions of the soul do not begin before its union with the body, we will not have any reason to reject its immortality. For these actions presuppose something incorruptible in the soul, something that is difficult to begin with, and even more difficult to determine an end. Consequently, the immortality of the soul in both cases is obvious. b) Dreams can give rise to doubt about the immortality of the soul. A dream is a phenomenon that contains a lot of mysterious things, but there is nothing in it that could undermine faith in a future life. For does the activity of the spirit cease in sleep? No! Dreams prove this; but even without dreams the soul acts during the rest of the body; the activity in this case is not perceptible only because the soul does not bring it under consciousness. But they will ask: what is this activity for? It occupies half of human life, therefore it must have some special moral significance; and really has. Which? The activity of the soul in a dream produces warnings, consolations, and motivations (we will say more about this later). All this is not clear to us; but among holy men the actions of dreams were as clear as the actions of the waking state. c) The activity of the forces of the soul weakens with the weakening of physical forces; but this does not weaken the belief in immortality in the least. This happens with the lower abilities of the soul - with memory and imagination, but these abilities are closely connected with the bodily side of a person, and therefore must themselves change as it changes. Moreover, memory and imagination, by their very purpose, must be subject to such degradation: they are adapted to the world of phenomena, therefore, as the time approaches when they must part with the world, they must approach the tomb. However, it should also be noted that the weakening of memory is only imaginary. Experiments prove this. In old people, memory often awakens right at the grave. There are moments when they vividly imagine everything they had previously forgotten. Consequently, the imaginary depletion of memory disappears here. But even if these abilities of the soul died, then its immortality remains inviolable. For the higher powers - conscience, freedom and others, which actually make up the soul, never weaken due to the weakness of the body. Here the forces of the soul act completely opposite to the forces of the body. The closer a person is to the tomb, the more pious and conscientious he is. This opposition reaches extreme heights in some people. Before death, physical strength weakens; on the contrary, special feelings awaken in the soul: fun, consolation, and the like. Examples of this can be found in the lives of ascetics; but these examples are too high. Let's look at ordinary people - and we will see similar things in their lives. Thus, Augustus and Antoninus, at the end of their lives, clearly mock death. There are other examples of ordinary people in whom the powers of the soul are extremely revealed at the end of life. At that time, the ability of foreknowledge is born in them, and they, so to speak, look into the future. To do this, it is useful to read Cicero's de divinatione and de natura deorum (“On divination (prophecies)” and “On the nature of the gods”). In this way, this point can also be clarified and removed from all doubts. d) How can the spirit be subject to eclipse in illness, for example in madness? What's confusing here? The fact that the spirit takes on an absurd mode of activity that upsets its organism. In former times, crazy people were only a subject of pity, but now they have become the subject of physiological observations that are carried out on them in houses designated for their detention. In ancient times, the Greeks, Latins and others called madmen prophets, experts of the heart. Why? Because they show amazing insight. The experiences of foreigners have confirmed that crazy people can see the future. From this it must be concluded that their soul does not remain inactive, but, as if in exchange for lost ordinary activity, it takes on extraordinary activity. Moreover, it was learned from experience that some lived for a long time in madness and, upon being freed from it, turned out to be much smarter than they were before. This phenomenon leads to the idea that the soul has two sides: ordinary - lower and extraordinary - higher, and that, having ceased to perfect the first, it is engaged in improving the latter. Therefore, the disorder of the soul in illness should not confuse us. We should admire how much strength is hidden in our soul! In this way, the entire dark side of the soul is clarified and all objections fall away. 2. Let's look at the bright side of the truth of immortality. This side consists of evidence based on inferences. These proofs are either theoretical, borrowed from the perfectibility of the soul, from simplicity and other things, or practical, based on the inequality of rewards and punishments, or analogous and others. All of them constitute light, but this light can be increased in another way. First, there is a way to transfer immortality from a subject of rational faith to a subject of consciousness. Until a person does this, his faith in immortality is in danger. But how can this be? This method was known most of all to ascetics and even to some philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato. It consists of moral self-awareness. The opinion, even held by some theologians, that the soul is immortal by grace, shows either ignorance of the soul, or an excessive demand from grace. Immortality is an essential property of the soul. Consequently, being purely aware of the soul, we cannot help but be aware of immortality, this inalienable quality of it. If there is no consciousness of immortality, then there is no complete consciousness of the spirit. We are not aware of immortality because in our consciousness of the spirit there is a lot of corporeal, mortal things. Thus, into the concept of the existence of the soul we introduce the concept of nutrition; We think that a person must certainly hear, see, touch; We remove all this from the lower part of the soul, the mortal, and not from the higher, the immortal. The body forces us to think and act this way. This is also why Solomon noticed that the body burdens the spirit. When can there be pure consciousness, such as is required in order to realize the immortality of the soul? Then, when we recognize our soul as it is in itself, that is, when we do not attribute to it anything more than a mind filled with truth, a will filled with goodness, and a feeling filled with immaterial grace. Having strongly felt all this, we will feel immortality itself. But this is difficult to do, because the body always tells a person: “And I belong to you,” and therefore a person mixes the consciousness of physicality with the consciousness of his spirituality. However, this work can be overcome. The best means to this is an ascetic life, consisting of fasting, vigil and prayer. Live virtuously, God-like, and you will see immortality: and in this life you will begin to live forever. Through this, bodily activity is weakened, and at the same time the consciousness of the body itself weakens. In carnal people, body and soul are united very closely, and almost form one; on the contrary, in ascetics this union is subtler and more separate. Therefore, they reach the existence of the soul rather than the existence of the body. On the other hand, the moral consciousness in such people is greatly enhanced. For secular people, the mind is filled with thoughts about physical, temporary objects, the will strives for carnal, perishable matters, the feeling is occupied with material, mortal things; and ascetics think about the spiritual, the eternal and live in the spiritual, incorruptible. Thus, eternal life seems to really enter into their consciousness; they are vividly aware of their spirituality, and with it eternity. The power of this self-awareness can explain why ascetics sacrificed everything and life itself for the future. People of this kind not only feel the invisible moral order that philosophers assume, but even live by it, living, as the apostle puts it, in the invisible (Heb. 11:1). They have their own way of thinking, their own rules and live a life opposite to ordinary life, because they are controlled by a higher consciousness, opposite to ordinary consciousness. Not knowing the evidence of immortality, they vividly feel this truth, and no objections can shake them. This path to establishing oneself in the belief in immortality is the best. He is little known at school, but in life they have known him for a long time. In addition to this method, which shows how to make the truth of immortality an object of consciousness, there is a second method that clarifies this truth and makes it, at least partially, an object of knowledge. In times of faith there was no need to talk much about this; but now, when unbelief has begun to dominate, refuting the truth of immortality, it is necessary to set out everything on which this truth rests. The materials for this have already been collected, and we would be unwise if we did not use them. Providence itself, which had kept this truth in secret, now, in accordance with the needs of the age, began to reveal it very clearly. The logical mind can be convinced and, so to speak, see that the soul is immortal. How? 1) Previously, the soul was completely subordinated to the body and they said that it could not do without certain parts of the body. The latest physiologists have proven the opposite. The brain itself is not absolutely necessary for its operation. She can perceive herself correctly even with a damaged brain. Therefore, the objection that with the loss of the brain the consciousness of the soul is lost is unfair. They think that madness comes from damage to certain parts of the body. True, it happens; but we also see the opposite of this: they find crazy people whose bodily members are intact and healthy. From all this it is clear that if in its present poor state the soul can be separated from the dependence of the body and exist on its own, then even more so can it exist when the state of its dependence on the body ceases. 2) Since ancient times, the body has been called the prison of the soul, not allowing it to act as it wishes. The body is a shackle for her, which she strives to break. Therefore, the ancients recognized the body as the work of an evil spirit. The newest have confirmed this idea, having found a high, extraordinary side in the soul, which develops in illness or from random circumstances, also in sleep, as a result of a virtuous life. Why is this happening? Because in such cases the soul is freed from the ordinary forms of space and time. a) In a dream, space and time almost do not exist for the soul. Therefore, in a dream, she connects the past, the present and partly the future into one, so to speak, point, and lives a life that exceeds ordinary life. This is what made Heraclitus assert that the soul in sleep lives in the general world, or in the world of ideas. And indeed, this world must be different, different from the visible world, for in it the soul acts completely differently from here: it speaks differently, expresses itself differently, thinks differently. At that time she feels free from space and time; sees the past; looks into the future, penetrates into the affairs of others. Does this activity have its own laws? She is subject to the wisest laws. For a long time they did not know, or rather did not pay attention to it; but in modern times they began to collect dream books and observe dreams. As a result of this work, a system of dreams was created, which shows that among all peoples of both the New and Old Worlds, dreams are subject to the same laws, that penetration into the future is in all dreams, that in a dream the soul knows more. True, some volatility was noticeable in her knowledge at that time; but this volatility does not occur among holy people: in their sleep they converse clearly, definitely. Thus, the human soul, even in this life, lives in a common, Divine world. To do this, it is good to read the symbolism of sleep from Schubert. This book shows the system of laws of dreams, their effect on morality, the similarity of the language of dreams with the prophetic language, that is, the same figurative language that the prophets used. b) The second kind of manifestation of the future life occurs in illnesses. Here, more than in a dream, another life of the soul is manifested. Important dreams are very rare, and therefore the extraordinary activity of the soul is not always noticeable in them. Diseases in which the future life of the soul is manifested are all nervous diseases. The human soul is protected by a nervous network, and therefore, when this network weakens, then it begins to act freely. This is especially noticeable in sleepwalking. In this state, due to the extreme weakening of the nervous system, the soul is freed from the influence of external objects and rises above the laws of nature. They do not exist for her at that time, for the soul then carries the body with its force, despite the fact that it is subject to the main law of nature - gravity. The same thing happens in madness, which also occurs from weakening of the nerves. In this state, the soul predicts the future, remembers the past in an extraordinary way and penetrates into the affairs of others. The same phenomenon occurs in a state of so-called mortal syncope. Here, just like in a dream, consciousness remains, but there is no feeling. Therefore, it is not without reason that they say that at this time a person is either in heaven or in hell: indeed, our soul is then transferred to some other world. For this, it is worth reading an article in the “Bulletin of Europe” for 1830, where a man is presented who, in a severe faint, was aware of how he was buried, but could not move a single member of his body. This is how another life of the soul manifests itself in a painful state! The newest have brought this under art and, through magnetism, forced, so to speak, the soul to produce similar phenomena. This art has become the subject of charlatanism and is therefore prohibited; however, much has been written about it in The Clairvoyant, and it serves as proof that the soul in this state has insight. The experiments produced very instructive effects. Without knowing them, we could not understand how a soul without a brain would think and be conscious. From them we also learned the most important truth, that in the soul there are two sides and two consciousnesses: the lower - ordinary, logical, and the higher - extraordinary. According to these two sides of the soul, there are two systems in the body: the brain and the stomach. The soul can move from one to another. Since these systems are different and not mixed with each other, the soul, moving from one to another, begins to understand differently and act differently. For example, a sleepwalker is aware of his sleepwalking differently - and differently, having freed himself from it; in sleepwalking he forgets the natural state, and in the natural state he forgets the sleepwalking state. Each of these two states has its own yesterday and tomorrow, and one is never confused with the other. This state is a harbinger of future life. This is evident mainly from the fact that a person in such a state rises above the forces of nature. Moreover, such a state of the soul is combined with a certain anger, showing that the soul eagerly desires, so to speak, to break out of the shackles of the body and move into the world of freedom. New philosophers argued that the body is a straitjacket of the soul, which it, passing into an extraordinary state, strives to destroy. c) This extraordinary life of the soul also manifests itself naturally in holy people. What diseases produce in others occurs naturally in ascetics. The stories about the miracles they performed are true. Indeed, one can achieve the power of miracles through the thought of God. The Savior, promising the gift of miracles, did not set limits, but said: he who believes in Me will do what I do, and will do greater things than these (John 14:12). In holy people this not only happens from above, but is also achieved through the full development of the spiritual nature of man and the weakening of the physical nature. This is what can be said about immortality! This truth is obscured for known reasons and for certain purposes; this darkness is clearing up; the truth of the immortality of the soul can be translated from rational faith into an object of consciousness; from an object of consciousness can finally become an object of experimental sensation. What else belongs to the circle of religion? In a certain sense, a person’s relationship with God cannot be direct. It is mediated by the world. God holds a person: this is a direct connection; but on the other hand, man reaches God through the world. This can be seen in Augustine in his search for God. Without peace, a person’s relationship to God is difficult to imagine. Therefore, peace is necessary for the essence of religion. It is necessary as a way to know God, as a book of religion, as a field in which a person can show his religious actions. Therefore, the future life cannot do without it: and there we are promised a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). But how to imagine the world in relation to religion? There are different views on the world. The physical view represents the world as a mass of gross physical bodies. But this view is intolerable for religion. Religion loves life and freedom. She looks at the world from the point from which the Apostle Paul looked, who said that all creation awaits the revelation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19) - and not only the freedom of the children of God, but also their own. For further the apostle adds: and the creation itself will be freed (Rom. 8:21). The view of the world as a collection of free beings participating in bliss together with people is a strictly religious view; with him, the kingdom of nature turns into the church of the Divine, and the three kingdoms of nature constitute, as it were, three branches of this church. Religion consists of the knowledge of God and the spiritual world as an object of the mind; from the desire for what is known and the desire to become like God as an object of will; from the pleasure of what is known as an object of feeling. Here are three knots connecting heaven with earth, God with man! Religion is nothing other than the harmony of all these relationships. Its basis is truth, and its expression is virtue and pleasure. Consequently, all sciences, laws and pleasures are below it. What should be the spirit of religion? What are its extremes and shortcomings? When religion is the subject of knowledge alone, then it is something passive. Consequently, with such a religion, a person still has no merit. His own activity begins with the will, that is, when he begins to act in accordance with knowledge. This side depends on man’s freedom to God, and pleasure, which here mostly consists of hope, constitutes a necessary side of it. So, the spirit of religion is the spirit of the full development of mental powers. No science, no good action, no pure pleasure is superfluous to religion. First, religion, as an object of the mind, must be a union with God, expressed through a true knowledge of Him. Its shortcomings in this regard are ignorance and superstition; its excesses are unnecessary speculations that turn religion into a subject of logical subtleties. This was the case with heretics, scholastics and modern naturalists, German philosophers. Consequently, the spirit of pure knowledge, opposed to fanaticism and united with humility, is the spirit of religion. Secondly, religion, as an object of will, must consist in the desire to become like God. A person must respond to the voice of God by becoming like Him through virtue. Many did not understand this voice and responded to it with external offerings, for example, the pagans. But this is something of little importance, while the soul of religion, its true fruit, is virtue: Kant’s immortal merit is in clarifying this truth in philosophy. External offerings and worship are limited to certain places and times; while virtue extends throughout life and accompanies every moment of it. According to the Apostle Paul, we must do everything for the glory of God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). Consequently, the insufficiency of religion in this regard is that pure sacrifice, virtue, is replaced by external offerings, and its excess is that morality is refined to trifles and to jealousy beyond reason. Kant fell into another flaw by placing religion in virtue alone. His position is fair, but one-sided; religion is not an object of will alone; the mind with contemplations and feelings with pleasures cannot be removed from it. Without this, virtue is weak; she often has to fight the whole world; Without religious inspiration, based in feeling and hope, it is unable to withstand the struggle. Some of the newest wise men have further extended their speculations regarding religion, and argue that for pure religious morality, oblivion of God is necessary, one must define oneself by the rules of activity without any idea of ​​​​a higher allowance and a higher reward. They were led to this by excessive purism (the desire for purity and strictness of morals, sometimes ostentatiously), according to which they tried to purify morality. Moreover, they fear God’s omnipotence; in imagining it, they imagine the complete destruction of their freedom. But the omnipotence of God can be imagined without fear; a person can stand against him, as is proven by evil spirits who will forever oppose limited power to unlimited. So, in this respect, religion has two extremes: a lack of virtue and its excessive refinement, extending to the point that besides it, all other parts of religion are expelled. The third element of religion is pleasure. It is necessary because it revives virtue and makes it most pleasant. Here are the same extremes, that is, first of all, a lack of feeling, when religion turns into mere speculation. From this comes dryness in religion, mechanism, sluggish activity, compulsion and lifelessness; the second is an abundance of feeling, which makes virtue unclean. Believing religion in one feeling of the heart, and occupied with it alone, a person reaches the point where he mistakes the internal movements of the heart for external impressions. From this came fanatics, intense mystics, visionaries and others. From all this it is clear that the spirit of religion must be the spirit of moderate knowledge, living virtue, religiously pure feelings and also moderate. Therefore, as we said above, the foundation of religion is truth, the expression is virtue, the crown on earth is self-soothing and heartfelt pleasure. All these parts must certainly be concentrated in religion. Can this religion have sacraments? Maybe. This needs to be known because the sacraments of natural religion serve as the basis for conclusions about the Sacraments of the Christian religion. They object and try to refute the Christian Sacraments because they do not know about the need for sacraments in natural religion. What are the main Sacraments in the Christian religion? First, the Mystery of the Incarnation, in which two sides are mysterious to us: the union of the Divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ and the redemption of the human race. Secondly, the action of grace, or the help of God. The basis of these Sacraments is supposed to be in the sacraments of natural religion. How? 1. Natural religion is the union of man with God, and a real one at that. Man appears to be limited, and God is unlimited. This union begins here, will continue into eternity, and from time to time will become more real. How will this connection extend into eternity? How will the finite connect with the infinite? How can these two natures remain unfused? All this is incomprehensible to us. But in Jesus Christ this union became clear. What the human race must achieve through all eternity, then in a small form, in the person of Jesus Christ, is completely open, as the Apostle Paul expresses (Col. 2:9), saying that in Him lives all the fulfillment of the physical Divinity. The union of the infinite with the finite, the eternal with the temporal is the basis of finite being; for just as in creation the verbs of the creative Word were clothed with flesh, so in the incarnation this Word of God itself became flesh, according to John’s expression: The Word became flesh (John 1:14). 2. The essence of Christian redemption is that since beings gifted with freedom brought disorder into the world and themselves could not restore the previous order, God Himself came to do this. Naturally, religion also represents many free beings who, through their atrocities, bring millions of disorders into the world and, meanwhile, themselves do not know how the order they have disrupted is restored. Who is doing this, so to speak, repair in the world? Who is the Restorer? Without a doubt, God, Who is the Judge and at the same time the Restorer. The same thing is expressed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. 3. The essence of gracious action is that God acts in us, but we do not understand how this happens. And natural religion represents the same thing. It is the real union of man with God; Our strength seems to hang on the strength of God. The image of such a relationship between God and man is also incomprehensible to us. So, the foundation of the Sacraments of the Christian religion is assumed in the sacraments of natural religion. Therefore, having abandoned the former, one must also abandon the latter: having destroyed Christianity, one cannot help but destroy through this all religion. Does the science of religion have the same validity as other sciences? Without a doubt it has. Its reliability is not historical, for religion took on the form of history through revelation; Nor is it certainty, either mathematical or logical. It is limited to one ideal contemplation. Can it therefore have reliability equal to other sciences? Maybe. It is known that all human knowledge leads to faith. In fact, a person cannot have direct knowledge, because for this he would have to enter, so to speak, into the interior of the object represented by him; but this is impossible for him. Therefore, historical knowledge is usually based on trust in feelings. But feelings often deceive; This is why there are many false narratives and false judgments in stories. However, we believe our feelings and it would be strange not to believe history. Mathematical confidence is based on the correctness of the forms of space and time: a part is less than the whole, a quantity is equal to itself - these are truths that are very obvious to us, for we believe that our mind, by its structure, can represent things in one way and not another. Logical knowledge is based on the forms of our reason - on trust in these forms. So, all knowledge is based on faith. Without faith, there will be no knowledge. And indeed, there were philosophers who, recognizing the forms of reason as a dream and not accepting external evidence, turned all mathematical, logical and historical knowledge into empty. But these were dreamers; faith is necessary for us. All the knowledge outlined above, which is based on trust in feelings or forms of reason, is reliable. Consequently, the teaching of religion is also reliable, since it is based on faith in the ideas of the mind, which have the nature of necessity. Why are mathematical and other truths more obvious to many than religious truths? Because the truths of religion are based on trust in the mind, which in rare cases is developed, for it tends to develop after all the abilities of the soul. Such underdevelopment of the mind is the reason that many people know the truths of religion only historically, and therefore they believe them less. Otherwise, the reliability of the truths of religion should be on a par with the reliability of other truths, for their basis is the same. In religion there should be even more authenticity. The control of feeling presupposes something higher behind it, by which it is controlled, that is, forms of reason; Logical knowledge would mean nothing without the ideas of the mind, while religious knowledge stands on its own; It is no longer possible to assume anything higher than the mind. The ideas of the mind form the basis of all our knowledge. In this case, all our knowledge can be likened to a building. A building cannot exist without a foundation; but it is hidden in the ground, and for those who live in the upper floors, it is inconspicuous. Thus, every category of understanding is based on the idea of ​​the mind and leads to it. One has only to do the analysis, and the truth will become obvious. Now let's take a brief look at religion from the side from which it embraces the entire human race. In fact, religion is not the property of one person, but of all people in general. For religion, as we said above, has its basis in the nature of the human spirit, and in this respect all people are similar to each other. Religion in relation to the entire human race appears to be a moral Divine Kingdom: this is from the internal side, and from the external side – the Church. This kingdom consists of many beings appointed for the same purposes, governed by the same laws and having the same pattern. This Kingdom of God is necessary and eternal. As long as it is represented in idea, until then it constitutes the rational, invisible Kingdom of God; when this idea is expressed externally, then it turns into the visible Church, which is a society of people united to fulfill all the relationships in which we are placed with God. A visible church is necessary. A person can only be indifferent to it, can be a dead member, but he cannot not belong to it at all. For religion is necessary for one and all. But internal religion cannot remain without external religion. Thus, the Church is not a temporary, accidental invention, but a Divine, eternal one, and those who think of destroying the Church do not understand their work. It is based on human nature, and therefore was everywhere along with religion. Not to mention the educated peoples, in whom churchliness even drowned out religion - the most savage peoples had and still have church meetings, persons, days, places, etc. This natural Church, like the Christian Church, is divided there into two types: Combatant and Triumphant. And philosophy testifies to the same thing as revelation - that those who want to live virtuously will be persecuted on earth. Consequently, in this life, where virtue needs to fight evil, the natural Church appears to be suffering, and where there is a place for reward, it will be Triumphant. What are the affiliations of the Church? This religious society cannot exist: 1) without known symbols, or a public model of religion, a public presentation of the truths of faith and rules of morality. This model constitutes a moral center, without which this society would be divided and scattered, would lose unity - in which, so to speak, the religions of all indivisible beings converge. As many minds as there would be, there would be as many churches if there were not one common symbol in every religious society. From this follows the following practical consequence: symbols are not something that can be dispensed with, as some people think: without symbols, the same thing would happen in the Church as in philosophy. Disagreement reigns in philosophy; she is completely scattered among various opinions. Why? Because here there is only an internal model or symbol given to man by God. These are the essence of the main laws or rules of human activity, but there is no external symbol. How should the symbol of the Church be composed? It must contain the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, moral rules, or the law of love for God, neighbor and oneself; in a word, it must contain a pure reduction of faith and morality. Without this, the Church will not achieve its goal. The disadvantages of a symbol may extend to the point that, instead of promoting the purpose of the Church, it will oppose it. Let harmful points enter into it; then it will not be the Church of God that will emerge, but a harmful and disastrous society of evildoers. 2) In addition, the Church needs external rites - sacred ceremonies, without which it also cannot exist. These include: a) sacred assemblies (what kind of society is the members of which never meet?); b) sacred days, which also imply: c) sacred places; d) sacred rites that would have a religious motive and purpose and the meaning of which would also be religious - this is a necessary element of the universal Church, which includes: e) verbal instructions, prayers, readings and singing; f) there should also be some symbolic actions in the Church in which the truths of religion would be emblematically expressed. Their need is based on the fact that many members of the Church need sensory representations of the truths of religion. 3) The third condition, without which the Church cannot exist, is the existence in it of a certain class of clergy. True, one can imagine the church as a completely independent society. This was carried out by the English Independents (a radical religious-political group of Puritans). But in order for order to exist in the church and for everything to proceed lawfully, this cannot be imagined without allowing rulers in it. Therefore, among all peoples, even among wild ones, we find a class of priests. As soon as this condition is accepted, it is necessary to establish the fourth condition - hierarchy. For how can these persons rule the church without known rights and laws? Here is a brief image showing the belongings of the visible natural church. These accessories are necessary in it. Consequently, the opinion of those who want to separate from the Christian religion an appearance based on the appearance of a natural religion is completely unfair. The French made such an attack, and taking advantage of the time of revolution, they managed to destroy the entire church. But what happened? How long did this state of religion last? In the hearts of people, religion and the Church could not be destroyed. Therefore, her visible existence was soon restored. The opinion of the national convention, previously issued against the entire church appearance, was canceled, and Robespierre himself, having emerged from hell, so to speak, said: “France believes in God and in the immortality of the soul.” Here is the appearance; for this is nothing more than a short symbol. Following this, those who had previously rejected the Church began to unite into religious societies, and public worship of Catholics, Protestants and others was again restored. Moreover, even during the time of unbelief there was a society of theophylanthropists. Its goal was to liberate people from the Christian religion and from all the appearances of natural religion and to spread philosophical religion among people. Members of this society took up this with fervor. What came of this? This society appeared like a Christian society: they wrote a short symbol, which at first contained only that they believe in God, try to live virtuously and expect immortality. Then they felt the need for a gospel, for the compilation of which they chose excellent passages from Shuqing (the book of Chinese morality), Alcoran, Cicero, Plato, Seneca; but even here most of it is borrowed from the Old and New Testaments, especially from the conversations of Jesus Christ. In addition, they established holidays and special days of worship. In the reasoning of this institution they showed quite cleverness. They applied all the holidays either to the seasons, or to the ages of human life, or to well-known virtues. So, they had a spring holiday, or a holiday of God the Creator, a holiday of Providence, immortality, a holiday of children, marital fidelity and others. They also had sacred places. Thus, trying to get away from Christianity, they always met with it - they even met with images of leading Christians: for example, those entering their society were given honey and milk. This society lasted about three years. It clearly proved that the external side of religion is as necessary as the internal. Without appearances, religion becomes a matter of controversy. Let us ask: can every religion lead a person to his goal? Not every one. If not every one leads us to the goal, then which one achieves this? None of those that existed and exist in the human race and that owe their origin to the mind. The impartial answer to this in this case is that each of these religions is not only insufficient to restore moral order between people, but also contains a lot of things that spoil people’s morals. History and reason prove this. History shows that both the religion of peoples and the religion of philosophers, before the time of revealed religion, had many harmful errors. These misconceptions are very harmful in religion. Thus, the morality of a person who imagines God as a being who is conveniently appeased by the offering of a ram is far removed from the morality of one who thinks of God as a Being who, to appease His justice, dooms His Only Begotten Son to death (there is an excellent discussion on the importance of religion by a professor at the University of Dorpat, see. "Christian Reading", 1831). Note: One can also say that religion has always suffered and continues to suffer from the opinion that represents it as something boring, which should be resorted to only in moments of repentance. Meanwhile, in fact, it is an activity that imparts strength and life to all our activities. Without it, all ideas of philosophy are empty dreams; it brings to poetry what is lofty and beautiful in it; Astronomical studies are primarily pleasant for a person because they turn him to heaven and put him, so to speak, closer to God. Scientists who have no religion are depriving themselves of their only pleasure. Every science examines a certain part of the works of God and therefore has its own religious side. The opinion of those who say that each science has its own special circle, completely separate from the circle of religion, is unfair. No, all sciences are subordinate to philosophy, and it is directly connected with religion. In practical terms, religion gives man pleasure. A person often stays in society through fear. To free yourself from this fear, there are two ways and methods: suicide and religion. Whoever feels his dependence on God will become above all fear - above despotism, which thousands of martyrs have proven - above the seductions of the flesh and the world, which we see in ascetics. In religious people, the philosophical ideal concept of man is completely realized. A religious person has an unshakable principle within him; he does not require a point on which he could stand and move the world: this point is in himself. People only act better when they act religiously. If we look at the writers, we will see that some of them reflected better in religious moments than at other times. For example, Derzhavin wrote many poems, but his ode “God” is superior to others, and, without a doubt, the very subject here elevated him. Cicero, speaking about legislation and religion, rose to extraordinary heights; Plato's conversation about the immortality of the soul is better than all his works. Kant most of all showed his intelligence when he wrote about the unconditional requirement and holiness of the moral law, and so on. 2. Religion according to its inner dignity We must now consider whether natural religion in itself is sufficient or insufficient. The solution to the question of the significance of the Christian religion for the human race depends on the solution of this question. For if natural religion is sufficient in itself, then Christian religion becomes superfluous; otherwise, humanity needs a supernatural aid - revelation. The force of the question is: Can natural religion bring men to that goal of perfection to which they are destined, that is, can it lead them to truth, correct their morality, bring them happiness? The impartial answer to this is negative. This is collectively confirmed, firstly, by history and, secondly, by reason. 1. From a historical review of natural religion it is revealed that it has always and everywhere been insufficient, in all ages and among all peoples it has appeared in a bad form. On the speculative side, it lacked many essential religious truths; on the contrary, it was disfigured by many errors and superstitious opinions. On the moral side, she also did not know many virtues, for example, self-sacrifice and patience, which form the basis of true virtue, were unknown to her; on the contrary, many vices were not only tolerated, but even sanctified by the religion of the ancients. To see this, let's look at religion as it appeared, firstly, among educated and uneducated peoples; secondly, what it was like in philosophical schools. 1) Among uneducated peoples, natural religion is always presented in the form of polytheism, the most coarse and sensual. What kind of morality they had with such a speculative doctrine, there is nothing to say about that. But religion is almost equally imperfect among educated peoples, such as the Greeks and Romans. From the speculative side, polytheism among these peoples was in full force. Olympus of Greece was filled with gods and the Greeks were still inventing new gods. The Romans, whose Pantheon and Capitol were filled with gods, added new ones to their number with each conquered region. And both had the most unworthy ideas about these gods. The history of their low or ridiculous origins, the history of shameful passions, vicious lives: this is what constituted their creed! This religion, it must be added, was not formed among them at all. They themselves were educated in the fine sciences and arts, and left religion untouched, or improved only the appearance of worship, without thinking about the essential. From here came a terrible mixture of taste and absurdity. They exhausted all art and knowledge to decorate the gods, and, meanwhile, in reasoning, the concepts of them were in deep ignorance; their churches shone with splendor, and inside them a blockhead or an animal was an object of worship. Such was the mental side of religion among the Greeks and Romans! It’s hard to even believe that peoples who still remain models for us in many respects adored such gods. This was also the moral part of their creed. Morality, in fact, did not relate to religion, which consisted of sacrifices, the performance of rituals, and external worship of God. That God, in fact, is pleased with virtue alone, that He must be worshiped in spirit and in truth: this was unknown to them. Why their teaching did not prescribe almost any duties, their religion did not care about morality: love for God, neighbor, and oneself had no place in it. “Oh gods! Give me honor, happiness, health, and I will give myself virtue,” said one of their scientists. This deficiency is not replaced by any models of morality. They had no one to imitate. For the gods presented examples of vices and atrocities, not virtues. Their biographies are filled with abominations and vices. The adventures of Jupiter, Venus and others cannot but offend good and religious feelings. No, it was not people who had to imitate the gods: it was necessary to force the gods to imitate good and pious people. Such vices of the gods could not but have a harmful effect on morality, even if they seemed to people only small spots in their lives. A weak and vicious heart has always excused its shortcomings by the example of the gods. If such vices occur in the morality of the gods, then in man they can be something holy, or at least excusable. In India, they still demand virgin chastity as a sacrifice to the gods. In Rome and Greece, the gods were famous for their intemperance, deception, and theft; They were known for malice, enmity, pride, that is, the most terrible vices. One poet rightly complains that Olympus is inhabited by creatures worthy of hell. How should a virtuous and prudent person feel when thinking about such a religion? Saint Cyprian, who in paganism was devoted to all kinds of pleasures, being already a Christian, turned his gaze to the state of paganism, was horrified by it and left us a striking description of the pagan religion (in his letter to Donatus). So were other parts of religion, for example, the hierarchy. The propagation of truth was not the occupation of the priests; they fed only superstition through the performance of sacred rites and enslaved themselves to a timid conscience and freedom of thought for self-interested species. The most important part of their sacred rites was fortune telling. Since the people are most guided by curiosity, they want to penetrate into the future; It was in these fortune-telling that the attention of both the people and the priests was concentrated. And these fortune-telling were nothing more than a skillful means of enriching the priests, or a way to achieve political goals; hence the extensive system of deception was formed. One cannot imagine without surprise how men famous for virtue and wisdom, who decide the fate of the fatherland and peoples in the Senate, do not dare to pronounce a single judgment until they learn from the augurs how a bird will peck the grain! This state of religion produced the saddest spectacles: ridicule of the gods was committed, especially shortly before the Nativity of Christ; superstition degenerated into unbelief, which destroyed every deity; contempt for any religion grew more and more intense. What should humanity then represent morally? The corruption of big cities even now makes a good heart shudder; but it is small compared to before. Examples of cruelty, hatred, descriptions of circuses, scenes of swordfighters, pictures of voluptuousness, and so on fill more than half of Roman history. If there were good people who did not fall into the abyss of corruption, then it would not be religion, but their own feelings that would keep them on the edge of this abyss. Such was the religion of the peoples and such were its fruits! 2) From this we can already see the dignity of philosophical religion. For when the nations were drowning in error and depravity, philosophers did not live on the clouds, but among these very nations. If their wisdom and instructions could not correct the depravity of their compatriots, then this is a clear sign that they were imperfect: the religion of the philosophers is not good because it was not popular. Truly, on the one hand, one cannot help but be surprised by the successes of the mind: it dispelled many obstacles on the path of enlightenment, made many discoveries, and managed, contrary to the spirit of the times, to establish many lofty truths. This does honor to human nature and cannot be diminished, for it is also an honor to God. But natural religion will also serve as an eternal monument to the weaknesses of man: even among the best philosophers it is very imperfect. Let's look at the representatives of philosophy: the Greeks - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; among the Romans - Cicero. And their religion is not such that there is no need to wish for better. From Socrates, as a philosopher of common sense, one should have expected a better religion. But he also accepted polytheism, like all peoples, with the only difference that he more strictly subordinated the gods to one supreme Deity than the priests and the people. He teaches about providence, but extends its effect to the general life of the world and peoples, and not to the private life of each person; teaches morality, but national; Enemies allow you not only to despise, but also to hate. He commands faith in immortality, but even here he shows the weakness of nature; struggles with doubts and perplexities and concludes his teaching: “Either there is a future life, or not; if there is, then it should be desirable for a virtuous person; if not, then again there is no loss for him: she is rewarded with her conscience.” Finally he adds: “You must go to your work, that is, live, and I must drink the cup, that is, die. Only the gods know what is best." They will say that he taught in this way, adapting himself to the concepts and character of the people; but such an assumption has no basis. He showed what religion he professed by sacrificing a rooster to Aesculapius before his death; at the door of eternity he had no reason and could not be a hypocrite. His whole life shows that he was generally alien to hypocrisy: having heard the death sentence for himself, he agreed to die rather than flee, when he could do it and was encouraged to do so by the advice of friends. Thus, if he had spiritually recognized a religion other than the one he taught, then, without a doubt, he would have left the false one at the door of the tomb and would not have decided to seal it with his death. So, the religion of Socrates was a religion without light. Plato, as a philosopher of the mind, did a lot for natural religion with his teaching about the ideal world. Having taken away much from the sensory world, he added much value to spiritual things; Having drawn the attention of his compatriots to the heavenly, he weakened the power of sensuality in them. But his teaching also cannot be a universal teaching of truth for the human race, both from the speculative and moral side. 1) His doctrine of eternity cannot have a place in the system of religion, for it is dualistic (dual). If anyone, then God is most suitable for autocracy. 2) The multitude of gods recognized by him, although subordinate, in religion must also have a harmful influence on morality. With polytheism there can be no unity in religion. 3) The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is also disfigured by his opinion about their transmigration and falling away. His moral system bears the stamp of weakness and delusion; she is infected with fanaticism and daydreaming; her vices are visible from his exemplary society. He banished marriage, allowed child abandonment, and so on. Having banished marriage from his republic, he, of course, had an advantageous goal: he wanted to unite all members of society in the closest union, while family ties bind us exclusively to certain individuals. But the method he proposed for this does not honor his mind. Because, firstly, it is not valid. By destroying family ties, it was possible to extend the love of a citizen only to a close circle of people, for example, living in one city, and not to all members of distant society. Secondly, this method is reprehensible. Wanting to introduce one virtue - mutual social love, he destroyed many others, family ones. Incomparably higher in wisdom is the means by which Jesus Christ set out to unite our neighbors with each other—spiritual kinship. God alone is the Father of all men; therefore, all people are brothers with each other. One Savior, who redeemed us all from the slavery of sin and death with His Blood; therefore, we are all of the same blood, partaking of His Body and Blood. Plato's religion is not worthy of the human race! Still less can the religion of Aristotle be a religion worthy of humanity. This eternity of the world, destroying our hopes, this uncertain doctrine about the fate of souls, this mover, so little separated from the world, this republic with the vices that are visible in Plato’s republic, cannot constitute signs of a good religion; and the scholastic method of presentation and abstract language make it a subject of study only for schools and philosophers, and not for nations. Even if all these systems are combined together, even then it is impossible to extract from them signs worthy of true religion. For the errors of one philosopher are not at all corrected by another; on the contrary, each of them, running away from one extreme, falls into another, more dangerous one. Cicero, who studied and critically reviewed the works of all philosophers, did not compile a true doctrine, and he did not rise above his models. He was convinced of immortality by an inner feeling, which he called augurium saeculorum. That he made this truth an object of feeling may be to his credit, but he took it away from the mind by his skepticism. Thus, representatives of ancient enlightenment could not present to humanity not only a model, but also signs of a true and universal religion; for they themselves did not know them. And what they knew, they didn’t tell the people. They all said that philosophy and wisdom love not the square, but solitude; that the most important truths should not be communicated to the people. This shows that they viewed the truth of religion as something private and not public. Could such philosophers be the mentors of humanity?.. What caused this? Without a doubt, from weakness. The death of Socrates took away their courage, and they refused to preach the truth on the streets. This is where hypocrisy arose in them, the most unworthy of wisdom. It’s strange to hear how Aristotle, in the circle of his students, laughs at polytheism, superstition, prejudices, and then in an Athenian square sacrifices an animal to some god... Is this what the preachers of the truth of Christ did!.. In Pythagoras, some think to point out a worthy preacher of truth, for he educated the inhabitants of Italy with his school. But his intentions were limited to only political types: he wanted to give the Italians a good civil order and make them happy inhabitants. And his religion could not be a model for others. It was a mixture of the highest speculations with the lowest opinions, the highest laws with material blind forces. Such a religion did not deserve to be preached to the world. This is the kind of religion we see in humanity before the birth of Christ! Among the people there are superstitions and immorality; in philosophers there is error on the one hand, and weakness on the other. This state of religion is very well expressed by the scene that St. Paul found in Athens. Passing and examining your churches, he says (Acts 17:23), I found a church on which it was written: to an unknown God. So the ancients adored that God whom they did not know, and did not know that God whom they should have revered. What would happen to humanity next, when the barbarians attacked the southern part of Europe, with such a religion?.. Christianity should have prevailed over the rudeness of the barbarians; it had to melt these mixtures of peoples into new forms. But without this, natural religion would be buried under the ruins of states. Isn’t it natural to conclude after this that natural religion alone is not enough for a person, that the mind needs help from above that would guide it to true happiness? This thought was born of itself among all those who considered the state of humanity. For example, in Socrates, Alcibiades wants God Himself to teach people the truth. In Plato, someone says that true knowledge of God can only come from God. So, this is the true merit of the sages for religion: they admitted that they could not be heralds of truth, and through this they opened the way to heavenly religion. Natural religion acquired just as little after the Nativity of Christ. Suddenly, after His coming, we see that it fell along with philosophy. Porphyry, Iamblichus, Celsus want to support and transform it; the lack of speculative belief is compensated by allegories and sacraments; Instead of pure morality, prayers, hymns, and sacrifices are introduced. But they were unable to hold back what was destined for a complete fall. And even this the mentioned philosophers acquired for natural religion from Christianity. Selfishness and wrong ideas about Christianity alone were the reason that they themselves did not become Christians. However, it must be admitted that they rendered a satisfactory service to natural religion (see Euler's conversation). In the Middle Ages this religion could not make progress. Then the Christian faith also fell into some decline from superstitious ignorance and the rudeness of morals: what could the pagan one expect? Finally, even in modern times, it is not such that it can satisfy all the needs of the mind and heart. No matter how great the service of new philosophers for philosophy, they cannot be teachers of humanity, for not one of their systems can be converted to religion. They have common passages in which certain useful and moral truths are affirmed; but this cannot have the value of any important merit, for their systems have the price of a school; so they themselves admitted it. This is, for example, Fichte's system. Nowhere has the human mind shown such effort as here; but no work of his is so removed from public benefit as this. The same can be said about other philosophers. Often with their wisdom they darken the Christian religion more than they contribute to the good of humanity. From a practical point of view, their teaching is extremely insufficient. Kant rendered only the service for natural religion that he clarified and purified the idea of ​​morality; but this idea has long been known in Christianity: only there the demands of morality are dissolved by compassion: Christianity also allows for extraneous motivations, with which our weak virtue is reinforced; and Kant took away this, so to speak, crutch, this support of human morality, and demanded the purest virtue, without being applied to humanity. What can we say after this about savage peoples who are removed from general enlightenment? And when can they hope to see a perfect religion? They must first cultivate their land, learn to easily satisfy the needs of life, then gradually begin their education and themselves reach true religion; and this will take many centuries. But even then they will not be able to form a true religion for themselves; this is most strikingly proven in the Indian state. If any religion, then, without a doubt, the religion of the Indians should have been perfected and fully formed in such a long time; for its antiquity goes back even to the Babylonian pandemonium. But what do we see in this religion? This is a mixture of the most intense metaphysical contemplations with the most absurd opinions about the worlds of the dead, about gods, dead heroes, and so on. From here - practical conclusions about the transmigration of souls, about the filling and control of all parts of the world with spirits, the deification of parts of nature, or rather, nature in all its forms. Hence the opinion about the dwelling of evil spirits in people of the lower class, hospitals for sick animals, avoidance of any contact with pariahs (a special kind of despicable Indians) to maintain moral purity. Natural religion became such from its very beginning over the course of several centuries. But perhaps this religion became such in some accidental way? Perhaps, with the gradual education of humanity, it will eventually achieve its proper perfection? Maybe the benefits of Revelation are not needed? Before we begin to answer this objection, let us note that religion in the human race did not arise by chance in any way, but was planted by God Himself. From here we will see that religion in the human race must be the subject of a special Providence of God. Indeed: surveying religion, we have already seen that it has always and everywhere been insufficient, imperfect; but at the same time they also saw that it always existed everywhere. The question is: where did it come from? History has refused to answer this question because it is younger than religion. Even the legends do not speak clearly about this, because religion is older than them. However, through many centuries one constant voice passes from some impenetrable depth, that religion was given to man from above. Is this voice fair? Didn't man himself create it? Three most excellent philosophers, who by the mere authority of their names and their mutual agreement can inspire us to trust in themselves, and who thought about this subject without any attachment to religion, three such philosophers: Kant, Fichte and Schelling - unanimously attributed the beginning of religion to God. This is how it should be in the natural order of things. Religion passes from generation to generation according to legend. With the babble of language, the child receives religious concepts from his father, who himself was also taught from another, and so on. Thus, an unbroken chain of learning goes back to the very first person. Who taught him religion? Let us assume that he had good abilities, but if they were only abilities, and if they were not to remain without religion, then for the abilities there had to be some kind of teacher - God Himself, or some kind of spirit, who instilled religious concepts in the abilities. Without this teaching, man would not have had a religion. Some philosophers (for example, Rousseau), who did not want to accept natural religion as Divine, assumed that man was at first in some kind of bestial state, that his abilities were still hidden under the crust of animality and he lived, guided only by natural inclinations, that religion was formed and developed in him much later, with the discovery and formation of his abilities. This view is completely wrong. For if the truths of religion are so sublime and abstract that they can come into the consciousness of a person only with the full development of their powers; then God Himself had to take part in the poor man. The natural need of the mind and heart could not remain unsatisfied, and God could not leave a person appointed to higher goals without religion. God himself had to arrange a religion for him. Thus, there is, strictly speaking, no natural religion in experience. The best thinkers were aware of this; and thinkers like Rousseau paid no attention to the state of things. Moses rightly says that man first talked with God; in this legend the view is truly philosophical! Why is philosophy similar to religion in this case? Because they are based on one idea, and the mind cannot imagine the origin of religion otherwise than that it was implanted in man by God Himself. If religion in the human race is the work of God, then God must preserve it in it and make up for its shortcomings. Being the work of God in the beginning, it must be preserved by God: man himself could not produce it in the beginning; it must also depend on God for its existence, destiny and fulfillment. The human mind in itself is very weak and imperfect; he cannot have any solid knowledge that he cannot doubt, for he can never be completely confident in the correspondence of his ideas with the properties of objects. He cannot go into the thing itself, and he bases all confidence in the truth of his thoughts only on the laws of his activity, that is, on faith in the mind. The foundation is the most shaky, on which the thought can always come: is this really so? Critics said: between the mind and the world lies an impassable abyss, an impenetrable curtain hides the existence of things from us. If this is the property of the human mind, then how necessary is it for a person to be assured of religious truths through some other testimony! How necessary it is for him that some being should pass through this impassable abyss, tear apart for us this impenetrable veil and, seeing everything that is distant from us, tell us that everything we believe is true, everything we hope is immutable, everything we undertake to do is just! How necessary for us is such a being who would be our path, truth and life! (This being is obviously the God-man, Jesus Christ. He sees and knows everything, because he creates everything; represents a perfect example of activity, for he is the Most Holy Being in the flesh; serves as an immutable pledge of promises, for he participated in the Eternal Council and took upon himself its fulfillment). The lack of such evidence (the God-man) has always made philosophers waver in their speculations, since their reliability has always been based only on ideas and concepts. Plato and Socrates always felt the need to reinforce their truths; they were more confident in them with their hearts than with their minds. How much does the confidence of a Christian commoner exceed in this case the confidence of a philosopher! On the other hand, religion must exist for the whole human race or for many; must exist in appearance and be expressed by the Church. Who will establish the Church? She cannot get along without a public model: who will compose and write it? If you entrust this to the wisest among the nations, will the authority of one person be sufficient to force all nations to follow the model he compiled? In any nation, two classes of people can be distinguished: one class is enlightened, the other is unenlightened. The first will not follow the accepted model, because he is the work of a man similar and equal to him; the second - because he cannot persuade him to do so; for again the sage in his eyes is nothing more than an ordinary person. So, in both cases, more than a person is needed. And if natural religion was firmly founded in the human race, it was only because it was revered as Divine, communicated from above. Otherwise it could not exist for long. The example of the French Theophilanthropic Church undoubtedly convinces us of this truth. She existed only for three years - until then, until the enthusiasm of her defenders and admirers had yet worn off: along with it she disappeared. And very natural! When someone was called to profess this new religion, he asked himself: “Why should I go to this church? – Recognize and profess her teachings? But I myself can compose such a doctrine. So, it’s better to stay at home.” Thus natural religion could not exist at all, or at least would not survive, if it were not based on Revelation: the name of revelation alone saves it from destruction. It is also impossible to think that natural religion would and could rely on an imaginary revelation if there were no true one. A counterfeit coin always presupposes the existence of a true one. Hitherto we have considered religion in relation to people; Now let's look at it itself, regardless. Let us imagine that natural religion in itself is reliable and convincing, that it can of itself establish itself in humanity; the question is: what benefit can she bring to him in his state of corruption? Religion must contain a union between God and man. But the union between God and man is broken by the disobedience of the first man. Man is at enmity with God and the harmful consequences of enmity are visible. Only small minds rejected the fall of man; for thoughtful philosophers it was undeniable. How was this union broken and how can it be restored? Natural religion has always attempted to solve this problem, trying to bring man out of his disastrous state. But her decisions were different, and she did not determine the way to achieve the true goal. Many looked for the sources of evil in matter, others - in the so-called evil principle, a few looked for it where it should, that is, in the human heart. Modern philosophers are just as unsatisfactory about this. One cannot read without regret how Kant strives to reach the beginning of evil: he becomes a sophist and scholastic. He is so tense here that, reading him in this argument, one cannot help but laugh. Ascending to the beginning of evil, he plunges into the abyss; the fall of man is combined with existence. His very being and consciousness is a falling away from God. What is the reason for this? In response to this, he becomes lost in self-awareness. The human mind is also lost when it wants to decide: how will the restoration of man take place? No one doubts that this restoration will take place, but no one knows the image of this restoration. The sensual side presents sacrifices to man, but they are imperfect; The blood of goats, according to the Apostle Paul, does not cleanse anyone from filth (Heb. 10:4). The rational, philosophical side wants to reconcile a person with God through repentance. But does repentance correct a person? Does evil go away on its own? No, many die with a feeling of complete repentance, and despite this, their evil skills remain. And this happens even to the best of people; what can we say about the villains? Let us even assume that through repentance a person can correct himself; but how will he correct the disorder he has caused in nature? We do not see in things the disorder produced and produced by our sins. But our sins act on the sun and beyond, only our damaged gaze does not see this. This is possible and is proven by experience. The physical sun can and does act on us with its rays; Why can’t our thoughts act on him? That thoughts have such a property is evident from magnetic experiments, for those in magnetic sleep cannot tolerate the bad thoughts of people present with them: it causes them pain. Why? Because at that time the soul is in such a close connection with external objects surrounding it, in which it is with its own body, and therefore disturbances in others are as sensitive to it as disturbances in its body. Imagine that millions of spirits act in this way on the system of the world: what will then happen in it? Greatest mess! Who corrects him? Who does not allow a person to create a complete disorder in nature, and nature to pour out its enmity on a person? Without a doubt, God does all this. Thus, is it enough to correct the shortcomings of the faith in God that Kant commands? No, this faith does not solve anything. To solve all such and similar questions, you need to know the world and eternity. In this case, Revelation is the greatest benefit for the human race. So, natural religion is not sufficient in relation to: a) its beginning; b) to continue; c) to reliability; d) to the solution of some important questions, such as: about the origin of the primitive state of man and the world. Natural religion is transmitted from father to children always under the shield of true or false revelation. Let's imagine that she is thin: how can I fix her now? The people, considering it Divine, make it completely inviolable and, fearing the Divine, are afraid to make the slightest change in religion, the source of which, in their opinion, is in God. This was expressed in the religion of the Greeks and Romans. While they were engaged in the arts, they did not engage in religion, for they were afraid to touch it as a Divine Revelation. From here comes the desire for the Divine to come to the rescue and provide proof for faith, impart strength to activity, and give guarantee for hope. From this the pagans concluded that it was fitting for God to teach the rules of religion. This same thing served as the basis for the fact that their religion was always based on revelation, albeit imaginary. After this, can we say that revealed religion is not necessary? Does this lead to the conclusion that religious concepts must be communicated to man in a miraculous way? There are not yet sufficient premises for this. That a person needs help is obvious, but how it should be given is still hidden. The mind will not calm down until it learns that there are no other means except Revelation and that this means is the best. Without a doubt, God could have used other means, but since He used Revelation, Revelation is one of the best means. This ends our general survey of natural religion. So, we have seen: this religion was everywhere and always, more or less diverse everywhere; history cannot show its origin, it is older than it and even the most legends are younger than religion; the mind says that religion is based on the nature of the human spirit and develops with the development of spiritual powers, therefore, as a person is, such is his God. Religion is the union of man with God; there are two parts: God and man; the connection between them constitutes immortality, without which this union cannot exist. Subject of religion: God, peace and spiritual life; it is all directed to the mind, to its ideas, and the lower faculties are only interpreters, often darkening it and conveniently taking anti-religious directions. Since the objects of religion are supersensible, they therefore seem reliable. It exists in an impure and insufficient form both among peoples and among philosophers. Reason cannot give it perfection and strength. This insufficiency of natural religion makes man desire help. But where can he get it? Of course, from above, from heaven, for there is no one on earth to expect it from. The human race even believed that this help had already been given, for all religions existed under the name of revelation. Therefore, Revelation, as a universal and ever-present phenomenon, for that reason alone should attract all our attention. In the doctrine of revelation in general, it is necessary, firstly, to define the concept of revelation, since this word is very broad and has many meanings. Here you need to pay attention to the internal content of revelation, to its external form and purpose. Secondly, since false revelations have appeared and are appearing in addition to true revelation, it is necessary to show signs of true revelation. Thirdly, and finally, since it was accomplished and given to people at one time, while it must be preserved at all times, it is necessary to show the way of its preservation. Therefore the reading of revelation will be divided into three parts: 2. On the signs of true revelation 3. On the Method of Preserving Revealed Religion The doctrine of revelation belongs to reason: it must compose it. For he must judge revelation without being content with historical faith alone, and for this he needs his own model. But can he define revelation? Revelation is something future; to define it means to determine the way in which God will act (reveal - ed.) in revealing Himself to man. But should reason therefore be reproached for entering into the rights of God and, as it were, prescribing a pattern of activity for God? Does the mind have principles based on which it can act in this way and free itself from reproach? Has. All its principles, all its laws are nothing more than revelation; he received them from God. Any new revelation will only be an inoculation to this previous one. Therefore, the mind, based on the present natural revelation, can also judge about the miraculous future; if, guided by this scale, it remembers that the present revelation does not fully embrace the future, then its judgment will be correct: it will not demand from revelation anything incongruous and nothing impossible. We said that revelation has many meanings. How many of them exactly and what are they? The most natural religion is already revelation. Our mind is a reflection of the Divine radiance, and if anything, the truths of religion must necessarily be revealed to it by God Himself. In this sense, the Apostle Paul accepts revelation when, writing to the Romans, he says: “Even though it was possible to understand that God was in them, God showed it to them” (Rom. 1:19). In this sense, revelation is the knowledge about God initially implanted in a person. The second meaning is the following: it is known that natural religion in a person is obscured, but in the minds of some people it can be clarified, purified and improved to the point that these people, in comparison with others, can be considered luminaries. If these people are able to convey their religion to others, then the religion communicated by them is also a revelation. When universal religion is the work of God, then this special one cannot but be from God. Thus, the teaching of philosophers about religion is a special type of revelation of God. That is why the holy fathers and teachers of the Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Justin, Panten, Origen and Tertullian, called philosophy revelation, and Origen directly says that there is a certain spark of God the Word in it. But we cannot stop at this meaning of revelation yet. This is a form of the same natural revelation. The main thing with which we must be satisfied in this case is the sufficiency of religion. But a religion composed by these pets of God’s Providence cannot be like that. She herself will not achieve her goal, and she will not lead people to it. In some ways it may be sufficient. Let us assume that it will correct the shortcomings of natural religion, improve morality, and cleanse hope from gross impurities, but it will not tell us the secrets necessary for our salvation, it will not solve two main problems: where does evil come from in the world, and how to free ourselves from it? There is no complete answer to the first question in nature, and to the last she cannot say anything - it is hidden in God: it is impossible to imagine such natural means through which the order disrupted by the origin of evil could be restored. Even assuming that this religion would be sufficient, we cannot be completely satisfied with it, for it will not have Divine authority, without which no religion can exist and hold on. Moreover, this meaning cannot be accepted because it is the natural meaning of revelation; but we know that all religions owe their existence to revelation accepted in a higher, supernatural sense, revelation directly received from God. Thus, there must be and indeed there are other meanings of revelation, namely: revelation is such teaching of man by God, which comes out of the ordinary order of things, presupposes a direct relationship of God to man - miraculous teaching, not through the forces of nature, but directly produced teaching such as occurs from man to man. It refers to the bringing together of two worlds and a person’s conversation with God, so to speak, face to face. This is the closest meaning of revelation. In this sense, the Christian religion arose, and it is a revelation in the full sense of the word. Let us break this concept of revelation into its parts. 1) It is made up of the concept of God as a Teacher, teaching man not by nature, but directly talking with him, so to speak, face to face. This immediacy is not destroyed if God chooses Angels or nature as the instrument of His will, so long as the action itself directly flows from Him. 2) It represents a person learning or receiving instructions from God internally or externally, in a state of wakefulness or sleep, or in a mixed state, that is, in an elevated state of soul, intermediate between sleep and wakefulness. 3) The subject of this revelation is the truths of religion. God can teach other things; for example, he taught the first people to sew a dress, for it is said that God Himself sewed garments for Adam and Eve. But in this case, He reveals only the truths of religion that a person needs for salvation. The form of revelation can be different. It is impossible for a person to determine all its forms. The most important ones known to us are the following: 1) A direct effect on the soul, called inspiration or encouragement. It happens either in a waking state, or in a dream, or in an intermediate state, when the soul comes out of its ordinary state and does not understand itself, which happens either from illness or from a certain circumstance. This is an internal form. 2) The most well-known external forms are the following: a) living voice; b) emblems borrowed from visible nature, in which man clearly sees the presence of God; for example, the bush that burned before Moses; c) the appearance of a person or other creature; d) writing; for example, a hand appeared to Belshazzar writing on the wall. God has many other ways, but we cannot know them. The most important way is an internal action on the soul. It is better to say: God in the Old Testament acted primarily in an external way, but in the New Testament in an internal way. However, if taken in total, the internal one will be dominant. It was revealed to them in the Old Testament to the prophets, and in the New Testament to the apostles. What is the purpose of this revelation? To give a person help, to give what he cannot give to himself, to revive and improve natural religion, and, if necessary, to impart a new teaching. In this sense, does not religion contain actions and conditions that are impossible? Is such a revelation possible? For several thousand years they didn’t even think about it. Our age has, so to speak, the dishonest honor of asserting that revelation presupposes conditions to which reason cannot agree. This idea was generated by Wolffian philosophy. This kind of doubt arose in the minds of the followers and adherents of this philosophy because they imagined an impassable abyss between the spiritual and sensory worlds, and in order to unite them, they sometimes placed God in the midst of this abyss. The same abyss, in their opinion, lies between God and the world in general. (True, they taught about the influence of God on the world and the action of the soul on the body; but these were mostly words.) By this teaching they undermined all revelation. Considering God to be completely detached from the world, they could not imagine the possibility of miracles and, therefore, the possibility of revelation, because they did not have time to explain how an infinite God could act in a finite world. Despite the fact that we affirm that revelation is possible, that is, that it does not represent a single condition that would be contrary to: 1) or the concept of God, 2) or the concept of man, 3) or the concept of the world - this field in which God is revealed to man. 1) It is not contrary to the concept of God. The main bewilderment in this case is that we cannot imagine how God, an unlimited Being, will act on limited things, how the Infinite One will enclose Himself in finite forms. But the same thing happens and the same must be said about the actions of His most private Providence. Consequently, having destroyed the first, it is necessary to destroy the last, as some philosophers did who assumed one common Providence. Moreover, God does not appear in all of these forms, but only in part; and such a manifestation of the Infinite is ultimately very possible. They also say against this that the order of nature is unchangeable, but by allowing revelation, we will allow something new in it and therefore change it. To refute this, you need to know: what is this order of the world? Is he as strict as some smart people think? That there is order in the world, that it is firm in its foundation, there is no doubt. But there is also no doubt that this order, solid in its foundation, is not at all solid in its further development. Everything on the surface is random and subject to change. For example, man makes so many changes in nature! Raises water up against the law of gravity of bodies; the whole world is being remade by human hands. A person, through scientific discoveries in the field of physics, chemistry and others, can reach such perfection that among wild peoples he can seem like a miracle worker. What can we say about Angels? and what about man, if with such extensive knowledge he could live for thousands of years? After this there is nothing to say about God. He can change everything, and this is not bound, through the combination of particular laws He can produce the greatest miracles, and with all this, the basic laws will remain unchanged forever. It is not clear how the eternal can appear in time. We usually contrast time with eternity. But we must admit that there is an optical forgery here. In time it is necessary to eat eternity, for time is not an empty form. True, private time, definite, is the opposite of eternity; but time, represented as an unlimited connection of moments, is nothing more than moving eternity, just as eternity is resting time. Equally, private space is the opposite of infinity; and space, as an infinite collection of many such parts, is not opposed to the infinite. In general, all objections borrowed from infinity and eternity also apply to natural religion, but there they are invalid; therefore, they should be the same here too. Judging simply and sensibly, one can see how easy it is for God to teach man directly, how easy it is for Him to compose an emblem, to inscribe words, to act on soul and body. One might rather wonder why God rarely acts in this way. This is what He, perhaps, does to preserve the previous order of the world: for if He often acted miraculously, then the natural order would not have its purpose. In fact, what is easier for God: to light a bush or to imagine two hundred volcanoes? give a plan for the tabernacle or build a whole heaven? 2) If we pay attention to man, then in this regard we will not find the slightest inconsistency. Although a person is not able to see God as He is in Himself, he can hear His voice, feel His presence and distinguish a true phenomenon from a false one. Put the entire human race in the place of Manoah, who saw the Angel ascending into heaven (Judges 13:20–21): everyone will recognize the appearance of God. Place all the people before Sinai and force them to listen to the saying of the Decalogue: each of them will say that the One who speaks is God. But perhaps the internal effect on the soul is incompatible with the independence of the soul? Doesn't this violate her freedom? This is where all the objections to revelation come from. The inner sanctuary of the soul must be inviolable; but if we allow the direct influence of an outside force on the soul, through this the freedom of the soul will be violated. In the 2nd century, many Christians sinned in this way, presenting the human soul as a completely passive instrument of grace - like a flute for a player or like a pen for a scribe. But in the Christian religion there is nothing like this. Inspiration is a method of revelation that is completely worthy of the human soul. The Apostle Paul says that everything is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he, as can be seen from his own confession, did everything in a very free manner. In the Epistle to the Corinthians, advising not to be proud of the gifts of the Spirit, he says that we have enough power, and to this he adds: And souls obey the prophecies of the prophet (1 Cor. 14:32). Moreover, the strangeness disappears if we remember that the objects that appear act on the soul directly - and yet do not destroy its independence. For their impressions, passing from the eye to the soul, become more refined and finally receive an ideal existence. So, can our soul be afraid of anything from the touch of the Spirit when it is not afraid of the touch of matter? Rather, with Cartesius, one can doubt the action of matter on the soul rather than the Spirit. Let us assume that the Spirit acts on the brain and arouses certain thoughts and desires in the soul. With such an action, the soul does not at all notice the action of an outside force on it. She imagines all this to be happening according to her natural laws, and therefore her independence does not suffer in the least. Let's look at the soul itself, as much as we can see of it. As a rule, it either accepts new impressions, or, according to the three main laws of association of ideas, it takes old ones, so to speak, from below. Their further development is unknown to us. But it cannot exist without known laws. What if God took, so to speak, into His hands these laws unknown to our life? How many thoughts, impressions, feelings and actions He can produce! And meanwhile, all this will seem to us to be the own product of our soul. That Providence really uses these means is evident from the fact that new thoughts often come to us that have no natural relation to the system of our thoughts. Herman says that the Angel puts good thoughts into the soul. Likewise, on the human side there is no reason why direct revelation can be considered impossible. 3) The subject of revelation can be twofold. Revelation must: a) replenish and perfect what natural religion contains, b) communicate something new. This new thing can also be of two kinds: either something that a person will immediately understand as soon as it is revealed to him; or something that he does not comprehend. This incomprehensible can still be divided: firstly, into something that, although at first incomprehensible to man, can later be comprehended by him; secondly, what, if not in eternity, then at least in this life, will never befall a person. The incomprehensible of the last kind constitute the eternal sacraments, and the incomprehensible of the first kind is known under the name of temporary sacraments. All these features were separately assimilated by revelation. Thus, the Socinians thought that revelation should not contain any sacraments, and should be as clear as the teachings of natural religion. Others allowed sacraments in it, but only temporary ones. The majority believed (the Fathers of the Church belong here; we agree with them) that in revelation there must be perfect sacraments, which in this life will forever remain beyond the human mind. Whether they will be like this in eternity is unknown. But does not revelation, which contains perfect sacraments, represent impossible conditions? No. It is very natural that future revelation should contain something beyond the human mind. Its basis lies in the very nature of man, in the gradual development of his powers. At each degree of development of his powers, a person encounters something new. Consequently, until his powers are fully developed, there will always remain something unknown and mysterious to him. The experiences of this not only in religion, but also in the sciences are very clear. What has now been done in the field of known science has been a mystery for many years. For example, the experiments of modern physics, chemistry and other sciences a thousand years ago would have been miracles. This is also evident in ordinary things: when in the 9th century the opinion about the existence of antipodes appeared, those who thought so were considered almost crazy; the pope cursed and excommunicated the bishop who accepted this opinion. But in the 15th century these antipodes were discovered, and what had previously seemed extraordinary later became ordinary. Another experience of this matter, close to us in time: in England they are now building (in the 19th century - ed.) a bridge under the Thames, but recently a speech was found by one parliamentarian who, speaking about something impossible, put it this way: “It is as impossible as if someone invented a bridge under the Thames.” We know that real life is the beginning of our education. But someone who begins to learn does not understand much at first and mostly accepts everything from memory. Even adults are subject to the same faith... So, for example, mathematicians themselves, despite the fact that everything they say is based on obvious experience, are largely guided by faith. All their constructions are reduced to an axiom, but why is the axiom true? Why 22=4? Why is the whole equal to its parts? There is one basis for this - faith in what a person cannot imagine otherwise. But from this it is only clear that in revealed religion there can be sacraments. It is not yet clear from here that these sacraments are everlasting (eternal - ed.). But is it really so? Is it not clear that eternal sacraments are also possible? The impossibility of such sacraments could be assumed when the human mind could admit, and then only yours, that it can comprehend any truth here, or the following: everything that is incomprehensible to it is that which is in the Divine mind. But he cannot allow either one or the other; therefore, he cannot help but admit that future revelation will contain something that he will never, at least here, comprehend. But what does this mean: it will not comprehend? Is it not that there is something in revelation about which man cannot form a definite concept? It would be useless to reveal this to a person. Consequently, in revelation there cannot be such sacraments as were in the ancient pagan religions and consisted of some empty words, studied and confirmed by memory without any participation of reason: for example, ασχι και ασχι. These are just absurdities, not mysteries. The sacraments that we allow in true revelation must contain something that the human mind cannot see (does not see - ed.), an internal metaphysical possibility, cannot understand the way of existence, but about which a separate logical concept can be formed, its properties, actions, goals and purposes can be seen. Such semi-sacraments are very possible in revealed religion. Their likelihood is revealed, firstly, from a look at God, who will teach man. The very image of this teaching is incomprehensible to us. How will God directly teach man? Such learning in itself is already wonderful, mysterious. Moreover, if God is a Teacher, then mystery should be a distinctive feature of this teaching. Its content must be such that it cannot fit into the human mind at all. We see this in ordinary teaching. So, when a philosopher teaches a little one, is it possible for this little one to comprehend everything taught to him by such a teacher? Thus, the concept of God as Teacher makes possible the possibility of sacraments in revelation. Secondly, this is clear from the concept of man as a disciple of God. Man will learn from God the truths of revelation, standing at the first degree of his being. His existence must develop through eternity. If there is development, there must be diversity; if there is diversity, then there must be opposition between the stages of life; if there is an opposite, then one of them must be different from the other, there must be something on the higher one that is not on the lower one. Consequently, one who stands on the first stage of being may not know what is on the other levels; but since there must be a strict connection between these steps, since present life must be a preparation for the future, then from this life at the first stage one must at least know the general features of the future life - one must know the alphabet of eternity, and this alphabet can only be accepted by faith. Thirdly, and finally, this is also revealed by looking at the object of revelation. What is the subject of revelation? Revelation must explain to man what he himself does not comprehend. Namely: his own origin, the origin of evil, the method of recovery from a disastrous state, and so on. These phenomena of fall and restoration concern the entire system of the universe. So, speaking about the beginning of evil, we will reach the first people, from them to the evil spirits, and there we need to know how they fell and from what? How was disorder created in the world, and how can it be restored? Knowledge of all this presupposes knowledge of all nature, but can complete knowledge of nature be communicated to a person, and why communicate it? For a person in his current state, it is not necessary, and may even be useless. Thus, a review of the parts of revelation and persons leads to the expectation that it will contain sacraments of the last kind, that is, perfect ones. What are these sacraments? Can't the mind say something to this question? Maybe. Revelation will address the fundamental truths, and especially those that form an appendage to natural religion. And these fundamental truths are mainly two: the fall and the restoration. That revelation will mostly revolve around these truths is very likely, especially since reason itself tried to solve these problems, but could not. Thus, it is not at all strange that there should be sacraments in revelation. It would be strange then if revelation had no sacraments. Such a revelation is already suspicious, because there is nothing new in it and, therefore, there are no traces of the Divine. For those who do not like sacraments in religion, it can also be pointed out that there is mystery in all sciences. Thus, astronomy boasted and boasts of Newton, who recognized the law of gravity of bodies; but how far does this knowledge extend? Do they know what gravity is? The external forms of nature are known, but the internal ones are hidden. Geology boasts that it has discovered the magnetic current around the earth; but what this current is, she does not know. Medicine has learned a way to treat with sympathetic means, but it does not know the mode of action of these means on humans. Philosophy has been working for several thousand years on the recognition (knowledge - ed.) of nature and on the composition of metaphysics, but what does this metaphysical knowledge mean? Have philosophers discovered at least one secret of nature? Definitely not. That is why the philosophers, wanting to reconcile with Moses, dreamed very strangely about the origin of man. It was produced either from fish, or from the earth, or from other absurd principles. As modern people think about its origin, modesty does not allow us to talk about it. In general, we can say that the wisdom of man has not yet discovered a single real truth. That is why man cannot create anything. He doesn't know what life is. If he knew it, he could create living beings. And all physiology will remain mysterious in its foundation until it decides what constitutes the beginning of life and what constitutes the beginning of death. Life is a mystery for philosophers. There is a discussion about this by a physiologist, which will soon be seen; thus all knowledge consists of sacraments; all sciences are burdened with sacraments, and if we do not see sacraments in them, it is because we do not reach their foundation. Science is a collection of many truths. Take, for example, some particular truth and begin to trace it back to its beginnings; first you will reach general truths, then more general ones, and finally, to an idea, this is already a secret. To be convinced of this, you only have to turn to some science, for example, mathematics, which boasts of its obviousness more than others. What does this obviousness mean? They have been proving for a thousand years that space exists. Kant proved the opposite. So, for a thousand years mathematicians were mistaken. If Kant made a mistake, then it is incomprehensible how such a great mind could make such an important mistake. So, reason with all confidence expects mysteries from the revelation, and their non-existence makes the revelation suspicious. 2. On the signs of true revelation If revelation is given, then signs must also be given by which the human mind can recognize it. Reason assumes the existence of these signs in the future religion for the following reasons. First, in order to distinguish true revelation from false. If there is a true revelation, then one cannot help but assume the existence of false ones, for lies are always counterfeited as truth. But even if there were one true revelation, then even then these signs would be no less necessary for us. Secondly, because without them revelation could not be recognized as true and divine. It will declare itself divine, beyond the powers of man, new; but in order to be sure of this, in order to know that, indeed, this is not a repetition of natural religion, this requires evidence, or, what is the same, signs. To believe without evidence would be superstition, and superstition, as everywhere, especially in religion, is very harmful. So, signs are needed. What are they? Here you need to pay attention to two cases: 1) revelation can be given to one or several persons; therefore there must generally be signs to assure them; 2) revelation can be given for the entire human race. Here we need evidence to assure: a) those who receive revelation from the Messenger of God directly, and b) those who will subsequently accept it. Let's look at evidence of the first type. A. Signs by which you can assure yourself How can a person be sure that God is talking to him? This question seems unnecessary. Does a person need to convince himself that God is talking to him when God is actually talking to him? But, on the other hand, this question is important and necessary. God does not appear to people as He is, His entire being, for man cannot tolerate such a phenomenon. He usually appears in the form of some created being - in finite form. Other creatures, for example, evil spirits and people, can also imitate these forms. And therefore it is necessary to know how the manifestation of God occurs in order to distinguish it from the phenomena of finite beings. In order to determine the signs of revelation necessary in this case, it is necessary to pay attention to the types of revelations. Revelation is either a) internal, when God acts on a person’s soul, or b) external, when he reveals himself to a person through visible nature, or through invisible beings, such as the good Angels. a) Suppose that God appeared to man externally: how can one be sure? It is not difficult for a person to become confident when God Himself appears to man in human form and says to him: “I am your God.” But how can you be sure when He uses any animal or anything else from the visible world as His messenger? In this case, these very sights can serve as proof of the Divine appearance, for they are always miraculous, such as, for example, the appearance of God in the form of an Angel to Abraham, Manoah and Joshua, in the form of an animal to Balaam, in the form of an emblem to Moses in the bush. When the Angel ascended to heaven, when the bush burned and was not consumed, how can one not see God? How can all this be explained if not from the direct action of God? However, if a person were not content with this evidence, he would demand others. This is what Moses did. He demanded new evidence, without stopping at one bush, and this evidence was given to him. b) When God wants to reveal Himself to man in an internal way, how can one be confident in the reality of the Divine appearance with such a revelation? What could be the signs here? The same as during external revelation, that is, miracles. A person receives inspiration, feels a voice urging him to proclaim the truth to others, but still hesitates to decide to present himself as a messenger of God. In this case, he demands external evidence from God. If this evidence was given to him (and they are given, as can be seen from the example of Gideon, who, at his request, was given a fleece), then all doubt should (should) disappear. For even God Himself does not have great means of convincing a person. This image of persuasion is the simplest. But this only half solves our problem. Can't there be messengers of God without miracles? They can. The history of the Divine messengers shows us that for most of them God appeared in such a way that neither He Himself performed miracles, nor they (the messengers - ed.) did not perform them. How could they be sure? To save their honor, it is necessary to prove that a person has the ability to be confident even without miracles, and that there are ways by which probability in this case can change into certainty. These methods, on the complete combination of which perfect conviction depends, are the following. 1) Let's start with the easiest ones and say that the news, liveliness and beneficialness of truths can be a sign of Divine revelation. True, our soul in the development of its thoughts is not subject to the strict law of gradualism; it acts freely, and therefore thoughts and feelings can be born in it without any noticeable gradualness or connection; however, it is known that this gradualness exists, and therefore, if several thoughts are suddenly born in her without any connection, if these thoughts are too vivid, if, moreover, there is an irresistible conviction that these thoughts are from God, then it is very likely that at that time God is acting on her, but only probably, and no more. This probability increases if this person was previously uneducated, if the knowledge thus acquired by him is contrary to his concepts and exercises. But with such a possibility, it is still dangerous to pretend to be a messenger of God - you can be subjected to fanaticism. For such development of the mind can occur naturally. Our mind can develop under the influence of higher forces. High truths can manifest in people of strict morality; That is why good people often became fanatics. In order to pass yourself off as a messenger of God without any fear, you need to turn this probability into certainty. But how can this be? What can assure a person that God, and not someone else, is acting on his soul? Confidence in this case can produce the very action of God, which must be distinguished from all impressions made on us by things. Each thing affects a person in its own way, and a person cannot doubt that a certain thing affects him, because one thing, for example, cold, has a completely different effect on us than heat. The same should be said about the action of God. There is no doubt that the Unlimited acts completely differently from the limited. Of course, we cannot prove this with our own experience, because we have not experienced it; but that this should be so, reason, for the reasons stated above, cannot help but admit. We can find the basis for this in the prophets themselves. They usually express God’s action on them in the following words: “the hand of the Lord is upon me.” Imagine that the hand of the Lord lies on a person. Is it possible that he will not be as sure of the immediate presence of God as he is assured of the presence of man when his hands lie on him? Another expression of the prophets: “The Angel of the Lord is in me” or “to me” (the meaning of the Hebrew particle D is not entirely clear, and therefore you can read “in” and “to”, but here it is better to take the first meaning). Imagine that an Angel spoke to a person. Is there room for doubt here? They also express: “I was in the spirit.” What does it mean to “be in the spirit”? The holy writers did not explain, but one can believe that this is a kind of ecstatic state. This is a state during which a person leaves the lower faculties: feelings, memory, imagination, reason, and moves into the mind, where space and time disappear for him - in some ways similar to a magnetic state. In such a state, do the same laws of probability exist for a person? No. He already sees, and does not judge, and, therefore, all doubt at this time disappears. The Apostle Peter very clearly expresses the state of people who received revelation from God when he says that they were carried by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2, 11; 2 Pet. 1:21, etc.), that is, they were overwhelmed by the Spirit and were carried, so to speak, in Him, like a feather carried in a whirlwind. If a feather were to have meaning while it is being carried by a whirlwind, then could there be any doubt that it is being carried by the wind? In this way, even without external miracles, a person can be reasonably convinced of the reality of God’s revelation. And when we began to reproach these people for frivolously believing these revealed truths, they would answer us: “We could not help but believe; be in our condition, and you will say the same.” A person asks about God when he is far from Him; when he sees Him face to face, this question becomes irrelevant. B. Signs of revelation by which one can assure others Let us suppose that the revelation is given not for the benefit of one person or a few, but for entire nations or for the entire human race. In this case, a new kind of evidence is needed, according to which those who will accept the revelation could assure themselves that the one revealing to them is not some dreamer, but, indeed, a messenger of God. What is this evidence? What can human reason demand in this case, and how far can its demands extend? The general requirement of the mind in this case is positive-negative: revelation should not contain anything indecent and, at the same time, should contain everything necessary. 1) Should not contain anything indecent. What defines this decency? The concept of God, man and revelation itself. It should not contain anything that: a) is contrary to the greatness of God, b) low for the dignity of man - the dignity of man through it should not be humiliated, but elevated, and c) indecent to himself, which is all weak, ridiculous, low. Developing this general requirement piece by piece, we see that revelation that comes to the aid of a person should not contradict the mind and should set out the truth. This requirement is fair; one without which revelation cannot be recognized as true, divine. But this requirement is very meaningful. What is mind? Revelation should not contradict the mind - what mind? whose mind is this? The mind is not just one person, and not many, for this mind is not a healthy mind. It should not contradict the ideal, perfect mind - who will make up this ideal? Is it one person or many? If so, then this ideal will be private, and to subordinate revelation to it means to subordinate it to the mind of one person or several. But it's dangerous. Thus, the application of this requirement is very difficult and it is almost impossible to fulfill it. Therefore, it should be accepted in a limited way, that is, when we say that revelation should not contradict the mind, we mean that it should not contradict the fundamental truths on which all peoples and at all times have agreed. But even here one must proceed with caution, and this universal mind cannot have apodictic certainty. For misconceptions often crept into this sum of fundamental truths: the entire ancient world accepted prejudices as truth. One can only demand from revelation that: a) it does not contradict the fundamental laws of the mind and its main truths, and these truths are determined by the general opinion of peoples; b) so that it does not contradict essential laws of morality, such as: love of God and neighbor, duties and human rights. But it can suffer some shortcomings, leaving complete destruction (explanation - ed.) to their mind. For example, Christianity tolerates slavery. We know that when Christianity appeared, slavery was in its most vile form, but it did not touch him. It (Christianity) only established such truths, which, being accepted by the hearts of the peoples, were sure to destroy the state of slavery, that is, it established spiritual equality. Nor can revelation contain anything that is contrary to the well-being of the human race. That is why the Indian religion cannot be recognized as frank, because it inspires contempt for the caste of pariahs, who are thought to be the souls of sinners. Thus, revelation should not contain anything that is contrary to what is perfect, Divine, and good in man. In addition, revelation should not contain truths that contradict one another. A condition necessary even in human knowledge; all the more is it necessary in Divine revelation. But the application of this requirement of the mind is difficult for the following reason: there may be false contradictions in revelation, and such contradictions are in all sciences; they are noticed in the whole system of the world and come from the diversity of things and their opposites. For example, in the Old Testament they made sacrifices for sins, but in the New Testament it is said that the blood of goats and calves cannot cleanse a person. Why is it that what was recommended in the Old Testament is recognized in the New Testament as an invalid means of cleansing? Looking at this, one might think that there is a contradiction here, although there is not a significant one. These are the negative demands that the mind places on revelation. 2) What, on the positive side, can reason demand from revelation? On the positive side, reason can demand a lot, but its demands must be general. In general, future revelation must contain theoretical and practical truths and must be equipped with sufficient means for its purpose. These and similar demands are coming; but their particular application is again fraught with difficulties. Moreover, since revelation comes to the aid of natural religion, it must correct its shortcomings. But this is still not enough. since, due to the fall and disastrous state of the human race, a new order, so to speak, of things in the moral world requires a new order, then reason has the right to demand and expect that revelation will bring this new order and place it in the place prepared for it. These are the general requirements of reason from revelation! Let us touch on details that reason has no right to decisively demand, but can expect from future revelation. A) In relation to the origin of revelation, reason has a right to expect that it will appear: a) at a decent time, when the human race is prepared to receive it; b) in a decent place; c) between famous people who will be more capable of accepting it than others. Reason has the right to expect all this, based on the idea of ​​​​an all-wise Providence that arranges everything in the best possible way. B) In relation to the manner of dissemination, reason has the right to expect that: a) revelation is not disseminated by means indecent to it, as, for example, the Mohammedan religion is disseminated by weapons; b) the ways to spread this revelation were moral and religious; c) the consequence of this can be expected that the way to spread it would be conviction, the word, since it is most appropriate in this case. B) In relation to the presentation itself, the mind can expect that this presentation will have the following main qualities: clarity, thoroughness, order. 1) In reasoning, clarity requires that the truths, at least the essential and more necessary ones, be presented in a simple, not mysterious way. The language, deliberately incomprehensible, is befitting of the priests of Isis, and not of the messengers of Jehovah. It would be strange for revelation to hide behind darkness when it comes to teach people who are already in darkness. But one cannot demand complete clarity from it for the following reasons: a) because it is given for all times, therefore, until everything is fully developed there will be some ambiguities in it, in this case it is like a flower that does not develop suddenly, but periodically; b) because it will tell a person about higher objects, which, no matter how much you explain them, will still remain misunderstood; c) because it will not tell a person everything, but will only arouse his mind to reflection, telling him the first principle. Therefore, some ghost will be allowed to stimulate the activity of the mind. 2) Thoroughness is especially needed in the reasoning of the code in which revelation will appear. The presentation of truths in this code should not consist of mere hints. This is how the Persian Zendavesta is stated, and therefore it is not suitable. The revelation must be simple, clear for both a baby and an old man, but at the same time established on unshakable foundations. However, a demonstrative tone is indecent for him, and especially in the presentation of essential truths. It would be strange if in revelation there were evidence of the existence of God, presented in a demonstrative tone. 3) Order is also a necessary quality. Reason has the right to expect it, but it has no right to expect the revelation of the system. There must be an order in it such as we notice in the world, that is, it must be unartificial, natural. It is most fitting for him to adhere to the thread of time, for his subject is the fate of humanity, which is gradually revealed. The best view of revelation is the one that represents it as an education (that is, an educator - ed.) of the human race. But revelation, presented in the form of education, cannot suddenly communicate everything, but first a little, then more, and at a certain time everything. Thus, in the reasoning of the presentation of revelation, the mind expects that it will be stated clearly, firmly and in order. In addition, the mind expects that the revelation given to it will present truths with some anthropomorphism, that it will speak to people in their own language, will speak in a manner decent for itself, as they speak in heaven, but since it will speak to a person, it will descend to his mind. Consequently, reason expects that the truths will be presented in it not in metaphysical language, but in the language of sound universal reason, and that as a result of this the spiritual world will be presented in a sensual image: God will appear enclosed in space, for otherwise it is impossible to show Him to people. Thus, anthropomorphism does not serve as a reproach to revelation; reason cannot expel it from revelation; it rather demands that revelation not be disgusted by this shortcoming (and it, indeed, is a shortcoming, but it is necessary). So revelation must use human language. It should only remind a person that God is not like that, that He is above everything sensual. Through this, he will eliminate the harm that could occur when a person begins to recognize God as truly what His revelation represents. D) Regarding morality, reason expects that in revelation morality will be the purest, its sources will be revealed, the means, goals and motives will be indicated, the purest and noblest. But at the same time, reason expects, looking at the depravity of people, that revelation will use mixed means, offer temporary and eternal promises, and will act on people with the fear of eternal and temporary punishments. Reason cannot condemn the use of these mixed means. For they are needed for people who cannot be guided by higher motives. E) Finally, the mind expects beneficial effects from revelation. This is a necessary sign and serves as a sure proof of his Divinity. If, after several centuries, world history does not notice any beneficial fruits of revelation, then it is clear that it is not from God, for this means that it has not achieved its goal. This is a sure sign; only a complete judgment about him can be at the end of the period: until that time he can act only partially. C. Signs of true revelation are external Let us now suppose that revelation has fulfilled all the demands of the mind, satisfied all the expectations, and decided all its conjectures; Is it possible based on this alone to recognize him as Divine, even if there were no miracles? Can't these negative and positive signs of revelation, with all their complexity, make complete assurances and banish miracles, as they do now? They can't! No matter how you imagine revelations that appeared at the best time, among people who were able to accept it, that spread through the best means, that contained the purest, highest, and most beneficial teachings, having assumed all this, one cannot yet be sure that it is from God. With all this, there remains a possibility that it is from people. For in man there is the capacity for all good things, and history presents many such human deeds that were beneficial for many centuries and peoples. Consequently, without miracles it is impossible to decisively assert that revelation is from God. But is it true? Are we asking for anything extra? Nowadays they generally say that revelation, by the merits of its teaching and its fruits, can prove its divinity to the human race even without miracles. But this opinion is unfair: a) because its origin is suspicious, so say those who think to cleanse Christianity of miracles, and this goal is not good; b) let us even assume that miracles are not needed to prove the divinity of revelation, and this position does not refute anything; they are needed so that the revelation can attract people's attention. A revelation appears, the messenger of God enters the environment of action; how will he attract the attention of the rude, cold-blooded people, who are almost always like that? Will he start proving it to him? How much time must pass in disputes, while miracles can suddenly be accomplished. Through verbal persuasion he would have managed to acquire only a few proselytes. For example, the Apostle Paul founded so many churches in Asia and Europe through miracles! Did he do the same by persuasion? In the Areopagus he preached an excellent sermon, but only gained Dionysius with it; others said to him: Honor strange gods (Acts 17:18). Thus, miracles are needed when revelation enters the world. Without them, he would not have been noticed; this is the best way to convert a person to God, especially for the rude class of people. A miracle, having generated fear in the soul, makes it, so to speak, perk up and involuntarily puts it in the need to talk with God; c) but let us assume that the revelation somehow attracted attention to itself without miracles; and in this case miracles are necessary. For are those to whom it comes capable of judging its worth by internal signs alone? No! it comes to the blind; how to make a blind man look at the sky and its luminaries without first curing his blindness? You must first heal your eyes and then say: look. Let's turn to revelation. Let's take the Jewish religion. Moses appears, but does not perform any miracles. Will the people accept the Decalogue from him, no matter how excellent it is, with the same confidence with which they accepted it, being convinced by miracles? No! So, miracles (meaning this word in a broad sense, including prophecies) are necessary. They are needed so that: a) the revelation can attract people’s attention; b) are given to people who are not able to judge by its internal signs, are given to people from whom revelation should make more people. Moreover, miracles are also needed because, coming to a person, they require great sacrifices from him: revelation requires him to part with the religion of his ancestors, which is very dear to him. Although he is cold-blooded towards her, although he does not follow her rules, the thought of losing the faith of his father, grandfather, great-grandfather greatly confuses him. How can he be forced to make such a sacrifice? What if not miracles? Miracles are the surest way of persuasion in this case. Any other expression of the power of God is invalid to him. But suppose that the revelation appeared between educated people - between philosophers. And philosophers cannot be convinced by the goodness of the teaching alone, by its internal dignity alone. For who can say that this kindness is not from man? Isn't there good in human works? A philosopher can and should accept such a teaching as Divine in the broadest sense, that is, in the fact that everything high and good is from God, but he has no right to recognize it as the direct teaching of God, based on its internal signs alone, otherwise his faith will be superstition, for it has no foundation. The proof should always be equal to what is being proven, or better yet, it should be greater than it. Direct revelation is now proven. It is a miracle in itself. Consequently, only a miracle can be equivalent proof to it. Thus, even philosophers cannot, without credulity, recognize as divine a revelation in which there are no miracles. But until now we have spoken about revelation simply, as a repetition and replenishment of what is contained in natural religion. Let us now assume, and it is necessary to assume, that revelation contains secret or truths of which the mind does not see the internal possibility (provability - ed.). What, in this case, can be a guarantee of authenticity? On what basis does the mind accept a sacrament as truth? Here there can be external assurance, through testimony, but what is needed is not human testimony, but Divine testimony—and such testimony is a miracle. For example, the Apostle Paul taught truths similar to reason, but he also taught that in Jesus Christ the Godhead was manifested bodily. Let us suppose that he proposes this to the Athenian philosophers. They judge his teaching and accept what is reasonable; further they come to the point that the Divinity dwells bodily in Jesus Christ. How can they accept this? How can one agree that God physically dwells in one Jew, Jesus? They can be convinced only through external evidence - through miracles. Thus, the sacraments of religion and philosophers cannot be accepted without miracles, and therefore external signs of revelation are in any case necessary. What are these external signs? Let's see. They can be from the messengers of God themselves and are visible from their deeds, or from what they do, or from what God does for them. 1) External signs, borrowed from the faces of God’s messengers, have two sides: a) some give rise to probability, b) others - a decisive conviction. Probability is born when a person posing as a messenger of God is truly kind and sane, when he does this solely for God, when he is full of the love and fear of God. If all this is in him, then it is likely that he does not want to deceive us and does not deceive, but only - probably. For the kindest people, although they do not deceive others, are often deceived themselves. World and sacred history is not short of such experiences. This probability turns into certainty when we notice a miraculous change in the face of the messenger, that is, when he, being unlearned, suddenly shows great learning, wisdom, utters truths that are misunderstood by any mind, for example, a prophet - from a shepherd. Such a person could say in confirmation, as he did: “Remember what I was before, and what I now tell you, could it ever have occurred to me?” (fn.: Ps. 152:1–5). The same can be said about Jewish fishermen. They, unlearned, simple, described the acts of Jesus Christ with such simplicity and artlessness, but at the same time with such thoroughness that, reading them, one cannot help but feel that they are not saying all this on their own. Rousseau himself, no matter how distrustful he was in this regard, when reading the Gospel, was always captivated by the simplicity and naturalness and often came to this thought. We have seen that the outward signs of revealed religion are miracles. These miracles are of two kinds: some are performed at the present time and are called miracles in the proper sense, while others depend on future events and are called prophecies. The first act sensually, because they are addressed to feelings; the latter are ideal, because they are addressed to ideas, to the mind; the former consist in exceeding the laws of space, and the latter in exceeding the laws of time. The main questions related to both are the following: 1) Are miracles possible as events that exceed the laws of nature in the physical and moral sense, that is, are they not contrary to the concept of the world and its laws, and do they serve to achieve the goal for which they are produced, to confirm the Divinity of revelation? To resolve this issue, you need to pay attention to the possibility of metaphysical and moral miracles. 2) If miracles are possible, then what kind of miracles must they be in order to be true proof of the Divinity of the revelation of religion? Here we need to show the property of miracles and prophecies. 3) Are these miracles offered as proof of the divinity of any religion, for example, Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan and others? 1) Are miracles possible in the physical sense? We already talked about this when we proved the possibility of revelation. For revelation is a miracle. Consequently, what goes towards the possibility of revelation, the same can be said about the possibility of miracles, and here the same evidence and the same objections. The main one of these objections is that these events stand outside the ordinary order of things, that they violate this order and that they cannot be allowed without allowing some hindsight in the Creator, and that it is much better to arrange nature so that in case of damage it corrects itself. But this idea of ​​a better world is not the best; it is aimed only at destroying faith in miracles, and not at correcting the imaginary shortcomings of the world. The new order noticed during miracles is not completely new, and even more so is not completely opposite in miracles, although they are sharply different from ordinary things, but there is something that is similar to these latter. They are not, as some people think, alien and random. They could have been introduced into the system of the world in eternity and seem alien to us only because they rarely happen. If we could embrace the entire chain of causes and effects, we would see that they constitute an essential part of it. This metaphysical truth can be explained by a simple example, comparing the system of the world to a fabric. The fabric has well-known patterns, which correspond to the laws of the world: general, particular and particular. These patterns are woven with well-known threads; let new threads appear on these threads, for example, red ones; will the matter itself be spoiled? But this is precisely what the laws of miracles have to do with the laws of miracles—extraordinary events with the laws of the world, with ordinary events. You can also compare them with writing. Let's imagine that the history of the occurrence (origin - ed.) of the world is some kind of epic; capital letters connected in it will be miracles, and small incidents will be ordinary (events - ed.). Whatever these capital letters are, red or gold, the meaning of the story does not change. In general, opponents of miracles imagine the world to be enclosed in itself, so bound to laws that there can be neither more nor less than what is there. But this idea, which seems perfect in relation to the world, is low in relation to God. The first thing about God is His freedom. Even if such a constraint of the world were possible in relation to beings acting mechanically, it is impossible in relation to beings acting freely. In this case, the laws of freedom must manifest themselves in the world. Thus, there is no doubt that miracles themselves are possible. At least, to say decisively that they are impossible, for this you need to know the world more than how much we know it. But how poor is our knowledge of the world! Recently (in the middle of the 19th century - ed.) botanists boasted that they knew all genera of plants, but now in Africa they have found a plant-animal that cannot be classified as any plant genus. After such experiences, can the mind determine what can and cannot be? Can he speak decisively about miracles when he judges unimportant things one way now and another tomorrow? 2) Are miracles possible in a moral sense? Are they sufficient to achieve their goal, that is, to confirm the Divinity of revelation? This question is not without confusion. Rousseau also said that even if God performed countless miracles, he would never in this way convince people of the Divinity of his teaching. For in order for miracles to have such persuasive power, one must know that they are not produced by the world; and in order to know that they are not produced by the world, you need to know the world; but complete knowledge of the world is impossible; consequently, belief in miracles is impossible. There is a kind of power in this kind of thinking. Indeed, if we follow the path that Rousseau followed, we will never reach the goal. But is there another way to reach conviction? Let's imagine that a miracle was performed suddenly, in one word. since the word could not have any real effect, we can say that this is a direct action of God. But they will tell us that the word may have called upon some force to help itself. But what kind of force is this: unreasonable or reasonable? If unreasonable, then she could not appear on her own, for she cannot step out of her order; therefore, she must appear with someone’s permission, but no one can allow her to do this except God; therefore, God always remains in this case the direct Actor. Let us assume that this power is intelligent, that it is an Angel. If this is a good Angel, then he does the will of God, and therefore a miracle always remains a miracle; if evil, then it does not produce a true miracle, for it is completely inconsistent with the idea of ​​God that He would allow evil spirits to act through which they could mislead people and subvert the entire moral order. Thus, insufficient knowledge of nature and incomplete judgment about miracles on the basis of this knowledge are compensated by the faith that God will not allow evil beings to do such extraordinary things. It should be noted that disbelief in miracles is a consequence of human wisdom - too subtle logical fragmentation; but for common sense they are undoubted, and he will not say, like Rousseau, that in order to know a miracle one must know all of nature. So miracles are possible. For they are even necessary for moral beings, for they provide them with great benefit. For a person, it is necessary that the ordinary order of things be disrupted from time to time (please understand this violation in common sense); With its strength and constancy, moral beings are burdened and, as it were, suppressed. This mechanism, this deadness, this lack of freedom produces the fact that a person takes these properties into himself and falls into the following vices: coldness, irreligion and indifference, and others. If the ideas of God consist only in an idea, then they are far from man and do not affect his soul. Thus, something needs to shock her; therefore, it is necessary for God to lift this veil that covers His actions and to directly reveal His power to us. Such a manifestation of the power of God produces many religious actions in a rude person: it immediately tells him that if you please God and love Him, then He can shake heaven and earth for your salvation, and this is enough to awaken in a person a sense of his own unworthiness. 2) What kind of miracles must be in order for them to be sufficient for the purpose? Their measure is determined by the purpose for which they are produced; this goal is to convince people through them of the Divinity of revelation; therefore, miracles must be such that revealed religion, on the basis of them, is recognized as Divine, and for this they themselves must be recognized as the actions of God. This recognition of them as an act of God is naturally determined by the judgment of those to whom they are given, and therefore it cannot be the same for everyone. One will believe faster, the other – slower. However, there is no need for the power of conviction in this case to be the same for everyone. Especially if there is not one miracle, but a series of miracles performed at different times, then one can imagine that God, adapting them to certain times in particular, will generally arrange them so that in their totality they will be sufficient for the entire human race. If a series of miracles is great, then the judge of them (who judges them - ed.) may find that some will seem unimportant to us, and this is because in the hand of Providence there will be a chain of miracles, which with its integrity (integrity - ed.) produces complete conviction, and not each part separately. Based on this, reason can assume that revelation will use such miracles that subsequently will not be miracles. Let us now see what are the general requirements of reason in reasoning about miracles? a) Every miracle must necessarily go beyond the ordinary order of things, must exceed it, otherwise it will not be sufficient for the purpose, it will not confirm the Divinity of religion. b) It is necessary that the connection between the miracle and the teaching of God’s messenger be visible. For example, today a messenger appeared, and yesterday a miracle happened; if he began to say that yesterday’s miracle was performed for him, then there would be no connection in this. The connection will be when he says that God will perform a miracle for him tomorrow. c) The miracle must be performed decently. This decency is determined by the dignity of God, man and the religion that is given. This decency is an important feature, as it seems at first glance. Many miracles attributed to the Mohammedan religion are refuted solely by their lack of decency. This is what miracles should be like! The same can be said about prophecies. Firstly, prophecies are possible in themselves. Although reason doubts God’s foreknowledge, especially in the judgment of human free actions, however, even if it is difficult to understand how God foresees the future, this difficulty cannot destroy faith in foreknowledge, for it is even more difficult to imagine how God, without foreseeing the future, can rule the world. If God foresees, if everyone has faith in His foresight, and this faith is solid, then prophecies are possible in the second respect, that is, God can use them to prove the Divinity of His teaching. This proof is even more fitting than miracles for religion and more sufficient for its purpose. The purpose of religion is to teach people, to teach them the concept of God and morality. The prophecies themselves teach such a doctrine. Each prophecy naturally teaches that God knows everything, that He sees the past and the future quite clearly, and not only sees everything, but has everything at its disposal. By teaching these truths in the abstract, you will never have the same effect as the prophecies did by actually fulfilling them. Such a teaching destroys all doubt. That is why the very last Jew was completely confident in God’s foreknowledge, while the most learned pagan Cicero doubted it. Consequently, what the highest speculations did not teach Cicero, only prophecies assured the Jews of this; for in the law of Moses there is no doctrine of foreknowledge, but there are only prophecies, and it was they who affirmed this truth among the Jews. But what kind of prophecies must be in order for them to serve their purpose? a) Prophecies should not concern events that are included in a number of ordinary things, nor what cannot but happen; but their subject must be completely random events, and especially the actions of human freedom - something about which it cannot be said that it will happen even a few minutes before it is about to happen. b) Prophecies must be conveyed definitely, so that if they are not fulfilled, the prophet cannot but be exposed as a lie. But what kind of certainty should this be? It would seem best for this certainty to be as strict as possible; but it is impossible for the following reasons: firstly, prophecies are given in confirmation of revelation; they exist among a certain people and are fulfilled at a certain time, but there have always been and are societies of people hostile to the Church. Now let us assume that the well-known prophecy is defined very precisely; in this case, the enemies of the Church, taking advantage of this certainty, would prevent its fulfillment. Secondly, their subject is events in human life, actions of freedom. To define such actions means to completely put a noose on a person, to restrict his freedom. If, for example, in the Old Testament it was clearly said about Judas that he would betray Christ, indicating his name and type of life, then what would he have to do in that case? Would he dare to do this? So certainty in prophecy must be limited. Reason should not assign it a limit of limitation, it can only guess with probability that Providence will arrange the prophecies in such a way that in complexity (when added up - ed.) they will form a clear letter, a clear picture, but in parts they will not have such clarity and clarity; that they will be clearer for posterity than for contemporaries. Reason says this based on the judgment that the mysteries of God are revealed after they are completed. We have seen the signs of revelation, internal and external, positive and negative, drawn from miracles and from the internal dignity of teaching. Let us now make some general remarks about this subject. Previously, for seventeen centuries - until the half of the 18th century, too much was attributed to miracles and recognized them as the only signs of the Divinity of religion, but little attention was paid to internal evidence, such as the goodness of the teaching and its effects. This is clear from all the writings of that time and from the writings of the Church Fathers. Now they go to the other extreme: they absorb too much internal evidence. Most of the newest rationalists, or neologians, from whom the Protestant Church suffers a lot and the Catholic Church is beginning to suffer, argue that there is no need for miracles to assure the Divinity of religion. The mind, they say, is based on the inner goodness of the teaching, on its relationship to man, and through beneficial actions can be convinced that it is from God. This direction of mind is now dominant. But it must be said that the newest, leaving the old extreme, which attributed much to miracles, fell into a new one, demanding a lot from internal evidence. A teacher of religion should not limit himself to one of these two sides of belief, he should combine both for the following reasons: a) revelation must have the full character of Divinity, and such completeness is composed of internal and external qualities, depends on internal goodness and on external appearance, and therefore the teacher of religion will not be attached to one of these sides; b) moreover, people are not able to judge revelation by internal signs alone. Even if there were in every nation a sufficient number of people whose minds and hearts are capable of being convinced even without miracles, who have matured to such a moral height that they can see God themselves, then for all this we must remember that the majority of people will remain at a lower level, will live in the area of ​​feelings and lower abilities - in the one where external evidence is needed, and where internal ones are very weak; c) the strongest beliefs can have a very weak effect on many people; Therefore, the teacher of religion must keep in mind this, if one can call it that, weakness of people, must act adaptively to their ability, and since miracles constitute a strong support for the majority of people, he should not take it away from them; otherwise he would forget the limitations of those whom he teaches and would not be attentive to their needs; and reason demands that he descend to human weaknesses, so that he does not descend into lies; d) we cannot help but recognize the need for miracles also because we are not able to weigh internal evidence; we will weigh them on the scales of logic; What kind of logic will give us the beginnings for those truths, the inner possibility of which reason does not see? So, miracles are needed in any case. 3.On the method of preserving revealed religion Considering revelation to be given for the entire human race and for all times, it is necessary to know how it can be preserved and spread. Therefore, let us ask the mind, what ways will it present to us of spreading and preserving revelation? He can imagine several of them. But he cannot say decisively which one will be used by God. The mind represents five main such methods, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. Let's look at them separately and from their particular consideration we will derive a general judgment. 1) One can imagine that revelation will be given to everyone and everyone, that every person throughout his life will hear the voice of God externally. 2) One can imagine that revelation will be given only to a select few people, that God will raise up among the nations over the centuries such men who, having directly received from Him the truths of religion, will pass them on to others. 3) One can also imagine that the revelation will be given to people once, and then it will pass from father to son successively, that is, it will be preserved according to one tradition. 4) One can also imagine that the revelation given to man will be contained in writing, and thus will pass from people to people, from century to century. 5) Finally, one can imagine that God will choose a special class of people whose duty will be to spread the truths of religion, protect them from attacks and explain them. Here are five ways! The mind cannot imagine anything more. Now the question is: which one will God use? The mind cannot answer this decisively. But it can show the advantageous and disadvantageous side of each of them, and deduce the most probable consequence from this. 1) As for the first method, it would be too much to expect to use it. We know that revelation is a miracle in itself. Let’s imagine that God reveals himself to everyone: how many miracles will there be then? Such frequent repetition of miraculous actions would disrupt the order of the physical world, and the moral world would approach the world of enchantment, the fantastic world. In this regard, Kant rightly thought that through revelation the constancy of laws is violated; this result is very true in relation to private revelations (if there were any). Thus the mind, looking closely at this image of revelation, sees that it would be too much to expect; however, judging by the different ages of humanity, one can expect that this method will be used by God, and precisely in the infancy of people, for it is very appropriate for childhood education, that state of a person during which one needs to lead him by the hand and speak directly to him. That is why it is used in the religion of the patriarchs. 2) This method consists in the formation of extraordinary people throughout times and peoples, proclaimers of the will of God. This method, when examined, will present itself with the same disadvantages. Imagine that every nation is given this messenger. How many nations - and how many messengers there should be! Hence it is clear that the number of miracles must increase significantly. Here is the first disadvantage. Suppose, and it is necessary to assume, a great difference in their moral, political and physical condition; Let us assume that the messenger of each people adapts, and it is necessary for him to adapt, to its needs and way of thinking. What diversity will then occur in the teachings of the messengers! This diversity will reach such an extent that it will give birth to opposition, and through this frank religion will turn into confusion. Here's the second disadvantage! There is also a third disadvantage, a moral one. It lies in the fact that with such a way of spreading religion, a certain moral opposition will occur between peoples - a certain antipathy; for each nation will approach only its own messenger and only his teaching will recognize as true, and the messengers of other nations and their teaching will be neglected. In order to destroy this separation and the resulting aversion of one people to another, it is necessary to be convinced of the Divinity of the teachings of other peoples, it is necessary for each nation to reconsider the religions of all other peoples, and for this neither time nor human strength is enough, this is immense work! Thus, this method is very inconvenient. But, on the other hand, one can imagine that it will be used. God may from time to time raise up chosen men among a certain people who will either openly present themselves as messengers of God, or will hide their embassy. That this method can be implemented in this form is clear from history. We see in it that such men often appeared who, by their actions, determined the fate of nations in terms of science and politics; Why not allow the existence of such people in relation to religion? But just as the former are direct instruments of the will of God, so must the latter also be. Consequently, both the deeds of the former and the deeds of the latter are direct actions of God. In addition, reason sees that this way of acting is befitting of man and revelation. Revelation is education, and the method of mutual teaching is very appropriate for education; depending on the state of people, it seems very decent for some of the people to directly receive the lessons of religion from God and pass them on to those who are incapable of direct conversation with God. 3) The third way is to spread religion through traditions, which can be combined with certain institutions, such as meetings, holidays, etc. This method is one of the commonly used in any teaching. Almost all human knowledge comes to us through legends. This general path of learning cannot be eliminated by religion, especially since it is very useful. For by passing on truths to others, we ourselves learn them, because in order to convey the truth to others well and truly, you yourself need to understand it thoroughly. But it is impossible to limit ourselves to this method in disseminating revelation: firstly, because this path, although it is the most commonly used, can nevertheless be suppressed. It is known to what vicissitudes the fate of peoples was subjected: some of them completely disappeared, and with them their legends were lost. Secondly, because legends are very diverse: no two people would have the same concepts about the same thing. By moving in this way, religion would diversify to the point that it would finally be completely disfigured. This is proven by the disfigured legends of ancient times. 4) Historical monuments and, mainly, writing can be a way to disseminate the truths of religion. This method of spreading and preserving religion is one of the most reliable. Through it, revelation, like any teaching, can spread quickly and be preserved reliably, for with the multiplication of lists of revealed teaching, the possibility of its destruction is almost lost. But can the mind stop at this method? It cannot, because although writing is a reliable way to spread religion, it is not convenient for everyone to actively use it. The reasons for this are the following: a) few can use it; it is known that even in our times, considered enlightened, many are unfamiliar with writing, and therefore the teaching of religion, spread in this way, will be incomprehensible to them; b) will the revelation be written in one language or in all? It would be indecent to write it to everyone, because for this it would be necessary to teach each people directly, and this is the same as giving each people a special messenger. So, the revelation must initially be written in one language, and this language will change from time to time and become vague; from here difficulties and disagreements in the understanding of the scriptures naturally arise; c) moreover, every human language has a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty; consequently, even those who know it well often cannot comprehend what the true meaning should be in a certain passage of scripture. Thus, this method does not stop our attention on itself, but forces us to look for a better way. 5) This method consists in the fact that God chooses a certain class of people who are given the duty of spreading and preserving the purity of religion, explaining it and protecting it from attacks. This method is the best. But if we present it in such a way that these people are chosen once and for all, then it will also be disadvantageous - both because, firstly, in this case it will be the same as tradition, and, therefore, will be associated with the same shortcomings to which the third method is subject, and because, secondly, the descendants of the chosen ones will not have the same authority as their ancestors, who were different from them by their Divine election, enjoyed. So, no method by itself is sufficient for the purpose. They can be used separately, but at certain times only. Thus, the first method is most appropriate for the infant state of people, but writing is not appropriate for this age, for it should appear much later, since it should be the fruit of a natural invention. Further, when revelation is limited to one particular people or society of people, then the second method may be appropriate for it - chosen men may appear from time to time in this people. Regarding tradition, the mind immediately sees that it should always be used. This method cannot be eliminated, because it embraces the entirety of the human race. The fourth method can be used with benefit when a series of miracles has occurred, when the era of revelation has passed, when God, having taught people, hides from them and gives them over to the guidance of their own mind. As soon as this follows, then the need will be revealed to be such people who could convey what is contained in the letter to their hearts. This is what reason has to say about the manner in which revelation is spread and preserved. Reason cannot decide what God will do, but its main demands are fair and true. It remains to be asked: if religion was given to the human race from God, then how can and should a person assure himself of its truths, in what way can he go to it and establish himself in it? This is an important matter, because several religions have existed and exist in the human race: the mind must determine the way to find the true religion and distinguish it from false ones. This method was partly defined in the article on the signs of revelation; but it was not shown there how the mind should act when considering these very signs - this remains to be shown. So, let us ask ourselves: who has the right to experience revelation according to its signs? Without a doubt, to the mind. He is the first organ of the will of God; to him, firstly, God revealed Himself, and it is this primitive revelation that must lead us to the second revelation, which in the proper sense is called “revelation.” It is impossible to imagine any other way in this case. But how should our mind act here? Three main methods are presented here. The first thing he should start with is criticism. He must recognize the sources in which the revelation lies, must believe (verify - ed.) the authenticity of the monuments and the reliability of the evidence, must know how the truths of religion are contained in them and how they flow from them; for example, do the epistles of the Apostle Paul really belong to Paul, the teacher of languages? This critical analysis must then be followed by a second analysis - hermeneutic, that is, reason must extract the essence from the teachings of religion it has reviewed; must show or clearly imagine what the revelation he is examining teaches, what it prescribes, what it demands, what it promises - in a word, to form a clear concept about it, or better yet, to draw for oneself a true and accurate image of it, in which, as in a mirror, all its essential truths would be clearly presented. Having fulfilled the duty of hermeneutics, reason must begin to fulfill the third duty of philosophy, that is, consider the foundations of religion, its properties, purpose and main composition, it must, finally, judge its origin from above, its divinity. It is also necessary to add to this a fourth method - “practical”. It consists in the fact that a person should experimentally convince himself of the reality of what this religion promises, in order to experience its beneficial effects on himself, so that mental decisions are confirmed by feelings of the heart, and therefore the voice of the mind is supported by the voice of conscience. The first three duties, no matter how fulfilled, will all be insufficient without fulfilling the fourth, for religion can only be accepted by the heart: as long as the heart is cold towards it, until the mind, with all its speculations, hesitates, until then the knowledge of religion does not bring a person any fruit. This concludes our consideration of revelation in general. We have seen that revelation is necessary for the human race; but we know that in the human race there are several religions called revealed religions. The most important of them are the following: Christian, Mohammedan, new Jewish (for the ancient is contained in the Christian) and pagan religions in various forms. These revealed religions not only differ from each other, but are even opposed to each other, and, by the way, the Christian religion denies the divinity of the revelation of all others. Therefore, the relationship between the Christian revelation and other revelations is such that it is either true, and the others are false, or those are true, and it is false. Let's see which of this is true. Adhering to a strict order, in order to correctly judge the Christian religion, it would be necessary to first review all other religions, and then turn to it itself - but this review will be found in another place, where it will be possible to do this in greater detail. We can leave it as a part here because it is convenient to see the injustice (falsity - ed.) of the origin of non-Christian religions from God from their very content. Thus, the pagan and new Jewish religions are filled with such absurdities and prejudices that reason cannot agree, and, therefore, to attribute divine origin to them is to clearly slander God. As for the Mohammedan religion, it itself recognizes the Christian religion as frank and says that it came to correct what was corrupted by the hands of Christians. Therefore, there is no dispute between them. The Mohammedan wants to become related to the Christian, but the Christian does not want to recognize a family connection with her; and partly because when we prove the truth of the Christian religion, the falsity of other religions will automatically be exposed. Thus, there is no need for a detailed review of all religions. Speaking about the Christian religion, we must take Christianity in the broadest sense, not just the New Testament, but in general a series of revelations of God that began from the first minute of human existence. For the Christian religion, accepted in the closest sense, presupposes the religion of Moses, and this presupposes the patriarchs, and all of them in their essence are one and the same. However, we will primarily have in mind the last type of revelation - religion brought to earth by Jesus Christ and spread by His apostles; other types will be entered only privately. From what angles should Christian revelation be viewed? From three main ones, which are the essence: 1) must reveal its Divine origin, must make sure that Christianity in its three forms satisfies reason in all respects: this must be done for two reasons: firstly, in modern times, rich in transformations, religion is also threatened with a revolution. There are many people who are clearly rebelling against religion and are trying to turn revealed religion into natural religion. Under such circumstances, the teacher of religion must be familiar with the doctrine of its Divinity and with the teachings of its opponents, and must be able to defend the truth from the attack of lies. Secondly, even if there were no such freethinkers, then even then every person, if only he has a developed mind, has the right to ask: is the religion that he professes, or that is offered to him, divine? To warn himself against superstition, he can doubt that twelve people conquered the whole world and spread their teachings everywhere, therefore, the question of the Divinity of the Christian religion is important; it can and should be born in the mind of every thinking person. Therefore, the Divinity of the origin of the Christian religion must be considered by us with all thoroughness and detail. Let us not be afraid of any objections here, no matter how sharp they may be, let us not hide any doubts in the full hope that if this religion is true, then the truth will stand up for itself; 2) then we will review the Christian religion in general, delve into its goal, means, main composition, general and main properties, and look at the relationship of the Christian religion to other religions; 3) next we need to touch on different types of Christianity. The Christian Church is divided into many societies. Each of these societies, similar to others in the main properties, has its own special features and its own special direction; has, so to speak, its own physiognomy, which needs to be shown here. When reviewing different types of Christianity, it is very useful to show why there is such diversity in Christian societies, why their division occurred. To this will be added a demonstration of the properties of our religion, its foundations, distinctive features and sources. After this, let us turn to the dogmas and begin to consider them in particular: first those that relate to faith, and then those whose subject is morality; Let us judge them as they are contained in the teaching of the Greek-Eastern Church. This is the whole plan of the teaching about the Christian religion. Thus the main parts are: I) The Divinity of the Christian religion. II) Its main composition. III) Its particular types. I. The Divine Origin of the Christian Religion Is the Christian religion Divine? Are Jesus Christ and the apostles really messengers of God? This is the essence of the matter of this study. The answer to this must be given in the same forms that were seen when they talked about revelation in general. Christianity must be compared with the signs of reason. Therefore, one must pay attention to the teaching, does it have all the internal and external signs, also to their persons and deeds, do they have everything and do everything that is required of Divine messengers? But before we get down to this, let’s make the most impartial review of Christianity. Let's imagine that we have not heard anything about him (for there are people who do not know Christianity); Let us imagine that at the very time when we are in such ignorance of Christianity, the history of the human race is revealed to us, the river of time is shown to us: what will then be born in our soul? When looking at this river of times, the following thoughts will certainly arise in anyone who knows nothing about Jesus or His miracles: 1) He will notice without any prejudice that Christianity has embraced and embraces all the most enlightened and powerful peoples, who have always dominated others and owned almost the whole world: this is the first thing he will turn his attention to when considering the human race! After this, he will naturally ask himself: why did this happen? What is the reason that Christian nations are better than others, and that the fate of nations is in their hands? Analyzing in detail the reasons for this phenomenon, he will find that one of the main reasons is Christianity. This will immediately present itself to him, be he of any religion. This truth was proved by one French minister, speaking to the whole people about the reasons for the rise of states. 2) Further, he will see that one stream in this river is continuous, and all the others are interrupted; Christianity alone is constant. Here is the second phenomenon! The Christian religion is contemporary to the world, and not a fabulous story, but only the true idea is hidden in the story that says that the Cross of Christ is made up of the tree of paradise given to Adam by an Angel. Indeed, the reason for the Cross is hidden there: Christianity occurred in the first times of the world. 3) In the history of the human race we see two divisions: the ancient and the new world. How are they related morally? Christianity. The Christian religion stands, so to speak, in the midst of them. These three conclusions already quite stop the attention of a person reflecting on this religion. 4) Next, he asks himself: what contributed more to the spread of moral knowledge? Considering the succession of events, he will find that Christianity most of all contributed to this. For example, America is open. Who was the first to bring education there? Missionaries. Then they penetrate deep into Africa and discover wild ones there. Who forms them? Christian preachers. 5) What caused the most important events in the human race? Christianity. For example, the collapse of the pagan religion, supported by the Caesars and philosophers, was carried out by whom? Christian teachers. In the Middle Ages, the West fought with the East for Palestine: who produced this beneficial electrification of the two worlds? Christianity. True, the reasons for this phenomenon were gloomy, but its consequences were very beneficial: a new world was discovered. In general, it is clear from history that Christianity is closely connected with the fate of the human race. Consequently, one must have neither intelligence nor conscience in order to judge such a religion frivolously. If she were not Divine, then for this reason alone she would deserve the attention and respect of all thinking people. And what are those who dream of destroying Christianity up to after this? To destroy Christianity means to tear out the best pages from world history, to change the past fate of the human race. Thus, the general view of world history speaks sufficiently in its favor, and in this one respect no religion can compare with the Christian. Let us also pay attention to the circumstances of the appearance of Christianity. It appeared in the best place - in the center of the world, on the shores of the sea, which at that time was the center of trade communications of the whole world. You couldn't ask for a better geographical location. It appeared among the people who were most capable of spreading it throughout the world, for the fate of this people was extraordinary and consisted in being scattered throughout all countries. Thus, the Jews, scattered, spread the teachings of the Christian religion everywhere. And then, although they rejected it, they nevertheless became obvious witnesses for the believers. The language of the Jews was the best and most commonly used for the ancient world, and for us the most respectable for the works written in it. So, from the side of these circumstances, the mind cannot desire anything more from the Christian revelation. What do we discover when we turn to the Christian religion itself? In its composition, in the teachings it brought to the human race, upon impartial examination we do not find anything that would be contrary to the mind or benefits of mankind. There are many objections to Christianity, but they arose either a) because Christianity, which originated from God, is confused with that which is in the hands of people or, so to speak, transmitted by them; or b) the objections are taken from parts of the Christian Bible that are misunderstood. It is known that there are many places in the Bible that are mutual; There are places that, if taken detachedly, can give rise to unfavorable thoughts. But when judging a religion, one must look at its purpose and spirit, and a judgment about it is completely unfair if it is pronounced on the basis of some trifles. In general, there are no objections that would be directed against what is main in Christian theory or practice. All of them are limited either to the life of Christians, or to some particulars of their teaching. There were some wise men who reproached the incomprehensibility of the dogmas of the teaching. But everyone knows what to answer to this: what the mind does not comprehend, there is still something that contradicts its laws, as they say. As for the internal composition of the Christian religion, by which, primarily and solely, the Divinity of every revelation is known: then, delving into it, we see that no imagination can create such a system as is found in this revelation. The plan of Divine economy is truly the plan of Divine Wisdom: man could never imagine it. What does the Talmud promise? He conveys to us truths along with lies, teaches us the rules of only half-good morality. What - Mohammed? He presents himself as nothing more than a messenger who must correct some, in his opinion, corrupted passages in the Christian Bible. In general, the content of their religion is extremely poor; there is no system in it, no main idea. The Christian religion contains dogmas incomprehensible to the human mind, for this reason alone it should be the subject of our reverence, for the basis of these sacraments lies in the mysteries of the mind; Christian sacraments are the figurative vestments of natural sacraments. It not only fills the abyss into which the mind is afraid to look, but, so to speak, builds itself on it. Its essential and fundamental truths are: the fall and restoration of man; decision about the beginning and end of evil. Such an important attempt to solve these problems, which are insoluble for the mind, is the work of the Divine mind. Let us compare the truths of other religions with such a system. How poor they are! Is it possible to attribute to the ordinary, human mind what is contained in this Divine system? To say that God has a Son, that this Son will come to earth to redeem the human race and die for the sins of men, is indeed madness for anyone who thinks in the ordinary way; and who would not refuse such a thought? Thus the very foundation of the Christian religion is incomprehensible; and therefore human forces could not establish it in any way. Further, it comes to the aid of the poor human race and restore the order of the world. Is humanity really poor? Is the order of the world broken? There is no doubt about it. They say that this help will be provided by a being in whom Divinity will be united with humanity, that this restorer will be the ideal of deified humanity. It is obvious that the mind cannot but revere such an ideal. They say that He will appear in the form of suffering virtue and humiliation, and that He will be exalted for His sufferings. This is the ideal of humanity suffering and being glorified! All images, the most perfect, the most comforting for humanity; and all this proves her origin from above! Humans could not produce this; they would deviate to one of two main extremes: or they would indulge in cold deism, half-good morality, as we see among many philosophers; or they would have deviated into fanaticism - into empty daydreaming, as those who indulged too much in feeling did. In addition, to be able to combine metaphysics with experience, to present abstract truths in generally understandable forms, to combine living and simple morality with these truths, to support them with examples, to breathe into them some kind of spirit of life, mainly revealed in the New Testament, to produce such a combination of the rare with the commonly used - the human hand is not enough for this. And Rousseau, an impartial witness, not without reason said that the face of Jesus Christ cannot be fictitious, because His actions cannot be fictitious. And indeed, they are beyond any imagination: no imagination can invent such an ideal of perfection. Poets invent, but their inventions are nothing more than copying from nature. Thus, the composition of the Christian religion speaks strongly in its favor, for it shows that it solves the most important problems, the solution of which is possible only to God. To be completely convinced of the Divinity of the Christian religion, one must also pay attention to the person and deeds of the Founder and its first heralds. The story of the Founder of the Christian religion, that is, his birth in despicable Nazareth from a lowly Virgin and His poor upbringing, is known to each of us. It is also known that in this respect Jesus was very small and low in the eyes of all His contemporaries. And judging by this, it was impossible to form a better concept about Him. But this ignorant, poor, unlearned Jew presents himself as the messenger of God and, even more, as the Son of God who came to save the world. How did He come up with such a lofty thought, hitherto unheard of in the world? Could she have been born naturally in His mind? And His whole life was devoted to this all-encompassing thought; for this thought He died in the most blasphemous manner. What does this show? Is this not enough to see in this extraordinary man the highest intelligence and an unusually strong will? Let us delve deeper into His requirement. He presents himself as the Savior of the world, therefore, the fate of the entire human race is thought out in His mind and heart. Wonderful thought! World history nowhere presents it to us. It could come to a philosopher, but we do not find it among philosophers. Plato and Aristotle wrote about religion, but their requirements regarding this subject were very narrow. Pythagoras tried to bring happiness to the inhabitants of Croton and other cities adjacent to it. She could still come to the kings, as we see her in Sesostris; but both this and other kings like him are concerned about the fate of a certain people, and not all humanity. We do not find this lofty thought in any poet, despite the fact that poetry is always bolder than philosophy and politics. What can we say about that Man, in whose mind such a beneficent and unique thought was born? What can we say about Him when we add to this the fact that He appeared and lived among a people who were distinguished by their inattention to the fate of other peoples, whose virtues were mostly national? Such a person, as a very rare and unique phenomenon in the history of the human race, for this reason alone deserves to pay special attention to Him. But perhaps this lofty and beneficial thought is inapplicable to experience; Maybe this extraordinary Man did what people often do when thoughts of this kind come to them, that is, they give them respect, admire them and then leave them? No! in the mind of the Founder of Christianity, as soon as this lofty thought was born, means sufficient to bring it into execution were immediately invented; a plan was immediately drawn up, so to speak, to transform humanity and the Church was created, which now embraces most of the human race and will eventually accommodate all people. Thus, the transformation of Jesus Christ, by its very idea, shows in the transformer extreme love and the highest degree of self-sacrifice. But did Jesus Christ tell us how He Himself came to this idea? That He came to her not suddenly, but gradually, is necessary according to the laws of human nature. For He was born a baby and, therefore, with an undeveloped mind; Although this development was carried out rather than usual, it could not help but be gradual; grace, acting supernaturally in Him, did not, however, violate the laws of nature. But about those minutes in which He recognized Himself as the messenger of God and the Messiah, neither He Himself nor His apostles say anything. He only tells us that He was completely confident in His union with the Heavenly Father; I was as confident as humanly possible. This is how He expressed himself while talking with Nicodemus: Amen, amen I say to you, as we know, we speak, and we testify as we see (John 3:11). This kind of expression shows experienced knowledge of things. For these words can be more clearly presented as follows: I tell you what I saw and what I was an obvious witness. Or he said to the Jews: we know where I came from (meaning birth, not an embassy), and I am going (that is, to another world) (John 8:14). Therefore, He must have seen God and eternity when He speaks of them with such complete and firm conviction. It is noteworthy that none of the messengers of God, for example those of the Old Testament, expressed their union with God with such confidence as Jesus Christ. How early was the idea of ​​the Divine Embassy born in Him? He had this thought in his twelfth year and was in force: the place in which this is narrated (Luke 2:41) is very remarkable in psychological terms. From it we see that Jesus Christ, a twelve-year-old Youth, is brought to Jerusalem and, having left his father and mother, decides to stay here. The act, judging humanly, is very brave. It shows that Jesus Christ in these years began to act independently. In addition, remaining in the capital, He does not play with children’s toys, like ordinary children, but sits in the church and talks with Jewish teachers about the law. Who after this will begin to deny that His abilities developed, although humanly, but with extraordinary speed, and that at the age of twelve His mind was already sufficiently revealed? The place in which Jesus says: in those who are My Father is worthy to be Me (Luke 2:49), is interpreted in two ways: in those, some mean “in the church,” while others mean “in studies” related to religion. Be that as it may, in both cases they show that the concept of God and the law was already quite firm in Him: for He calls Jehovah Father and, moreover, His own; also says: worthy of being. All this shows that He already had the most separate concept of His duties and relationships to God. But how this concept was formed in Him and from what time - there are no psychological comments on this. There may be only some guesses in this reasoning. We know that the Jews taught their children only to read, and especially the law of God; therefore, the first concepts of the law could develop in Him in the same way as in other children, that is, by teaching, with the only difference that with Him they developed faster and more clearly. When Jesus preached a doctrine, did he demand faith without evidence? Never. He was not offended by unbelief if it did not stem from stubbornness. He wanted faith in Him to be based on solid evidence. This is clear from His actions with Nathanael (John 1:47). This place is not quite defined hermeneutically, but its tone shows that Jesus reminded Nathanael of some adventure that concerned him, perhaps his conscience, which Jesus, perhaps even in infancy, saw in some way. It is not known why this recollection had such a strong effect on Nathanael; we only know that from these small premises he drew a huge conclusion: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel! . Jesus answered: Oh, if you believed so quickly, will you see? You will see not so small events, but you will see the whole heaven open, and Angels serving the Son of God (John 1:48:51). From this answer it is clear that Jesus Christ did not require unconditional faith; He endured the unbelief of His very disciples, who before His resurrection often disagreed with Him. Thus, the Christian religion, in the spirit of its Founder, not only does not require gullibility, but also requires strict testing and firm conviction, not like a religion of darkness - the Mohammedan religion, but as a religion of light. If so, then it is very curious and instructive to know how Jesus Christ proved His teaching, His Divinity? 1) Pointed to things to do. By these we should primarily mean His miracles; but in some places of Holy Scripture they are taken in a more general sense: of course, all of His extraordinary life and activity (John 10:25ff). Against this, an opinion has recently arisen that Jesus Christ did not use miracles to prove His mission, but wanted Him to be judged by the goodness of His teaching. This opinion is based on some passages of Holy Scripture, where Jesus' displeasure with the demand for miracles and direct refusal to those who were looking for signs are expressed. But against this it must be said that the Savior was dissatisfied not with the demand for miracles, but with the excessive attachment of the Jews to miracles, with the fact that they wanted to convince themselves by miracles alone. And that Jesus Christ considered them necessary to confirm His religion, there is no doubt; this is confirmed by His words and deeds. 2) Did He not use prophecies to prove His religion? He used: firstly, His prophecies, and, secondly, the prophecies of others about Him. That he used prophecies of the first kind, that is, His own, is evident from the following passage: From now on I say to you, before it will not even be, but even when it is, you will have faith, for I am (John 13:19). It is obvious that He is predicting about Himself here. He used the prophecies of others in His favor very often, referring to the prophets in general: test the Scriptures (John 5:39), and in particular to Moses: if they believed quickly in Moses, they quickly believed in Me (John 5:46), to David: how David calls Him the spirit of the Lord (Matthew 22:43) and others. 3) He proved it by transformations: for example, he pointed to Jonah, the copper serpent, and so on. 4) He pointed to the goodness of His teaching, to the fact that there was no falsehood in it: “But I speak the truth,” He said to the Jews, “you do not believe Me (John 8:45). 5) On His life, both in general, on His character, and in particular on some properties and good qualities; in general He spoke about Himself: But I do not seek My glory (John 8:50); in particular, he pointed to his self-sacrifice, contempt for honor and pleasure. “Foxes,” He said, “have wounds, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head (Matthew 8:20). This is the strongest moral evidence. 6) He also pointed to the actions of His teaching. This is how He answered those sent from John: He will proclaim to John what he hears and sees (Matthew 11:4). 7) Proved by everyone’s own experience: “Start doing as I teach, and you will see the truth of My words.” This was His special way of persuasion. And He attributed His failure to the lack of this condition. For most of his disputes with the Jews ended with this saying: “My word does not fit into you, for you are morally cramped, there is no place in your heart into which My teaching could be grafted.” 8) He used the testimony of John as proof: you have sent, - He said to the Jews, - to John, and testify to the truth (John 5:33). Of course, Christ had no need of John's testimony. He referred to him only because his testimony was important in the eyes of the Jews, who had John as a prophet. 9) More than once he used circumstances and states of affairs as evidence. So he said to the Pharisees and Sadducees: you know how to judge the heavens, but you cannot tempt the signs of the times (Matthew 16:3), that is, as if he said: you see when it will be cloudy and when it will be light, but you do not see that the time of the Messiah has already come; you don’t see that a new order of things has opened up. Also, upon entering Jerusalem, he cried out to him with tears: Oh, that you would know the day of your salvation; but you do not see your real situation, therefore you remain in destructive unbelief (Luke 13:34). The wisdom of Jesus Christ is so visible in His teaching that to prove it is the same as if someone wanted to prove that the sun is shining. He could learn it from no one but from God. For He was of low condition, unlearned and poor. True, Celsus, without any historical information, believes that He could learn wisdom from the Egyptians; but it should be noted that this wisdom is higher than any Egyptian wisdom, and history does not know that Jesus ever studied in Egypt. Did Christ know how to write? Skilled. This is evident from the fact that He bowed down, writing with His finger on the earth (John 8:6), also from His letter to Abgar of Edessa. But the art of writing could not impart to Him such wisdom: between these two objects there is an immeasurable space, and from the first there can be no transition to the last very soon. Jesus Christ primarily demonstrated the experiences of His wisdom in His responses to the objections of the learned Jews. It is remarkable that when He solved them, the people for the most part were on His side. Since these questions and answers are not entirely clear, we will review them separately. Is it worthy to eat Caesar's Dati Kinson, or neither? (Matthew 22:17). What is the cunning of the Pharisees, and what is the wisdom of Jesus Christ? They turned the following dilemma against Him: if Jesus says that we should not give, then we will accuse Him as a troublemaker of the people; If he says that he should give, then we will accuse Him as a hostile person who has little national spirit. There could be nothing in between these two extremes. Jesus Christ answers them through a penyaz (coin). What is the power of this answer? The Pharisees thought that He would fall into one of two extremes, while Jesus Christ rejected both. This is the first sign of wisdom. The second is that He makes the coin, so to speak, a soulless thing, answer for Him when its own answer could put Him in danger. This shows a very wise consideration in Him. So, the thing answers the Pharisees’ question in a covert way. How does she answer? We know that the Jews also had their own sacred coins, in addition to the Roman ones, for example, “shekels” and the like. Consequently, the Jews could not bring Caesar’s coin, but their own; therefore Jesus must have had answers for all situations. Since Caesar’s coin was accidentally brought, Jesus adapted His answer to this coin, and in an abbreviated form told the Pharisees as much as they could not demand from Him. Everyone’s reason deduces from this answer everything that needs to be known, and if any of those who listened to the answer were asked: did Jesus express His opinion about giving taxes to Caesar, then he, without violating his own dignity, could not help but say that Jesus, when giving the coin, expressed an intelligent and thorough opinion. So, Jesus allowed tribute to be given to Caesar. Isn't this contrary to the law of Moses? It is known that Moses commanded that only tithes should be given to Jehovah. This question is important, because from it we learn how Christ thought about politics. True, His religion does not depend on politics, for it is a purely moral phenomenon; but it is impossible that He, paying attention to everything, would not pay attention to the political state of the Jews. What can be seen from this act, in which His way of thinking about the politics of the Jews is revealed? This is this: He approves of the tribute to the Romans; but does not approve of the dependence of the Jews on the Romans. The question arises: is this not contrary to the Law of Moses? Connected with this question is another, no less important question, which is very little touched upon. The question is the following: Jesus Christ, having appeared as the savior of the entire human race, and in particular the Jewish people, could this latter also bring the earthly happiness that he expected from the Messiah? He could, and would have delivered, if only the Jews had accepted Him. This is clear from what Jesus said when entering Jerusalem. He wanted the Jews to understand Him one last time. And since they acted contrary to His desires, He wept and exclaimed: Jerusalem! Jerusalem! (Matthew 23:37). As a consequence of such inattention of the Jews, He believed that the disasters of Jerusalem were temporary - its destruction by the hand of its enemies. Therefore, the consequence of the disposition of the Jews towards Jesus, if it had existed, would have been the prosperous and prosperous state of Jerusalem and the Jews themselves. Then world history should have excluded the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews. From this it is clear that Jesus Christ, while delivering eternal bliss to the Jewish people, would have also given them temporary bliss if they had accepted Him as they should. This is how we should respond to those who claim that Jesus Christ could not fulfill everything that the prophets predicted about Him and that the Jews hoped to receive from Him. Let us turn to the question: how did Jesus view the dependence of the Jews on the Romans? He looked upon the dependence of the Jews as a temporary evil, which was allowed only to prevent a greater evil. And that, having not allowed this evil, it was necessary to allow a greater evil, the Jews were later convinced of this by their own experience, when they, not wanting to tolerate Roman power - a lesser evil, suffered the defeat of Jerusalem - a greater evil. Therefore, the way of thinking of Jesus Christ in discussing the policy of the Jews was this: the dependence of the Jews on the Romans is illegal: the Jews must try to stop this disaster; ways to stop it are to turn to God and correct your behavior; but until these methods have their effect, it would be better for the Jews to endure lesser evils. This is how the dependence of Judea on Rome should have been judged, and the most prudent of the Jews had exactly the same thoughts. We see that the Jews, in the discussion of this subject, were divided into three parties. 1) Some believed that the Jews had nothing to expect from the fulfillment of these promises; one must abandon everything that the prophets promised and completely rely on fate; this is the Herodian party, loyal to the Romans. 2) Others, proud of their national differences, did not want to recognize any power over themselves, they thought that it was necessary to go against time and circumstances; these were zealots, similar to the later Jacobins. 3) Still others, very few, kept the middle between these extremes. The opinion of Jesus Christ also stood in the middle. Let us also resolve the question “about the harlot,” or better yet, delve into its power: whoever is without sin in you, let him first cast a stone on her (John 8:7). The direct answer to the question in this case could be this: do with her as Moses commanded. This is how Jesus should have responded. But He does not answer them this way, no doubt, as a precaution against the danger ahead of Him. What danger did He face here? What did they want to catch Him in? The lack of historical evidence makes this place somewhat difficult to explain; for at first glance it is not clear what the cunning of the Jewish interrogators was. However, we can open it this way: we know that the Romans used to introduce their own laws in their provinces; from this it often happened that the old laws of the peoples they conquered clashed with the new laws that they introduced. Without a doubt, the same was the case in this case with the clash between Jewish and Roman laws. This can be assumed all the more reliably because we do not find a single one in the Roman laws that would command the stoning of a criminal. Now it is obvious that answering the Pharisees’ question with the words of Moses would be dangerous, for let us imagine that the questioners were Jewish zealots, so to speak, Jacobins, fanatics, who did everything according to the law of Moses, referring to Phinehas: in this case, they would immediately carry out the command of Moses, confirmed by Jesus, especially since they tried to show experiences of self-government in everything. What would come of this? The matter would have reached the procurator, without whose consent the Jews could not carry out any execution, and he, by the force of his laws, would have to accuse Jesus. It is also possible to affirm the answer of Jesus Christ on the basis that He often eased the severity of the Mosaic laws, for example, on the Sabbath he did what Moses forbade: he walked more than was proper, and in general, where Moses was strict, there Jesus showed Himself meek. Moreover, we can also say that if Jesus Christ had not approved the law of Moses, then His enemies could have immediately spread throughout Judea that Jesus the Nazarene is very proud: while still young, he puts himself above Moses, for he judges him and does not approve of his law. So, considering all this, one cannot help but find great wisdom in the answer of Jesus Christ. Where is the Baptism of John from? Is it from heaven or from man? (Matthew 21:25). This place is very important. This is the only incident in the life of Jesus Christ. He presented Himself as the Messiah, as a Divine person, therefore His appearance was extraordinary, one on which the fate of everyone depended: from the high priest to the tax collector. Judging by this, it was to be expected that the Jewish government would pay all attention to Jesus; He will question Him and pronounce his decisive judgment on Him. But meanwhile He walked around Judea for three years and attracted the attention of the common people; brought the very Sanhedrin of Judah into danger, and yet the Jewish elders do not ask Him a question about His title and appointment; they don’t ask if He is the Messiah; Only from time to time do messengers from the Sadducees and Pharisees appear who privately propose this question, and the Sanhedrin remains silent, whereas it should have decided first of all this matter, which is important for everyone. On the last Easter, Christ raises Lazarus; despite this, the Sanhedrin still hesitates; Finally, He makes a solemn entry into Jerusalem, appears in the church, drives out the traders: a most extraordinary event! It is only slightly described by the evangelists, but one must think that during this last cleansing of the temple of Jerusalem the people showed great obedience. For, in all likelihood, it was not Jesus Himself who drove out the traders: those who followed Him did so at His command. From this it is clear that here Jesus revealed Himself already as the Messiah. Therefore, the rabbis, who did not tolerate disorder in the church, could not remain indifferent, especially since lawless bargaining was taking place under their supervision. As a result, they refer to the Sanhedrin, and the Sanhedrin, learning the next day that He is still in the church, sends a deputation to Him. These deputies appear in the church, in front of a crowd of large people who have gathered for the Easter holiday. The appearance of this delegation, no doubt, attracted the attention of the people and the disciples of Jesus. For both of them wanted to know what the Sanhedrin thought about Him, and what He would say about Himself? They thought that now the opinion of the disciples about their Teacher, who by their own confession had preceded the judgment of the Sanhedrin, would be decisively confirmed. Therefore, this time was very important for Christ. It was necessary to present Himself to the entire Jewish nation; it was necessary to decide whether He would be accepted as the Messiah or not? How did those sent from the Sanhedrin ask Him? They did not ask Him as they did John: Are you the Messiah? And from this it is clear that this embassy was done only for show. They had it better with John. He was not dangerous to them. For He lived in the desert and had very few followers; therefore they did not favor him secretly. But this was not the case with Jesus. They knew that He was the Messiah, and to speak directly to Him would be very dangerous for their species. However, for the people this question was very clear: by what power did you do this; and who gave this power to You? (Matthew 21:23). Probably, before the coming of the Messiah, the most learned Jews compiled a science of how to judge Him, and by what signs. This question consists of two parts: the first contains the following thought: Are you doing this by the power of God? In the second, this is the meaning: if by the command of God, then how did you receive this command, directly or not, indirectly or directly? Of course, this question was a private one: it concerned only the question by what right did Jesus Christ cleanse the church? But since He did this as the Messiah, this particular question also contains the general question, that is, Is He the Messiah? Jesus Christ does not give a direct answer. Why? It would seem that in these decisive moments one should abandon all reciprocity, one should say directly: “yes” or “no!” Meanwhile, Jesus seems to be avoiding investigating such an important matter. Instead of saying: I am doing this by the power of God, just as he said this during interrogation before suffering, He answers indirectly. Why this indirection? Why does He present such an important truth only in half light? Let us assume that He would answer directly; in this case, some inconsistencies could arise that would be difficult to prevent. It is known that this happened on Monday. If He had recognized and revealed Himself as the Messiah at that time, then the series of events before His death would have been completely different, and He would have had to act completely differently. But He avoided this in every possible way, and until his death he clearly did not declare Himself the Messiah. If upon entering Jerusalem He did not forbid calling Himself by this name, then He did so only because He did not see any harmful consequences for Himself from this. Here, on the contrary, all one had to do was resolutely present Himself as the Messiah, then the people, who had previously shown perfect obedience during the cleansing of the church, would suddenly produce an indignation; and Jesus Christ wanted to do His work in such a way that the Roman government would not interfere in the least. Who knows, maybe the people, enraged at those who asked Jesus, would have killed them? And this would be very unusual for the Savior of men. His wisdom required that this should be averted, and one cannot wonder how He avoided all this. The position of Jesus Christ was the most dangerous: on the one hand, He needed to present Himself as the Messiah; and on the other hand, it was necessary to prevent all harmful consequences that could arise from this announcement. Therefore, He arranged His affairs in such a way that for the first two years He presented Himself as a teacher, leaving it to the will of the people to recognize Himself as the Messiah. In the third year he began to more clearly demonstrate His power as the Messiah, and finally, before the judges, he fully revealed the secret of His embassy. This plan, probably drawn out earlier by Him, was the reason that He answered the Pharisees indirectly. However, in the opinion of the people, an indirect answer meant more than a direct one. At that time it was a sign of wisdom to answer a question with a question. Therefore, the people could even expect such an answer from Jesus. He could think like this: if our rabbis can answer a question with a question, then all the more is this possible for the Messiah. Moreover, with such an indirect answer, Jesus submitted His case to the Sanhedrin. He seemed to say this: “You ask: who am I? I am one with John: as you judged John, so will you judge Me; but you could not judge John the prophet: therefore, it is even more impossible for you to judge Me, the Messiah. Therefore I do not answer you.” It can also be added that He, judging by their intention, did not recognize them as representatives of the Jewish nation. Indeed, there were legislators and judges in Israel only until the time of the Messiah. From the time of His appearance the law must have been destroyed; and He alone was to become superior to the representatives of the people and the people themselves. That is why Jesus seemed to say: “I don’t know you, I want to relate only to the people”; however, as if feeling that he had said more than what was necessary, Jesus Christ then decides to answer them something. In a further conversation (Matthew 21:28–45), he explains His answer in parables. In the first parable, he represents two sons, one of whom expressed his readiness to his father to go to the vineyard, and did not go, and the other did not express his readiness, and went: it is clear that by the first son we mean the rabbis of the Jews, and by the second, the simple people, who preceded their judgment about the Messiah with their own, although they had not previously made it their duty to judge Him. In conclusion, Jesus Christ refers to John, making it clear that His work with John is one and the same. Thus, in this parable there is an answer, only a hidden one. In the second parable He answers more directly. Here He descends to the motives and causes of unbelief; reveals the heart of Jewish rabbis; shows that they do not want to recognize Him as the Messiah only because they do not want to part with the vineyard; I don’t want to give my power to the Messiah. This is the tone of the parable. Indeed, it was difficult for any Caiaphas to lose everything that satisfied his interests and passions. From all this it is clear that this is one of the experiences of the extraordinary wisdom of Jesus Christ. The greatest wisdom of Jesus Christ is visible in these answers. The Sadducees, who say there will be no resurrection, approached Him (Jesus), and asked Him, saying: To the Teacher, Moses said: If anyone dies without a child, his brother will understand his wife and raise up his brother’s seed: but there are seven brethren among us: and the first to marry will die: and he who has no seed, leave his wife to his brother: likewise the second, and the third, even until the seventh: after all, the wife also died: in the resurrection of whom from the seventh there will be a wife; I have everything (Matthew 22:23–28). The Sadducees' question about the resurrection of the dead is a tricky one. One must think that this was the last rebuff of the Sadducees at a time when the Pharisees attacked them and forced them to admit the truth of immortality. The Pharisees, no doubt, got off in this case with the inconsistency of the Sadducean teachings with the teachings of Moses. But Jesus Christ not only refuted the objection of the Sadducees in the most thorough manner, but also positively proved the truth of immortality, for he further says: God is not the God of the dead, but (God) of the living (Matthew 22:32). Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law? (Matthew 22:36). To see the trickiness of this question, you need to know its beginning. This is where it came from: the Pharisees, dividing the commandments and applying them to experience, noticed that they often collide with each other, and one destroys the other, and therefore, trying to determine which commandment is more important than the other, they did not agree in their opinions: some took one of the moral commandments for this; others are external, for example, the commandment about the Sabbath, about sacrifice, and others. Consequently, this question was posed to them as follows: which of the commandments is such, guided by which one could act justly in any case, which would be a measure and at the same time a reconciliation of colliding duties? Jesus Christ considers the commandment of love to be such a commandment. “Love,” He says, “and you will act justly in any case, without noticing it. This spiritual principle will teach you how to act in all circumstances.” The answer is amazingly wise! What do you think about Christ? Whose Son is it? The verb to Him: David (Matthew 22:42). He objects to them: why does David call Him the spirit of the Lord? What is the purpose of this question? What did Christ want to achieve through this? He does this in order to maintain the form of disputes. The Pharisees asked Him several times. Now He asks them; This is what usually happens in disputes. Applying to this custom of the Pharisees and Sadducees, He asked them, as if on a test, how they judged Him, and, meanwhile, through this satisfies the expectations of the people, who wanted Jesus, who had heard the questions of the Pharisees and Sadducees so many times, to ask them a question of this kind and, arousing attention to Himself, force them to speculate about the origin of the Messiah. There was an opinion that a higher Power would be incarnate in Jesus Christ, but for the Word - the Son of God - to be incarnate - none of the Jews thought about this, except for a select few. This thought appeared to them after the birth of Christ, and not among the Pharisees, but among the cabalist parties; She especially appears “inde” in the book of Tsahar. Providence decreed that this secret should be revealed later; the apostles themselves did not know her. Therefore, this question could lay the seed for reflection in those who ponder. These are the experiences of the wisdom of Jesus Christ, revealed in His answers and questions. But the greatest wisdom is primarily revealed in the spirit of His religion, in plan, end and means. Reviewing all this, one cannot help but marvel at His wise actions. Saving the human race - that’s the task! To solve it, He chooses twelve people from the common people. What kind of remedy is this? However, humanly speaking, they are thought out in the best possible way. Pythagoras thought to form a small corner of ancient Italy; and what conditions therefore did he offer to those who entered his school? It was necessary to know mathematics and other sciences. On the contrary, Jesus Christ taught everyone, and the closest witnesses to His life were people who knew nothing. Despite this, His goal was achieved. Consequently, the best means were chosen, and therefore the class of learned people was not suitable for this goal. Moreover, it also belongs to His wisdom that He embraced the needs of people in the most perfect way. He starts with the main thing: the human race is damaged and its strength is weak: this is where he had to start. Further, God alone can correct this damage, and not by a superficial means, but by the sending of His Son. In addition, the very application of religion to man also requires special help, which is the action of the Holy Spirit. Finally, even with all these means, the human race cannot become perfect here. The Church must be at war, and its peace will be at the end of time - in heaven. In this plan, everything is provided in the best possible way. It is based on the purest ideas and the highest wisdom is visible. If so, then how could these ideas be born in the mind of the Nazarite, in the house of Joseph? And shouldn’t this alone make us believe that God Himself acted in the Founder of the Christian religion? True, we do not yet know what nature can do. We do not know that the forces of nature are insufficient to accomplish such things. But do we need to know this? Can't we already know that God was at work here? Can. Let's explain this with a comparison. Suppose that sailors arrived at an uninhabited island, found a stone on it, and noticed three or four letters on the stone. They do not know the forces of nature, they do not know whether nature itself can write these letters. However, such a mark will not in the least prevent them from concluding that there were once people on this island. Now, Nazareth is, in a moral sense, a desert island; the stone is the mind of the Jews, and the letters are those highest truths that Jesus Christ preached. So, who can now doubt that these letters - these highest truths - were formed under the direct action of Providence? Here are the proofs of the Divine embassy, ​​borrowed from His mental abilities. The moral character and works of Jesus Christ prove the same. Are there any features in Him that could prove the opposite? The infidels made some attacks; but these attacks were too small, not worth a response. There is nothing in the whole history of the Divine Teacher that would offend the sense of morality. They say that Jesus Christ answered His mother’s question too harshly: what is there for me and for you, woman (John 2:4). But in our opinion this is harsh, but in the way of expression of that time it was used indifferently, as can be seen from many places of Greek writers. We cannot agree with the opinion of opponents simply because in the Gospel history we find examples of perfect obedience to His parents. They also find an example of severity in the answer of Jesus Christ to the Canaanite wife: it is not good to take away the bread of a child and harm it with a dog (Matthew 15:26). The Jews called the pagans and Samaritans dogs, as they still do today. It would seem that it is indecent for Jesus to express himself this way. But He says this not from Himself, but in the tone of the Jews. He wanted to accept it as His disciples would have accepted it, for even after His resurrection they were still discussing whether they should preach to the pagans. It was often applied in this way to the Jews. Now, when the tax collectors came to Him, He said to Peter: the kings of the earth accept tribute or kinson from them; from your own sons, or from strangers? (Matthew 17:25). When Peter answered: from strangers, then He said: let us not seduce them; we will give them too (Matthew 17:27). But for Him to think about the pagans the way the Jews thought about them is nowhere to be seen; on the contrary, one can find dozens of places where, judging strictly, one can see that He gives preference to the Gentiles over the Jews. If this is so, then there is no severity on the part of Jesus in this answer. Some are also tempted by the curse of the fig tree. Here Jesus seems to express His impatience. But there is nothing seductive here either. The fig tree did not bear fruit at the time when it was supposed to bear fruit. For Jesus Christ found on it the leaves that are always found on fig trees along with the fruit. Why is this a physical phenomenon? Saint Chrysostom notes that this fig tree must be spoiled and close to its fall. Consequently, Jesus discovered only her inner condition and hastened her fall; the next summer she herself would have fallen. So there is no injustice in this fig tree. Although the evangelist notes that there was no time yet for figs, this should mean about ordinary fig trees, and not about this one, which was of a completely different kind. Thus, the character of Jesus Christ was the purest. Over His entire life one can inscribe: My food is, that I may do the will of Him who sent Me (John 4:34). In the life of Jesus Christ the ideal philosophical life is fully realized. This theoretical teaching received its full application in Him, and what was seen in parts in the prophets was presented in Him as a whole. But what should surprise us most of all is His extreme selflessness. What did He not tolerate when everything could have been favorable to Him! If He wanted earthly power, then suddenly He could have received it, for it was under His hands. All you had to do was present yourself as a king; the Jewish people, who expected this from the Messiah, would immediately gather under His banners. This was confirmed later: when false messiahs appeared in later times, they did not lack followers. But Jesus decided to reject all this. Along with this determination, all donations had to be decided; one had to completely forget oneself. And indeed He did. He rejected all His benefits. He could have chosen the most important Jews to carry out His actions. However, He did not value them: this is evident from His conversation with Nicodemus, where He speaks without any fear of losing his good name among the elders of the Jews; for here He makes many reproaches about them, and if anything kept Nicodemus with Jesus, it was only love for good, not afraid of any reproaches. He could have chosen Jerusalem as the place of His preaching, the most popular and glorious field; but we see Him preaching in villages and stopping in deserts, among the people of the lower class; He is looking for the lowest publicans, harlots and the like, that is, those who were considered not worthy of any attention. Jesus' faith in the dignity of man is evident here; love for the unfortunate is visible; the care of the Heavenly Physician is visible! That His glory will suffer from this is of no concern to Him. He Himself felt that His behavior was different from the behavior of others. He was aware that they would say about Him: a poisoner and a wine drinker, a tax collector and a sinner (Matthew 11:19), but despite this, He acted in His own way. From this side, the most extraordinary self-sacrifice is revealed in Him. We do not see such an example anywhere before Christianity. But even if the Jews had rejected Him, although it was painful for Him, at least someone close to Him would have accepted Him. Sufferers often find solace in their relatives; but Jesus Christ did not have this consolation either. His brothers did not believe in Him; they took Him for a man who looked like a pious dreamer. At least His disciples consoled Him with their faith, but even when talking with them, He always had to fight their prejudices. One day Peter brought Him to the point that He was forced to call him Satan, for Peter wanted to darken in Him the idea that only He fed on, that is, the ascension of Himself to the Cross. John himself asked Him: Are you the Messiah? Whatever the motives and goals of this question, it could not be pleasant for the heart of Jesus. At least He would have been consoled by the fact that He would have seen the Church founded by Him; but He saw this consolation only in the future. Now He did not yet have permanent followers; Thousands gathered around Him, but soon dispersed, and on Liphostroton of Judea He stood alone among the people who did not know Him, as the Evangelist John notes. The only Being who consoled Him was the Heavenly Father. That is why He often retired to prayer in order to talk with Him, and in this conversation He revealed, humanly speaking, His soul and was comforted that people would someday see His high and good goals; He was also comforted by the fact that he was fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father; I was finally consoled by some special incidents. So, for example, he found a certain scribe who was not far from the Kingdom of Heaven, and this pleased Him. Jesus Christ appears to be a holy man, meanwhile, one of the disciples betrays Him. Doesn't this cast some doubt on His holiness? They say that Judas was led to this by greed; but thirty pieces of silver contain little food for greed! The Evangelist says that Judas carried the ark and collected money: in this way more could be acquired; Consequently, through tradition he lost more than he gained. Hatred of Jesus, say the enemies of Christianity, forced Judas to betray Him. This hatred arose, in their opinion, from the fact that he noticed something in the behavior of his Teacher that deserved disgust. So, the betrayal of Judas leaves a stain on the life of Jesus, if you agree with those who think so. But without agreeing with them and not dwelling on Judas’s self-interest alone, let us look for another reason that prompted Judas to betray Jesus. What is she like? There is an ancient legend (it is found in the work of Blessed Theophylact) that Judas betrayed Jesus not out of love of money, but for other reasons; and now a party has formed that claims that Judas did not betray his Teacher, but only used cunning to achieve a certain good goal. They say that he, bored by the uncertainty of the position of his Teacher and His slowness in solemnly declaring Himself the Messiah, wanted to speed this up and, as it were, encourage his Teacher to declare Himself the Messiah. Seeing that it is already the last Easter, that Jesus still does not declare Himself the Messiah, he decides to betray Him to the Jews so that this extremity will force Him to solve the matter, and therefore takes the silver pieces only for show. But later, when he saw that his plan was collapsing, he hated himself to the point that he hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Is it possible to accept this opinion? There are many, albeit small, psychological and historical features on which this opinion can be based. Psychological features are his quick repentance, which shows, firstly, that Judas’s plan was different: for what could make him despair when it was done as he expected. He was not afraid to think about betrayal, therefore, there was no need for him to fall into despair when this thought came to fruition. Secondly, Judas’s heart was not evil, for most of the villains, after committing a crime, do not show the slightest trace of repentance, but in Judas repentance reached the point of despair. Consequently, he had a soft heart; and such betrayal is completely incompatible with kindness. Thirdly, that he was satisfied with the low price. If he intended to betray Jesus Christ in order to satisfy his greed, then he would not have demanded thirty pieces of silver: the Jews would have given several times more than what he received. Historical. 1) When they took Jesus and led Him out of the garden of Gethsemane, Judas said to the guard: lead Him safely, that is, or rather, from the original, “carefully” (Mark 14:44). This, clearly, on the part of Judas is a mockery of the guards; he seemed to be saying this: do not be careless, do not think that when Jesus is in your hands, then you have nothing to think about. No! I have given you a miraculous, omnipotent Face. 2) Judas sits at the Last Supper; Jesus Christ clearly says that he knows the traitor; despite this, he is not embarrassed. What makes him calm? That thought that the Teacher does not understand him. Let, Judas thinks, the Teacher now say what he wants; He will see the results of my plans and praise me. 3) Judas could even have thought that the Teacher approved of his intention when he told him: whatever you do, do it quickly (John 13:27). So, Judas acted cunningly, as politicians do, according to the following rule: let us create evil, that good may come (Rom. 3:8). Here is an opinion about Judas’s action! It is ancient, for Blessed Theophylact, in whose possession it is, collected the opinions of the ancient fathers of the Church, and especially St. Chrysostom. It is not entirely possible to adhere to it, because there is no solid historical foundation. However, it comes out of consideration of some places of Holy Scripture, eliminates some misunderstandings and presents Judas from the best side. This is how he should be, otherwise Jesus Christ would not have chosen him as His disciple: he clearly expressed the struggle between good and evil, which led him to despair. Let us look at our Savior before His suffering. Here is the same self-sacrifice that was visible throughout His ministry and, moreover, in all its strength. His death is a guarantee that He was the true Redeemer of the human race. He was not insensitive to suffering, to death on the cross, but he felt the fear of death, perhaps more than others; we dare to say that for Him death seemed more terrible than for His followers. The martyrs joyfully hurried to the place of torment; on the contrary, Jesus Christ feels all the horror before the day of death approaches; He retires to the Garden of Gethsemane and here he grieves to the point that bloody sweat falls from His face (Luke 22:44). An extraordinary phenomenon!.. This sweat occurs in rare people, from severe illnesses; and in Him it opens without any illness, without a doubt, from nothing other than intense spiritual sorrow. From this it is clear that the sacrifice that He had to make for the human race was not easy for Him. It was heavier than all the offerings, and yet He brought it. This shows His complete self-sacrifice, and His grief assures us that He, both in His teaching and in His life, was far from stoic dispassion, contrary to human nature. Looking at Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, that the cup of suffering may pass by (Matthew 26:39), we see realized how weak human nature is, how it cannot rise above itself, and how difficult it is for it to do the will of God. This event in the life of Jesus Christ is very instructive for us. After Calvary, it should most of all endear us to Jesus. But some find this act somewhat strange. And indeed, Jesus Christ was sent to earth to sacrifice Himself to Heavenly justice for the human race; He Himself constantly preached that He must die for the salvation of men. How does He pray to the Father so that this does not happen? In this way, he seems to be betraying Himself, and as if he wants God’s plan to change. But this is not here, judging strictly. This prayer should be looked at as an expression of the feeling of the weakness of human nature. He does not want the plan of salvation to change, but would like that cup that is painful for Him to pass by, that is, as if he said: this fate is extremely painful for Me. Therefore, I pray to You, Heavenly Father, that it will pass by, for human nature is exhausted and refuses it, however, I do not want what is laid down in Our eternal advice to change, but I express only My illness, the feeling that is born in Me when I look at suffering. Many psalms are written in this tone, and are, as it were, comments on this short prayer. This was a special time in which Jesus Christ later wanted to express His sorrow. It is noteworthy that when the time of suffering came, He no longer expressed it, whereas then, when He should have been afraid, if He had judged it humanly, for example, to a guard from which he could have evaded, He says with perfect calm: I am (John 18:5), and then, when she fell from fear, He forces Himself to wait until he comes to his senses. What a strong and firm consciousness of His Divinity was in Him in the last minutes! On the Cross He presents Himself as the same as He was before, and even more so, for before He did not promise paradise, He only said: sins are forgiven, your faith saves you, and He did not extend His power to eternal fate. Now, on the contrary, He extends His power to heaven and hell. Only one feature is found here similar to Gethsemane: these are His words: My God, My God, you have forsaken Me everywhere (Matthew 27:46). This trait is the final limit of human exhaustion—it is the final degree to which His Divinity has descended. It is immediately followed by a line that does not allow us to see in Jesus Christ a desperate sufferer, for He immediately says: Having been completed, I commend My spirit into Your hands (John 19:30; Luke 23:46). It is not for nothing that Rousseau expressed Him this way: “If Socrates, dying innocently, is a righteous man, then Jesus Christ, acting in this way and dying in this way, must be the Son of God.” Is what His disciples wrote about Christ true? This is guaranteed, firstly, by the artlessness of their writings. Is it possible to find in antiquity at least one work that was written in such a tone? This is a special kind of writing. There is such artlessness in it that it seems that it was written not by a person, but, if one can imagine it that way, by some inanimate creature; for we do not see that those who write have any appearance. In the Gospel of John one can see partly a person having some noble appearances; and as for Matthew, Mark and Luke, they wrote with extreme detachment. What did the ancient Jews object to the miracles of Jesus? This one will not cast out demons, they said, except for Beelzebub, the princes of demons (Matthew 12:24). What did Jesus say against this? If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided into himself. And he also defended himself like this: If I cast out demons about Beelzebub, your sons will cast out demons about whom! (Matthew 12:26–27). What does it mean? Why does He give such an instruction? Probably, the Pharisees' disciples cast out demons with spells, prayers and reading chapters from the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus puts Himself in parallel with them, and seems to say this: if you believe that your sons are driven out by the power of God, then why don’t you have the same faith in Me; If you attribute the power of Beelzebub to Me, then why do you not attribute it to your sons? Even the ancients thought that the true pronunciation of the name of Jehovah could cast out demons, and that Jesus Christ stole this pronunciation from the church and performed miracles with it. But the nonsense in this case is obvious to everyone. In modern times, when miracles are banished, they think of presenting all the miracles of Jesus Christ in the form of parables. But this way of explaining is very incorrect. Such theologians resort to various manuals: Firstly, to the philological ones. Thus, the fact that Jesus Christ commanded Peter to catch a fish and remove the statir from its mouth to pay taxes is interpreted by modern theologians in this way: according to philology, they interpret that opening the mouth of a fish in Greek means the same as cooking a fish and then gutting its insides. Consequently, they say, Jesus commanded Peter to cook the fish and then sell it so that he would have something to pay the tribute. Or the next place. Jesus walked on the sea (Matthew 14:26). They interpret it as follows: they find in one or two Greek writers that the preposition επι means “at”; from this they conclude that Jesus did not walk on the sea, but by the sea, that is, along the seashore. Pathetic evasions! Paulus, the Jena theologian, is especially famous for this. Secondly, to the psychological and rhetorical. It is necessary, they say, to know how to look at a certain action and how to feel it. So, for example, they explain the feeding of several thousand people with five loaves of bread as follows: among the people, they say, there were rich people who had plenty of bread with them. When they saw that Jesus Christ began to distribute the last loaves of bread through his disciples, they were ashamed and did the same themselves. Thus, without any miracle, the people were satisfied. Obviously, such an interpretation has no basis: the possible refutes the real. They also say that Jesus Christ used strong energetic agents of human nature when healing the sick. For this He always required faith. In their opinion, this healing took place in this way: Jesus Christ said to the sick person: “get up”; the patient, assuming that His words cannot but be valid, is inspired; such inspiration awakens in him the extraordinary strength of the soul: he gets up and is healed. How absurd! Jesus Christ demanded faith for the wrong purpose. He demanded it because, while healing physical illnesses, He also healed moral ones, and to heal the latter illnesses, faith is necessary. And is it possible that such energy can awaken in all patients? Medical chronicles say that the soul sometimes unfolds its extraordinary activity and heals the body, but this happens very rarely, while in the actions of Jesus Christ we see this constantly. It is better to believe that the body of Jesus was filled with effective power, for those who touched Him were healed. However, He did not always use the requirement of faith. This is evident from the fact that He often healed many sick people at one time. It is impossible to think that He demands faith from everyone. It is noteworthy that Jesus Christ did not perform a single miracle for Himself: He fed thousands, but Himself comes to the fig tree, finds no fruit and suffers hunger; He moved His followers from one place to another, for example, Philip before the eunuch (eunuch), while He Himself became weary from the journey, sat and rested. He did not perform miracles even for relatives. It must be assumed that the relatives most of all demanded miraculous benefits from Him; but we see that He only cured Petrov’s mother-in-law from a fever; for Himself He performed only one miracle when, at His command, Peter found a statir in a fish, but He did this more for others, so that, as He Himself said, He would not give temptation: let them not be tempted... (Matthew 17:27). His most remarkable miracle is the resurrection of Lazarus. There is no greater miracle than His own Resurrection. Does this miracle have all the conditions of a miracle? Has. Firstly, Lazarus really died, for he already stank; secondly, the deed was committed in the presence of many witnesses. For some, its historical authenticity seems dubious. Why, they say, does John alone mention such an important miracle? To answer this question, we can say that John should have mentioned this miracle in the course of the narrative, for John describes the deeds of Jesus in Jerusalem, and others talk about what He did outside Jerusalem, in Galilee. The silence about this miracle of other evangelists is also explained by the fact that Lazarus was still living during their time, but during the time of John he had already died. To mention him during his lifetime would be dangerous for himself, for the Jews, who used all their strength to destroy faith in Jesus, could kill Lazarus, as an obvious and living witness of the Divinity of this faith. They could do this even though Lazarus lived far away from them; for the Sanhedrin tried in all places to have executors of its commands and secret enemies of Christianity. And the new interpreters (Pavlus) turn this miracle into a non-miracle. They say that Lazarus fainted, and that Jesus Christ, having asked about his illness, received hope that he would not die. When they opened the tomb, He knew by the signs that His hope was real. Therefore, in prayer to His Father, he says in the past tense: for you have heard, whereas you should have said: “you will hear.” But it must be said that the Greek aorist often means the future time and that it would be strange to base the entire explanation on it. The disease does not lead to death: these words do not mean that Lazarus will not die; to interpret this way means to tear words out of the text; they mean that the death of Lazarus will not continue like an ordinary death, but will be turned to the glory of God. Why didn’t the Jews believe the miracles of Jesus Christ, that is, why did they, believing the miraculousness of Christ’s miracles, not believe in their Divinity? To answer this question, we must first subdivide it, we must state it this way: why did some of the Jews not believe the miracles of Jesus, and not the Jews? For some Jews believed them, and these were the best, most moral people. Those who did not believe them were, for the most part, bad, immoral people - from the sect of the Pharisees and Sadducees, or such as Caiaphas, Annas and others were. Now it is clear that immorality was the main cause of Jewish unbelief. What are the prophecies of Jesus Christ? About His death, about suffering, resurrection, about the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews; but the most important of His prophecies was the prophecy about the spread of the Church. In His time the Church was very small, one might even say that it did not yet exist; Meanwhile, Jesus Christ says that it will spread throughout the whole world and will be so powerful that even the gates of hell will not prevail against it. These words should have seemed impossible at that time, but subsequent centuries proved the truth of this prediction, which could not be based on any witty guesses. Jesus Christ predicted His death and resurrection; Why didn’t the disciples believe this prediction? That any of them expected the resurrection of Christ is not clear from the Gospel story. Why is this? Perhaps because, as some think, Jesus Christ did not offer His disciples prophecies about His resurrection as clearly as the evangelists conveyed to us, who, having clearly seen the fulfillment of the prophecy, could see the prophecy itself more clearly, and therefore taught it more fully. But instead of such a very dubious and incredible guess, let’s ask better: is it fair that the disciples did not expect the resurrection of their Teacher? No, they were expecting it: this can be deduced from the following considerations: firstly, the Jews knew that Christ would “rise,” although they did not understand this “rebellion” that way, for, without knowing it, they would not have had the need to seal the tomb with the seal of the Sanhedrin and assign guards. If the idea of ​​the resurrection of the Savior was among the Jews, then it certainly must have been among the apostles. Secondly, the evangelist has a hint that the disciples of Jesus Christ, after His death, were going to Jerusalem with some kind of expectation. Without a doubt, they were prompted to do this by the memory of the prophecy (albeit still dark to them) that Jesus Christ told them about His body. But they will object: why didn’t the apostles suddenly believe the joyful news of the resurrection of their Teacher, if they were expecting it? Disbelief is very natural to our hearts. The death of the Teacher produced great sadness in them; The property of the human heart is such that a joyful impression is always overcome by a sad one. It is more difficult for us to believe someone who says that joy will follow our present sadness than someone who says: your joy will end in lamentation. Moreover, the disbelief of the disciples in this case was not disbelief in the strict sense of the word, but rather the disposition of our souls with which we usually accept very joyful news. Such was Thomas’s unbelief, despite the fact that many preachers present it as complete unbelief. It is true that the hope for the resurrection of Jesus Christ among His disciples was very weak; but what could weaken her? First, the death of Jesus Christ could have weakened it. On the other hand, it seems that she should confirm them in this truth, for the resurrection constituted the content of the second half of that prophecy, the first half of which was the prediction of death. But the first half has already come true: Christ died - one cannot help but believe that; Why not believe that the second half will also come true, that Christ will rise again? Because, as we said, present sadness was strong to suppress future joy. This is typical of our heart! Secondly, their hope could be weak also because the prophecies of Jesus Christ were not entirely clear to them, for in this case He used metaphorism, compared Himself with Jonah, with a serpent ascended on a tree, and so on. They will say that the disciples, seeing the literal fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy, could accept the second in a literal sense. But in response we will tell them that this reason was not enough. Moreover, the death of Jesus produced a certain kind of confusion of thoughts in their minds, and therefore in this case they were like a desperate man who could neither speak nor judge sensibly about anything. Until now, they had thought about their Teacher in a carnal way; now their whole way of thinking was shaken. It was necessary, therefore, to form a new way of thinking about Him, and this required quite a lot of time. In addition, it can be assumed that these prophecies could have been partially forgotten by them. They might forget; Jesus Christ, by the way, says: The Holy Spirit... will remember you (John 14:26). Finally, we can say that they could more conveniently dwell on allegories, for Jesus Christ used such a way of speech. Thus, speaking about the disaster of Jerusalem and its fall, He speaks of the appearance in heaven of the sign of the Son of Man and thereby expresses nothing more than the glory that should appear at that time. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is also proven by His resurrection. There is no doubt that Jesus Christ died, for His death took place not in some dark corner, but in the face of all Jerusalem; His tomb is sealed with the seal of the Sanhedrin and guards are assigned by Pilate; and that He has risen is testified to by the apostles, good people instructed by the Holy Spirit. But they will ask: “Why did Jesus Christ not appear to the Jews after His resurrection? It seems that He should have appeared to them, especially since they spread false rumors about Him throughout Judea? But why would He appear? To prove Your Divinity? It is proven by the miracles that occurred during His passion and resurrection, and by those performed by the apostles: such, for example, as the healing of the lame man before the gates of the church, as well as the conversion of Paul performed by Jesus Christ Himself, who appeared to him first in the church and then on the way. These proofs are equivalent to the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Himself and, perhaps, even more valid. So, the goal of the phenomenon assumed by us was achieved by other means; therefore, the very appearance of Jesus was unnecessary. Meanwhile, there were very important reasons why the risen Savior of the world should not have appeared to the Jews. For where, for how long, with what and in what form would He appear? If he had appeared in Jerusalem to the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the people: how would they have received Him? They would say that He did not die, that He was stolen, and was revived through the care of His friends, especially since some even Christians thought so. Would He have ascended before them to prove and certify them? But this would mean piling miracle upon miracle, and it would look like something decorative. Moreover, in the latter case they could say that an evil spirit is helping Him. Judging strictly, it must be said that the appearance of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem would be less powerful than the appearance of twelve (and then more) disciples armed with the power of miracles. The apostles, good people and, moreover, those who were waiting for this, did not quickly believe the first appearance. There is, moreover, external evidence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. They are found in the “acts of Pilate,” the ruler of the Jewish people. Pilate informs Tiberius that a new religion has been formed in Judea and someone named Jesus, an extraordinary man, has appeared. Tiberius sends this matter to the Senate, not confirming the opinion of Pilate, who thought and proposed to include Jesus among the Roman gods, but referring to the opinion of the Senate. The Senate does not confirm Pilatov’s opinion - either to please Tiberius, or wanting to show its freedom. These acts of Pilate disappeared in the 2nd century, but they existed, for the apostles, Tertullian and Justin refer to them. Some critics cast doubt on this. They say: “Since Tiberius died in the thirty-ninth year of our era, and Pilate was exiled at that time, since no more than four years had passed from the death of Jesus to this time, it was impossible for Christianity to spread in such a short time so that this spread would have such an effect on Pilate.” They also say: “How could Pilate report Jesus in this way when he put Him to death? That would mean denouncing oneself.” But what must be said against the first is that the rumor about the Christian religion could spread very conveniently in Rome. The Apostle Peter with his first sermon gathered three, and the second - five thousand, mostly aliens. Could these strangers be from Rome, and therefore could they not have conveyed this to the most important Romans? Moreover, messages were written to synagogues - Rome and others. As for the second objection, to refute it we can say that such a report about Jesus could not be dangerous for Pilate in the least. For he could say that he was driven to accuse this Righteous One by necessity, fearing outrage. If the Jews had a law: no man shall die (John 18:14), and Caiaphas is not ashamed to pronounce it, then all the more should one believe the existence of such a law among the Romans. Moreover, confidence in the Divinity of Jesus was not strong in Pilate when the Jews brought Him bound by hand, but when He was resurrected; therefore, Pilate could justify himself by ignorance. The divinity of Christianity in relation to the apostles. The divinity of the religion of Jesus Christ is based on the divinity of His disciples. In the Gospels we find much that the writers themselves did not understand, and therefore the thought can very easily arise: “Did the apostles teach religion as they should?” What would someone think, who, without any knowledge of the books of the Christian religion, would read our Gospel alone? He would say that Jesus' disciples did not know everything they needed, and he would even regret them. And indeed, the disciples of Jesus were infected with some prejudices; traces of them are visible even after the resurrection of Christ. So, they asked their resurrected Teacher: Lord, will you establish the kingdom of Israel in this year? (Acts 1:6). They didn’t know whether to accept pagans into Christianity, and were so perplexed by this reasoning that a special revelation was needed. Peter was first reassured by the shroud that appeared to him with various reptiles, and then, in the house of Cornelius, by the appearance of the Holy Spirit, Who enlightened the minds of the pagan Cornelius and those with him (Acts 10:11-48). In the first, second and third centuries there were Judaizing Christians who did not accept pagans. Judging by this state of the apostolic minds, the thought - whether they correctly presented what the Savior taught them - can very naturally arise. There are Christian parties in other countries who even adhere to this idea and are trying to spread it everywhere. But the fidelity of the Apostolic teaching and the Divinity of themselves is visible, firstly, from the sending and descent of the Holy Spirit on them, and, secondly, from the miracles they performed. Jesus Christ promised to give the power to perform miracles in His name, that is, to confirm the truth; therefore, if the evangelists had changed in the truth, then the power of miracles would have receded from them. Moreover, in this case he vouches for the fidelity of their teaching and their very instruction by Jesus Christ. True, the apostles seem to have learned little from Jesus Christ. He did not have time to destroy many of their national, age-old prejudices. But this dogmatic failure is not important. In all other respects, He accomplished quite a lot, and especially on the moral side, which is most important. This success is not visible in the Gospel story. For it was a seed that would bear fruit later. Divinity of the Apostle Paul. Jesus Christ teaches for three years in Judea, does not write His teaching - it remains in the mouths of the apostles alone. These twelve preach orally, or in writing, but not in such a way that their sermons expound the entirety of religion. No, they don't do that. The enemy of Christianity, Saul, is called upon for this. What an amazing plan of God's vision! The Apostle Paul completes everything that the other disciples of Christ did not do, so that the teaching of modern Christianity is, so to speak, the teaching of Paul, for most of the Christian dogmas were set forth by Paul. The divinity of this apostle is proven by the same thing that proves the divinity of the other apostles. Moreover, the Apostle Paul himself abandoned the sharpest features of his Divinity; There is no person in the whole history of the world who left so much useful stuff. What do those works mean that he raised for the founding of so many Churches, which to this day glorify Christ, who taught them? Is there anything like this? How he converted and what miracles he performed can be learned from his messages. What other evidence can be found for the Divinity of Christianity? Divinity can also be served by its miraculous dissemination through natural and supernatural means. Rome had a religion loved and respected by the senate and people; The Jews also had their own religion; other nations too. Meanwhile, twelve immigrants from Judea convert the whole world to the religion they preach. How does it feel? Even now, when religious fanaticism is less powerful, they could not do this without the special will of God. In this matter, weapons could have helped them, but they did not use them; all weapons were turned against them; the mysteries (sacraments), through which many secret religious societies were now formed, could be partly valid, but this was alien to them. Word and example - this is their way of spreading! This path of moral conviction can be reliable among experts who deeply know the history of countries and peoples, but they did not know this. Moreover, what business did they undertake? Universal: to change all people and citizens, and scientists and others, and to change them in relation to religion, which is very difficult, because religion is something age-old, accepted by us with mother’s milk. It is required that the gods be trampled underfoot and their idols destroyed; What is given in return for this? What is supplied in the place of the majestic Jupiter? The cross, a sign of blasphemous death, which the Romans looked at as we now look at the gallows. It is required that a luxurious Roman or some concubine of Caesar not only leave their bliss, but also undergo suffering and death. Seeing such demands, and then, fifty or a hundred years later, seeing the fulfillment of all this, one cannot help but see the action of the power of God on the apostles. However, one should not think that the apostles acted miraculously everywhere. To allow only supernatural means would be unnecessary, just as to say that the Christian religion is spread only by natural means (this last thought is held by many in England). Natural means alone would not have been enough: Paul could act by natural means: he could act with his mind, his knowledge, the strength of his will; but if for all this he had not used supernatural means, then there would have been gaps in his actions that could not be filled with anything. Evidence of the Divinity of the Christian religion also includes moral action - the correction of life. Christianity came to the aid of humanity, and eighteen centuries have passed since its appearance; therefore, its beneficial effect should be noticed. Therefore, world history must ask: what good has the Christian religion done? This is the surest proof of its Divinity, and it can be considered in two respects: what has the Christian religion done in relation to humanity and whole nations, and what in relation to private individuals? The history of Christian individuals very satisfactorily proves the beneficial effect of Christianity on the lives of private individuals. Of course, their exploits depended on other reasons, but Christianity played the most important role in this case. It produced martyrs, ascetics and shepherds of the Church. It is quite difficult to show this when applied to peoples. It is necessary to survey the states of peoples and the differences between these states; it is necessary to separate what belongs to Christianity from what came from other causes, and since a certain influence extends over several centuries, it is necessary, so to speak, to follow it: all this requires a lot of work; however, the general features are clear to everyone. Finally, the final proof of the Divinity of the Christian religion can be everyone’s own experience. For, if this religion is from God, then it must make us Divine. We demand this proof not so much from her as she does from us. Anyone who, having fully satisfied the requirements of this religion, does not feel any good change in himself, should leave it behind. But the first is impossible; hence the latter. We should especially pay attention to this. We should know other proofs in case - for others, but this is only for ourselves. And whoever does not know and does not use it is alien to Christianity, for him it is useless. We also forgot to talk about one proof of the Divinity of the Christian religion, namely the prophecies of the Old Testament. At least five hundred years before the Nativity of Christ, Jewish Holy Books began to exist, in which they prophesied about Christ. This proof is difficult due to its details, but it can be presented without details - in general, and then it will easily go to the point. Let us now briefly look at the evidence of the Divinity of the Christian religion. What are they? Firstly, negative (from the word “I deny”). Reason demands that in revelation there be nothing unworthy of God or inconsistent with a sound mind. This is what is in the Christian revelation. Secondly, positive. It must explain, strengthen and complete natural religion. Christianity did this - it supplemented natural religion with a treatise on the redemption of the human race through the intercession and death of the Son of God. Thirdly, external, revealed in the persons and deeds of the messengers. As for the first, the Christian messengers maintain in a strict sense the character of the Divine messengers, both from the speculative side, for they were simple, unlearned people, and from the moral side, for they were kind, unselfish people. As for their deeds, on this side all the demands of the mind are fulfilled: there are miracles, there are prophecies, and, finally, there are beneficial fruits both in relation to the entire human race and in relation to individuals. Can the doctrine of the Divinity of the Christian religion have a homiletical use? Maybe. But one must know how to use it, because in this case great mistakes are possible. We said that we need all this evidence in case of doubt. These doubts exist among Christians of foreign Churches; but they can also creep into our society through books. In this case, the shepherd of the Church must disperse the darkness of doubt with the light of evidence. But can’t these truths also appear in the church pulpit? They can. But in this case, one should speak about them in a limited and moderate manner, and, moreover, show only their bright side, and not the dark one - omit doubts. This is how Burdalou, Sorren and many English preachers presented them. A Christian is pleased to see the firmness of the teaching he accepts. In addition, everyone can have moments of doubt that do not imply any anger of the heart. Anyone who has read the history of ascetics will find that these holy men often doubted even the most important truths. This proves that knowledge of the evidence of the Divinity of the Christian religion is always useful for everyone. And the ascetics’ best remedy against doubt was to give up contemplation and turn to practice—to physical activity; not to worry, but to calmly say to yourself: “Now I don’t see, but later I will find it, either in my mind or in the mind of another.” We have argued for the Divinity of the Christian religion in particular; but the Jewish religion, the religion of the patriarchs and Moses, also belongs to the Christian revelation in general. We did not touch upon these religions, although their Divinity must be proven by us. It can be proven in the same way as the Divinity of the Christian religion. Thus Moses' character and deeds may convince us that the religion he taught was Divine. True, the antiquity of the Jewish religion makes it difficult to view it; It is especially difficult to trace the patriarchal religion according to all the signs of the mind, because we do not have all the historical monuments; but instead of all the evidence for a healthy mind in this case, the following can serve: “Take the river of times and watch how the existence of nations flows; you will see there that all nations are in idolatry, and only the people of Israel know the true God - they honor Jehovah. Is this natural? Can we not call this a miracle? And this inequality of the people of Israel in comparison with others, this superiority will appear even more wonderful to you when you see that in civil life other nations were superior to the Jewish people; Is this not a strong proof for a sane mind of the Divinity of the Jewish religion? And how poor is now the objection that Moses borrowed religion from the Egyptians! There was polytheism in the Egyptian religion, but how did the unity of God appear in the Mosaic religion taken over from them? Let us now turn to the sources of Christian revelation. Revealed religion was given to the human race at a certain time and in a certain place; the time of her descent from heaven to earth lasted no more than twenty-five or, according to other sources, sixty years, starting from the time John the Baptist was taken into custody until the death of John the Evangelist. Meanwhile, it is intended for all times. Now the question is: where and how will it be preserved? How will descendants recognize her? We said when we talked about revelation in general that the ways to preserve it are the following: 1) repetition to each individual; 2) restoration by era of famous men; 3) legend; 4) letter; 5) class of elected persons. The mind cannot imagine more than these methods. Which of these paths has been chosen by Providence to convey the Christian revelation? There are different opinions on this subject. Let us begin with the opinions of other Churches and, finally, we will present the opinion of our Church. Catholics think that Christianity must be preserved: firstly, through tradition, secondly, through writing and, thirdly, through a certain class of persons or through the infallibility of representatives of the Church; Protestants do not accept any other method than writing; Some small Christian societies maintain that Christian revelation must be repeated to everyone through the Holy Spirit. Such is the sect of the Swedenbergets, who thought that Swedenberg was the founder of the Old Testament. Our Church accepts Scripture and tradition. In the discussion of tradition, our theological systems disagree with each other. Some, carried away by the teachings of Protestants, consider Scripture alone to be the source of the Christian religion, and traditions, in their opinion, serve only as a historical guide. Prokopovich, Irenaeus, and Sylvester think so. In other books, such as the Catechism of Peter Mohyla, in the “Stone of Faith” by Yavorsky, in the formula of the curse on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, in the bishop’s oath, in the rite of accepting a Protestant, and in others containing the teaching of the Greek-Eastern Church itself, traditions are taken as the source of Christian revelation. The formula of Orthodoxy pronounces a curse on those who do not accept traditions that agree with Scripture. Our Church also considers the class of pastors of the Church a necessary way to preserve the teaching. In this case, she, in agreement with the Catholic Church, thinks that this condition was established by God Himself, that this chain extends from the apostles, that the action of the Holy Spirit on them is not interrupted. But it differs from the Catholic Church in that it does not attribute to them the gift of infallibility. Our Church thinks that this gift should be throughout the entire Church, but it is impossible to show how much of this gift there is in such and such a Church or in such and such a representative of it: numerical accuracy in this case cannot be indicated. There is no clear teaching on this subject in Church History. There is something about the Ecumenical Councils: the Stone of Faith recognizes them as infallible. But nothing is found about the other classes, about the infallibility of the patriarchs and about the dogmatic importance of our current Holy Synod. From considerations, it is only clear that the gift of infallibility should be expressed in shepherds all the more, the more important their work is. In this case, the Holy Spirit must clearly act in them. Does our Church eliminate those two ways, so that the Christian religion is repeated to everyone, and so that famous men are erected according to eras? Judging strictly, one can see that it does not eliminate them. The apostles instructed Christians to turn themselves to the Holy Spirit. This means that they did not consider themselves the only organs of revelation, but wanted to make everyone worthy recipients of it from the Holy Spirit. But regarding these two methods, we do not have a common teaching, but only separate opinions among preachers: Demetrius of Rostov, Tikhon of Voronezh and others. Let's believe them in action. What is true about them? Let's start with the first method: with the revelation of the private. We cannot expect this method, for by this miracles should be multiplied without need; Moreover, Christianity does not promise anyone such a revelation as was given to the apostles. Consequently, this method, as being inconsistent with Providence and the highest Wisdom, is not worthy of God. Therefore, those who are guided by inner revelation are dreamers. But part of this method has been promised and is being put into practice. Namely: the Christian religion cannot use it in its entirety; for this would require such miracles as happened to the apostles. But the Holy Spirit does not cease to act in Christianity in the most moderate way and can make a revelation to everyone in such a way that he is not even a Christian if he does not see the gracious action of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, this source, that is, the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit, exists in Christianity. But what can you learn? What is promised. It is not promised that this insight will be a direct guide: such a guide is Scripture. The purpose of this insight is practical - the correction of oneself, and perhaps others, but by no means the entire human race, as the apostles did. Therefore, if someone imagined in his mind that he, by some inner revelation, should communicate new truths of religion to the entire human race, then he must tell himself and others that this is a lie, a deception. However, if someone had a private revelation, having only a practical purpose, then can he believe that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals it to him? Maybe. For such a revelation is promised, and one can say, without departing in the least from the truth, that in this very way true practical Christianity is preserved; By other means, only historical Christianity is preserved. So, this path, controversial for many, on the one hand, contains everything, for whoever does not feel the actions of the Holy Spirit within himself does not have Christianity, but, on the other hand, this path is unsteady, unstable, uncertain, for it depends on the properties and character of persons. What can I say about the second method? Can we not expect that revelation will be repeated throughout the epochs through extraordinary people, just as it was in the patriarchal religion and Moses? Firstly, regarding this, it must be said that there is no need for such a repetition of the revelation, for if it were contained in writing, then the class of ordinary shepherds would be sufficient to preserve. Secondly, it should also be noted that such an action of the Holy Spirit is nowhere promised. Mohammed set himself up as such a messenger, but he was a liar and a deceiver. So, in a strict sense, this method does not exist; however, part of it is used for business. It cannot be said that Christians did not use this method at all. Considering the history of holy persons, we see that they had an influence on the fate of the Christian Church. But the fate of the Church is under the special Providence of God; consequently, these persons were under the same Providence, and therefore they resemble messengers raised by God to perform special deeds. We can safely include the shepherds of the Church among such men, and therefore it is not in vain that Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were called its pillars. These persons in the New Testament are the same as the prophets in the Old Testament. They should not be put in a row with other people, but should be looked at as special people, as faithful workers in the house of God. Thus, this path is also partly used in Christianity; only here he is not ideal, for these men are formed naturally; Is it only wonderful about them that their inner formation - purity of heart - is the work of the Holy Spirit; and from this side, every true Christian is actually a creation of God. There were such men in more than one ancient period; in our time there are, perhaps, even more people similar to the apostles, when the actions of the apostles are repeated - the conversion of the pagans. Many missionaries, for preaching the teachings of Christ, endured the same torment as the apostles; it is impossible that the miracles of the gracious actions of the Holy Spirit should not be repeated over them; we would see this if we had a complete history about them. The third method is a legend: We have seen that opinions in the reasoning of this method fluctuate. Protestants do not accept traditions, but Catholics place them above the Scriptures; Our Church accepts some people and rejects others. Such uncertainty of opinion requires an accurate study of this method. This method is the most commonly used in all sciences; but can it be used in the discourse of Christianity? Not only can it be used, but it cannot even help but be used, for writings and books already came into existence at the end of the first century; to this day it has been preserved only through tradition. But they will say that this method was used only until the time of Scripture. What stands against this is that the holy writers, even after the appearance of the Scriptures, did not destroy the traditions, but commanded to follow the Scriptures and traditions. The fathers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries gave preference to traditions because the Scriptures were not suddenly brought into one composition; it was necessary to collect the Scriptures scattered throughout different churches and combine them into one whole. In this case, doubts could arise regarding their authenticity and Divine origin. Why believe all this? Tradition. Thus, tradition, as a judge, became higher than Scripture, as a defendant. Another reason for the predominance of tradition over the Scriptures depended on heretics. In support of their wisdom, they referred to passages of Scripture, which, with the help of dialectics, could give the wrong interpretation. Since the Fathers of the Church at that time were weak in dialectics, as a result of this they more readily referred to traditions than to Scripture, whose dead letters can be perverted at will. These references are found in Tertullian and Cyprian. The latter writes against rebaptism and, turning to tradition, says that he took the dogma of baptism from such and such, this from another, and that from the apostles, who do not contradict themselves in anything. For heretics this path was inconvenient, because the source of heresies was wisdom - Eastern philosophy. Tradition always served at that time as a support for Scripture itself, to which malicious people sometimes gave an incorrect interpretation; although, as we move away from the source, it was natural for tradition to change and become more difficult, this does not exclude tradition from among the sources of the Christian religion; it was and always will be so. What is the use of tradition? Where is this source? Let us suppose that one of us would like to collect from traditions the entire teaching of the Church; where should he turn? By the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries? But who will he ask? There he will not find a single person who would say to him: “These are the legends; there were no more or less of them, as many as I show you!” Let us assume that he begins to collect legends from everyone: again the result will be small. Where do the legends exist? They must be compiled in this way: 1) put together the evidence of the first five centuries; 2) collect evidence from non-Orthodox Christians or heretics (for they referred to traditions), of course, with criticism and verification; 3) without limiting ourselves to this, we should turn to some church holidays and customs. For although we do not have a tradition about a certain custom, do we not have the right to conclude that such a tradition existed? We have reason for such a conclusion, for we know that in the 1st century the Church used to do everything according to the example of the apostles. Having fulfilled all these conditions, it is possible to compile a complete system of legends. This system does not yet exist completely; it exists only in parts and, one might say, is already close to the whole sum. Since false traditions can also appear, it is necessary to have signs by which false ones can be distinguished from true ones. These signs are the same by which the truth of revelation is recognized - negative and positive. The negative sign (from the word “deny”) is used by our Church. On the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, those who do not accept traditions that agree with Scripture are subject to anathema. But this line cannot be stopped. There are legends that agree with Scripture, but are fictitious and therefore untrue. Which legends are true? For this we need a criterion of historical authenticity. If in any legend everyone agrees, or many, or at least one good and honest person, then it must be true. How great is the use of this source? Its use can be very wide, primarily hermeneutic (interpretation of texts). For example, this is My Body (Matt. 26:26), according to philology, it makes no difference whether it is taken literally or otherwise: the true meaning is indicated by tradition. For Ignatius and Polycarp clearly say in what sense the apostles conveyed to them. The same can be said in the reasoning of dogmas. The writers of the first centuries could more accurately convey to us their meaning and use. The fourth source and method of preserving revelation is Scripture. We have seen that reason finds him most capable and most faithful in preserving the teaching. And indeed, Providence used it to preserve Christianity. The disciples of Jesus Christ set out everything in Scripture, meaning this word in a limited way, and Scripture appeared at the end of the 1st century. Therefore, Scripture must be recognized as the main source of Christianity, but not the only one. In relation to this source, the following questions may arise: 1) Which books should be considered sacred? But the solution to this question belongs to the introduction to Holy Scripture, for it has historical significance. So we'll omit it. 2) Are these books still preserved in their entirety? This also belongs to the critical review of Scripture, and therefore this question is not for us to decide. We have a third question, actually dogmatic: how should we look at this source? what is its importance? Should these books be placed along with others or above them, not only in content, which, without a doubt, is higher than the content of all human books, but also in form and presentation? The general opinion in this discussion is the following: books that contain Christian teaching are inspired by God. Everyone agrees on this, but the word “inspiration” is interpreted differently; Hence, Christian teachers look differently at divinely inspired writers, and in their thoughts regarding this subject they diverge to the point of contradiction. Our Church, as far as we know, has not expressed a decisive opinion about this. There is nothing definite in our church books, except for some metaphorical expressions found in sacred services, where the apostles are called “the organ of the Holy Spirit,” “reed,” and the like. There is no definite thought in other places either. For example, the Catechism says about the writers of the Holy Scriptures that they are inspired by God, but what their inspiration consisted of is not explained. Theological systems also do not talk about this. Other writers have definitions, but they are inaccurate. Their inspiration comes from the truth, that is, they want to say that the Holy Scriptures are true, and therefore inspired. This limitation is more practical; it is the only sign of divine inspiration, which shows that the Holy Spirit did not allow anything false in Scripture. It can be seen in sermons published with the blessing of the Holy Synod, which are arranged in such a way that they contain theological teaching, and which are sent to churches for daily, if possible, preaching and teaching the people. It is also found among Saints Demetrius of Rostov and Tikhon of Voronezh. But this definition is vague; it only shows that the sacred writers were guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that nothing false could creep into their Scripture; but it is not clear from it what this leadership consisted of and what (it had - ed.) degrees. Here is the teaching of the Church on this subject. She did not tell us anything definite, leaving it to everyone's own belief and reflection. So, what doctrine about this can be compiled on the basis of Holy Scripture itself and reason? Holy books are inspired by God. The very first concept of these books shows that they were written with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This first trait, divine inspiration, is absolutely necessary; with its destruction it will be impossible not to place sacred books along with secular ones. But how can we prove that the Holy Spirit took part in their composition? Reason has little to say about this; but this little is very strong and for a sane person can replace all other evidence. This is the judgment of reason in this case. Providence decided to give the human race religion; He chose not all people, but some, as instruments for this; these people, in order to preserve and transmit to the entire human race the teaching revealed to them from above, had to put it in writing. So, if Providence wanted to achieve His goal, and there is no doubt about this, then he had to use all the means necessary for this. But these chosen men, if left to themselves, could make mistakes in presenting the truths of religion. Consequently, the purpose of Providence would not have been achieved. And therefore, one cannot help but admit that God was especially concerned with the written transmission of religion, and perhaps more so than with the oral transmission. Thus, Scripture must be inspired by God in a broad sense, without defining, that is, the properties and degrees of inspiration. This verdict of reason is the most powerful. Not to believe him would be reckless, and the same as not believing Providence. However, for non-believers or those who have little reasoning, there is still positive evidence - internal and external, namely the testimonies of the writers themselves and other people. We have the right to believe their own testimonies, for we recognize them as divine messengers; therefore, in any case, they deserve our faith, and therefore they deserve it even when they give feedback on their Scriptures. Is there direct evidence from the holy writers that they wrote according to the action of the Holy Spirit? There is no direct response to this, because it would show some kind of self-praise; Moreover, there is no need for it. On the contrary, there is a lot of indirect evidence, and the clearest of them is the following: Jesus Christ promised the apostles the Holy Spirit, so that He would remember them, explain them, warn them against errors, guide them to all truth and never depart from them. Can it be said that this Spirit was always with them, excluding the time of writing the truths of religion? It's obvious how ridiculous this is; at this time He most of all had to be with them. These two proofs are sufficient for those who want to be convinced of the inspiration of the Scriptures. After this, the testimony of the Apostle Paul can come to the point, who says that he teaches by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see: 1 Cor. 2:13). This teaching could be both oral and written, since its testimony could apply to him and to all other holy writers. Thus, when we take inspiration in the broad sense, it is intelligible and clear, and the method of proof is easy and direct. Let us now go into the details of this subject and ask ourselves: what was this assistance of the Holy Spirit? The answers to this are very different. The first opinion, the ancient opinion, which was in the Jewish Church, among Josephus, Philo and others, and then in the Christian Church among Justin, Athenagoras, Melito and lasting until the 13th century, is that they believe that the Holy Spirit had such a great participation that the writers in relation to Him were the same as the pen in relation to the scribe, that the flute in relation to the player, that the drink was in relation to the one who drew it; consequently, the Holy Spirit gave them thoughts, feelings, and words, but they were nothing more than a tool or a machine, and therefore it makes no difference whether people act, rational beings, or act dumb. The second opinion is the opposite of the first. It was held in antiquity by Augustine, Origen and the Alexandrian school, subsequently by the time of scholasticism, and in modern times by some of the newest theologians. This opinion is as follows: they believe that the participation of the Holy Spirit was only negative, and not positive, that is, the sacred writers of the Old and New Testaments wrote themselves, and the Holy Spirit supervised only to ensure that there were no errors. They, in the opinion of those who think so, could easily do this, for they themselves saw a lot, heard a lot, and in other respects they were guided by the writings of others, which is most visible in the book of Chronicles. This opinion likens the sacred writers to a little one, and the Holy Spirit to an uncle who follows the little one and watches, only to support him where he might fall. The third opinion is the middle one, which reconciles these extremes. According to this opinion, the participation of the Holy Spirit was different in relation to different times, different in relation to different persons, and different in relation to different objects, that is, it had its own degrees, depending on need. Thus, in certain subjects this instruction was more negative; in persons who did not understand objects that may be understandable to others, this participation of the Holy Spirit was more positive, so that the Holy Spirit gave both thoughts and words. For example, the prophet from the shepherd, no doubt, could not say anything without such participation of the Holy Spirit, as he himself says. The same participation should be in educated people when they talked about subjects that exceed our minds. Here are three opinions! Which is fairer? The strictest opinion seems to some to be the safest and the one that conveniently saves the honor of writers, for there may be doubts about justice if we assume that not everything is inspired. But such fear is unreasonable. It is enough for the Holy Spirit to warn against errors. We could not help but recognize their writings as inspired even if they were written at the sole discretion of the writers, and if the Holy Spirit said that they were true. This opinion has its disadvantages; Thus, it humiliates the dignity of human nature, because it subjects it to a perfect (likens it completely - ed.) mechanism. Moreover, it cannot stand up to objections. It is clear that each writer retained his own character, which could not have happened if writers were only a passive instrument. For why would the Holy Spirit use this variety? show that the guns were different? but what is the purpose of this? Show, for example, that if the Apostle Paul had written himself, would he have written in this way? But what is this for? In this case, it would be better for the Holy Spirit to use unity to show that He alone was the author of it. Frivolous writers often turn diversity into reprehensibility of Holy Scripture. And the very source of this opinion is suspicious. It appeared in the 2nd century from Justin, in his conversation with Tryphon the Jew; it came to him from Flavius ​​and Philo, and they very likely invented it themselves. The theory of inspiration was not revealed in their minds, so they settled on the easiest thing that appears at first glance. Holding this opinion, we must admit that the translators themselves are inspired. Hence Josephus has the opinion that the translation of the Seventy is inspired, which is an epithet even in our Slavic Bible. Thus, inspiration must be represented in the degrees we have noticed. But is it necessary to differentiate between these degrees? In popular teaching this is not necessary, but for teachers of religion it is necessary. For he (the teacher), upon good reflection, will often collide to different degrees; for example, he will be perplexed about the diversity of the Scriptures. Moreover, it also needs to be said in support of the average moderate view that it expands on the following thought: where did the writers’ own stock of their thoughts go? With the strictest look, one must admit that a new supply was added to this reserve, completely unnecessarily, while in this moderation this excessive doubling cannot occur. So, a moderate view is the best way to explain the nature and properties of inspiration. Consequently, in some cases the inspiration was: 1) negative, when the Holy Spirit only warned against errors. Therefore, writers used both their own resources and the benefits of others. This is proven by the first verses of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-3), from which it is clear that the apostle began to write on his own impulse and used what was ready, for he, as can be seen from his words, examined everything himself. Consequently, the action of the Holy Spirit in him was only negative, consisting in a warning. The same participation of the Holy Spirit in the books of Chronicles, Kings and others. This is the first part of our accepted opinion. 2) But it is necessary to allow the positive action of the Holy Spirit, that is, sometimes it must extend to the point that both thoughts and words are inspired. We need to “inhale” thoughts because many truths are supernatural, and therefore inaccessible to our mind; It is necessary to “inhale” words because thoughts are “inhaled,” because the property of the mind is such that thoughts cannot be communicated without words: we will not understand the thought until we express it in words. In addition, we have direct evidence of this: Jesus Christ promised the apostles to teach them how and what to say to them (see: Matthew 10:20. Mark 13:11). By “what” we mean thoughts, and by “how” we mean words, an image of expression. If this is not enough, then there is something else: I will give you a mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:15). Without a doubt, this promise extended to more than one occasion when the apostles had to defend themselves before the court. If Jesus Christ “inhales” thoughts and words in such a matter, from the failure of which private harm would arise, the good and life of one person would be lost, then all the more should such inspiration be allowed in such a case when the failure would be followed by harm for all mankind. Thus, the Holy Scripture is the main source of religion, but not the only one; it is inspired, that is, compiled under the supervision of the Holy Spirit; this is proven by the judgment of a sound mind and the testimony of holy writers. This inspiration has different degrees, which are determined by need. To some of the apostles, for example, to Mark and Luke, we apparently cannot apply the epithet of inspiration, for they were not chosen by God, like Paul. But their divinity is proven by other writers. For example, the divinity of Luke is proven by Paul, Mark by Peter. Moreover, even if there was no positive divine inspiration in them, there was negative inspiration, for everything was true. Consequently, their Scriptures are divine, not to mention even the subject matter borrowed from divinely inspired persons, for Luke borrowed from Paul, and Mark from Peter. Moreover, antiquity testifies that John looked at all three Gospels and approved. A divinely inspired man could not fail to know what was inspired in the writings of others. Is the Holy Scripture a complete and perfect source? This issue is a point of contention between Catholics and Protestants. The first assert its insufficiency in order to prove the need for legends; and the latter say the opposite in order to remain with Scripture alone. Having eliminated all this personality, let us ask: is the Holy Scripture complete? How to solve this issue? How can we know that the Holy Scripture contains all the dogmas of religion? In order to know everything that is necessary for the completeness of religion, there must first of all have a beginning that would determine it all; but where is it? In legend or in Scripture? But this means taking the determined for the determining, which is absurd. Perhaps the theory of revelation will serve as such a beginning? But this theory is nothing more than just a frame; the very picture that should be inserted here is still unknown. Reason, as we have seen, in expounding the theory of revelation, offered with complete confidence only general demands; in discussing particulars, he mostly guessed, and therefore he always said limitedly: “so it seems to me... so I guess.” Consequently, the completeness of Holy Scripture cannot be judged by this theory. But despite this, we can solve the question we have proposed in this way: the Holy Scripture is complete and perfect in relation to the goal, or in relation to our salvation, that is, it contains everything that we need for salvation. The Evangelist John says: “Now this was written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that you who believe may have life in His name” (John 20:31). The same is seen in other holy writers. Therefore, for salvation we need faith in Jesus Christ, as the messenger of God, Savior and Redeemer. But this is fully revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore in this respect it is complete and perfect: it contains the entire practical part of religion, which is the most necessary. As for the details of religion, to its particular features, in this regard it is impossible to affirm the completeness of the Holy Scripture, for it lacks many details, for example, the teaching on the remembrance of the dead, on the calling of saints, on marriage, and so on, is incomplete; even many dogmas are presented in the form of first sketches, in the form of “seeds”, without any reasons or consequences; in a word, it is incomplete in relation to the external part of religion, or the Church; it does not contain anything that concerns the formation and structure of external religion, or the Church. Thus, the Holy Scriptures are complete and perfect in relation to the goal, or salvation; but incomplete as regards the particulars and details of religion. A related question, also controversial between Catholics and Protestants, of whom the former decide it in the negative, and the latter in the affirmative, is the following: is the Holy Scripture clear? Here again the truth is in the middle; Holy Scripture is clear in those truths that are necessary for salvation: that God has redeemed us, that Christ is the true Savior, that we must expect help from the Holy Spirit - everyone will understand this by reading the holy books; however, in this respect it is not so clear that reading it could not but give rise to our misunderstandings; and here there may be misunderstandings and doubts. In this case, perfect clarity cannot be demanded, because it cannot exist in human language. Let's illustrate this with an example. For example, state laws are written in the simplest and most understandable language; but how many misunderstandings there are in their reasoning, not only between the common people, but even between judges, not due to malicious intent, but simply due to ignorance! Thus, in relation to the clarity of Holy Scripture, we can say that it is clear as much as it is complete, that is, clear in relation to the purpose, but unclear in relation to the details - geographical, archaeological, historical and philological; for (as - ed.) there are many words that are incomprehensible to us, so in the expression of the New Testament we can say that many Greek words cannot be translated into other languages ​​with all expressiveness. Finally, they ask: is it permissible to translate and read the Holy Scriptures? Or should it remain in its original language and should be read only by teachers of religion? This question was born by Catholics, and raised and spread by Protestants. It is difficult to imagine how the human mind came to this question! The Scripture is given to all people, how can it be for everyone when it remains in an unknown language and in the hands of only known few people? The prohibition to translate and read the Holy Scriptures to everyone was born in the Middle Ages among the popes, namely Gregory VII, known for his excessive desire for global hierarchy. The popes needed to strengthen church power, but how to do this?.. By taking away holy books from the people, so that they would accept religion only from the lips of shepherds and establish themselves on their authority alone. Then they began to come up with different opinions to support this prohibition and find reasons for this in them: in relation to translations, they argued that many irregularities creep into the translations; and in relation to reading, they said that many common people, reading the Holy Scriptures, fell into heresies and schisms. This is true; but since this is only one abuse, then for its sake the use itself cannot be eliminated; otherwise, it would be necessary to remove from the world fire, water, air, and other things that people often abuse. No! it must be translated into a language known to everyone; just as anyone who wants to should read it. Misconceptions can be cleared up in other ways. So, for the translation to be correct, the Church must carefully revise it; If, after this, any error has crept in, then after the time when it becomes noticed, the teachers of the Church must change it. So that the common people do not go astray, the shepherds of the Church must take care of this; this supervision can be easier to have in the Eastern and Catholic Churches, for they have confession, where the priest can ask about perplexities and resolve them; In addition, it is also necessary to make a brief interpretation from the Fathers of the Church, whose authority the common people are very convinced of. Thus, in relation to the New Testament, the question is: should the Holy Scriptures be translated and read to everyone? – easy to solve; but it is difficult to answer this in relation to the Old Testament. Should everyone be given the Old Testament along with the New? This question has recently been the subject of speculation and debate among us, which is why the translation of the Old Testament into Russian has been abandoned. There may be reasons “pro and soptga” (Latin, pros and cons). The first reasons are the following: God gave both the New Testament and the Old to all people, and not just to the Jews, for He wants to save all people. Jesus Christ, saying: try the Scriptures (John 5:39), referred this not to just the priests and teachers of the Jews, but to all the Jews. Reasons of the second kind, that is, “soptra” (Latin, against), may be the following: many passages of the Old Testament can be interpreted differently by the common people. The Old Testament contains two types of revelation: patriarchal and Mosaic, and the New Testament is the third type of revelation. These types are adapted to the degrees of development of human powers, and in the latter case it should (revelation - ed.) be more perfect than in the first two: in the first two types of revelation something may be encountered that is imperfect and contrary to the latter. So, for example, in the Old Testament the best people are presented with weaknesses, such as polygamy; Also, many laws are contrary to the current state of affairs, for example, to persecute non-believers with weapons. Now the common people will conclude in this way: since such and such weaknesses were allowed to men who were called friends of God, it means that they are innocent; since such and such customs were once among the people of God, they can now be adopted. It is clear that considerable harm will result from this. This was necessary then, depending on the time and place, but for modern times it is not at all suitable. In addition, there are also passages in the Old Testament that are difficult to present; there are oriental descriptions and pictures that were decent for two or three thousand years, but now do not work; There are also passages that are somewhat sensitive to purely moral taste. Hence, carnal people can be tempted, and pious people can come into doubt regarding the divinity of these books. There are many such passages in Ezekiel. On the other hand, it also stands against this that the Old Testament is needed only in relation to history; everything necessary for salvation is contained in the New Testament alone. Consequently, due to the lesser need for the Old Testament, in comparison with the New, due to the many dangers that can arise from reading it, due to the greater rudeness of the Russian people, in comparison with foreign peoples, the translation of the Old Testament should be suspended for a while. This is a way of judging the translation and reading of the Old Testament! But they will say: there is a Slavic Bible, and it is not forbidden to read it! So! but in the Russian translation this cannot be, otherwise the same thing will produce different actions. The Slavic Bible cannot have anything new; it is so ancient that people do not know its origin, and therefore do not pay much attention to it and almost do not read it. Let the (new - ed.) translation appear now, let the new Bible appear - that is, of course, what the people will call it - because of its novelty, it will attract the attention of the entire people. The second difference between the Slavic and Russian translations is the following: the Slavic language is capable of covering up some of the harshness of Eastern thoughts and phrases; some Slavic expressions cannot be replaced by Russian ones: no matter how you soften or refine Russian words, they cannot be as decent, as modest as Slavic ones. Thus, the Slavic Bible is less dangerous than the Russian translation. The danger of the appearance of a Russian translation would be further increased by the fact that in human societies several views on things usually appear, which are good, bad and mixed, pure and selfish. Let the translation of the Old Testament appear, then these parties will pay all their attention to it, and since they will look from different sides, gossip, rumors and disagreements will immediately appear. That is why politicians and legislators often stick to antiquity and do not change what needs to be changed, depending on the circumstances. And we could have this difference of opinion, because we also have different views. There is a capricious, foreign view, and there is a homely, ancient view (not a true ancient view, since it exists in the teaching of our Church, but an ancient view such as exists in the minds and hearts of people); There are also middle-of-the-road views, driven not by truth, but by self-will. Judging by the difference in these views, it must be assumed that the translation of the Old Testament must be subject to many unfair influences. There is also a rather reasonable obstacle: the concepts of the common people are such that they do not know in what language the Bible is printed; they think that it came from God Himself just as it is, in this form, in the same language, and in the same format. Even those who should be more educated than others think this way. For example, in Moscow, many Old Believers teach their children according to the ancient alphabet, according to the so-called “divinely inspired book,” which is in Smirdin’s catalogue. In this state of affairs, obvious harm can occur from translating Russian, and therefore the rule of Christian prudence requires that this be a matter of time. So, here is the fourth source of religion - the Holy Scripture, a divinely inspired source, complete, clear and perfect in relation to the goal, given to everyone, and in relation to the New Testament, can be used with benefit by everyone. Of the four sources of revelation that we have shown, the first two - direct illumination from the Holy Spirit and the appearance of famous men - are not their own, and the last two - tradition and Holy Scripture - are the own, direct and definite sources of religion. Is it possible to dwell on these four sources or, in fact, on the last two? In assessing the sources of revelation, we must be guided by the following axiom: Providence can make religion flow through as many sources, and through as many ways will transmit it as necessary. Now let us imagine a religion current in four or, in fact, in the last two sources: is this sufficient for the purpose? No! For how difficult it is to draw religion from tradition, even for scientists who have devoted their whole lives to it! For us this source almost does not exist. It existed in the first centuries, when the apostles told others, and these, hearing from them, passed on to others; now this is gone. But maybe Scripture is such a source that everyone can be satisfied with, and from which everyone can draw? And this is not the case! In our most enlightened times, among the French and English, the common people do not know how to read; what can we say about other nations? Therefore, Scripture does not exist for most of the human race. Consequently, in addition to these sources, a new one is also needed, (but) not because they are insufficient, but because the condition of people prevents their proper use. Let's explain this with an example: imagine that all written people left some province; after this, the faith of the inhabitants of this province remains, for it is in their hearts, but they will die and pass it on to their children with imperfections; these will be transmitted with even greater deficiency, so that after a hundred years only faint traces of faith will remain. Let us also imagine that some people who do not know Christianity have the Bible in a language unknown to them; he will keep it, but Christianity will remain unknown to him. So, we need a fifth source - not dead, but alive; We need a class of people that would transmit religion to those who do not know writing. Pastors and teachers are given by God Himself; the Holy Spirit passes to them through ordination, successively from the apostles. They constitute a hierarchy, or representative Church. Its purposes (are) different, such as: to perform the Sacraments, to judge the conscience, but its main purpose is to convey with a living voice what is contained in the dead in tradition and Scripture. This is proven, firstly, by the example of the apostles or, better, the primacy of the Church, where the successors of the apostles did what the apostles themselves did, and the apostles, as is known, were the bodies of religion; secondly, by the testimony of the Apostle Paul, who says that Jesus Christ gave shepherds so that they would lead believers to salvation, teach and explain religion to them, and thus preserve the unity of the faith. Thus, hierarchy is the fifth source of religion. The power of this word, that is, the source, is taken differently here. In the first two sources, religion is contained materially; here, on the contrary, it is contained immaterially; she passes through this class as if through a canal; This source does not give either new systems or new rules, but only explains and reveals the old ones. Consequently, in relation to previous sources it has the meaning of an explanatory, interpretive source, and in relation to the people it has the meaning of a material source, for the people receive all religion from their shepherds. This duality of its meaning was the reason that theology did not include it among its sources. This relationship of the church hierarchy to the sources of religion can be expressed in the name of interpreters, witnesses and, in doubtful cases, judges. The latter property was especially expressed at the Ecumenical Councils. So, the need for a fifth source is based on the inability of the common people to use the previous ones. Consequently, they will say: this source is needed only for the common people, and not for scientists? No! and scientists need it. True, scientists themselves can draw from tradition and Scripture, but at the same time they may differ in their opinions and may disagree; With this disagreement it is impossible to achieve unity, but it is necessary; therefore, a judge is necessary to reconcile differences. Where is this judge? It may have human or divine importance. It cannot be sought among people, for there is very little human authority for this. You cannot look for it either in Scripture or in tradition, for there is debate about them. Such a judge is the Church; Even the most learned person calms down on her authority. There cannot be any other judge on earth. All right-thinking scientists listen to her. In cases of doubt, they usually accompany this opinion with the following reservations: it seems so to me, but I am always ready to subordinate my opinion to the voice of the Church... etc. Thus, the class of shepherds is the source of the Christian religion, it is a living organ bestowed by God Himself. Pastors are the guardians of Christianity, teachers, interpreters and judges for the highest purpose. What is the authority of the representative Church in this regard? The Word of God is undoubtedly contained in Scripture; in legends also; Is what we hear from the mouth of the Church equally certain? This will happen when all the shepherds agree with each other, and when the Holy Spirit will act on them as on the apostles. But does the Church have the right to assimilate such an action of the Spirit? and does he assimilate? – learns, but in different ways. Thus, Catholics learn a lot in this case; they claim that just as the apostles were freed from error, so was the Church; that is, they claim that the Church is infallible. Where is this infallibility? In the representative Church and, completely, in the pope, and in parts - in the bishops. Where is it expressed? In meetings that the pope makes orally or in writing with bishops. This is the opinion of Catholics. The opinion of the Eastern Church is that the Church is infallible; but what Church? For the Church is divided into a representative one - the class of sacred persons, and generally understood as the totality of all Christians. Which one is infallible? The answer is twofold: the strictest one, contained in the “Stone of Faith,” agrees with the opinion of Catholics, according to which the Representative Church is credited with infallibility in the Ecumenical Councils, only! The other, the most moderate, is found in theological systems. According to this opinion, infallibility is attributed to everyone collectively; but it is impossible to indicate who exactly it belongs to. Among men, no one is infallible; the Holy Spirit alone is infallible; There is no specific authority of infallibility. But they will say: is this a play on words? No. The Holy Spirit is infallible, since this infallibility is expressed in the Church; but in whom exactly it is expressed cannot be determined. Thus, in our Church there are two opinions: the Church is infallible in relation to the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church is infallible in general. We will see this duality in many cases. The last opinion is in the system of Irenaeus Fyalkovsky. And indeed, the entire Church is infallible; for if it were all fallible, it would become impoverished and eclipsed. Moreover, the apostles promise the latter infallibility in the most moderate sense, for they say that the Church will never become poor: the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), this is where its infallibility lies, that is, the errors and deceptions of Satan will not seduce it. Therefore, we must believe in such infallibility, although it is mysterious to us. On the contrary, it is indecent to accept the Catholic opinion. For in this case, the action of the Holy Spirit is subject to mathematical calculations, and this is absurd. Here are five sources of religion: general illumination - a private, practical source; the appearance of special husbands is an indirect, uncertain source; legend is a very extensive source at first, then very brief, and now too difficult to apply; Scripture is a divinely inspired source, complete and clear for purpose, and, finally, the representative Church is a living, interpretive source. This is the doctrine of sources. It seems that we have given each of them their due, as the truth required. What is the relationship between these sources? In particular, how does universal illumination relate to Scripture? Without it one cannot truly understand the Holy Scriptures. But is this true? Is it really impossible to understand, as some say, its true meaning without it? You can't, it's true; but you need to know how to understand this “impossible.” It is impossible to understand practically, that is, it is impossible to accept the Divine truths from the heart, but historical and logical understanding of the meaning is possible even without such insight. If we understand the meaning of human writings in a natural way, then why can’t we understand the meaning of Divine Scripture in the same way? It is impossible to understand the meaning of Holy Scripture without the special illumination of the Holy Spirit also because its meaning is not the same; it may be more intimate or more extensive. The word is always closer than thought, and therefore can never convey the full meaning. How can we now add to the understanding of the literal meaning the understanding of the true meaning - to embrace the Divine thought? Not otherwise than with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. From these two sides, that is, from the side of the practical understanding of the Holy Scripture and from the side of its inability to be contained in dead writings, the illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the understanding of the Holy Scripture. Two more questions: how to draw religion from these sources, and what is Divine and undivine in them? Let us first resolve the last question: what is undivine in Scripture? Not everything in Scripture is divine, for there are sayings in it that are not worthy of revelation; such, for example, are the sayings of evil spirits or people like them. Therefore, it is natural to ask what line separates what belongs to revelation from what is not proper for it? The question is obviously important, although it has often been overlooked. The solution to this question is easy where divinely inspired writers introduce evil spirits or malicious and wicked people as speakers. Everything they say no longer belongs to revelation. But the solution to this question becomes difficult when, in the own speech of a divinely inspired writer, we want to distinguish the Divine from the human. For even the holy writers did not all speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They themselves admit this. For example, the Apostle Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:12) directly admits that he speaks on his own: To the rest I say. What, in this case, is accepted as the Divine, or as a rule of faith and activity, and what is not? Here one can make a division of the Divine from the human on the basis of the following features: 1) Where writers clearly say that this is their own thought, there is no need to look for inspiration; for example, the Apostle Paul speaks on his own behalf regarding marriage (1 Cor. 7:1–12). 2) What is said in relation to one well-known person, place or time should not be considered divinely inspired; such are all private, personal or local regulations. However, since the most particular truth is based on one general idea, then, without recognizing as inspired any particular, fractional rule, its general spirit must be recognized as such, and this spirit must be accepted as the rule of faith and activity, although part of it, some particular rule, cannot be accepted in this way. For example, the Apostle Paul writes: “Now I say this, brethren, because the time has ceased to exist; This command, as a very private one, pronounced by the apostle at the request of local circumstances in which the Corinthians found themselves, cannot be accepted as a rule of activity and does not belong to revelation; but its spirit, or the main idea that lies at its basis, is Divine, and we must always follow the following rule: “in the most extreme circumstances, we must leave for a while the execution of family laws.” Another example. From all the writings of the Apostle Paul it is clear that he collected alms for the Jerusalem Church. Can this rule apply to everyone? Is it possible to order that alms be collected everywhere and always for the Church of Jerusalem? No. But the spirit that underlies this particular truth is universal. The rule that “Churches must mutually help one another” is a Divine rule, and therefore must be fulfilled by everyone and always. 3) When a writer speaks for himself, but for sufficient reasons it is clear that he is not expressing his own opinion, but the opinion of others, then this opinion of his should not be recognized as frank. For example, this can be affirmed in the following place, if only we give them the meaning that we give it, for others give it a different meaning. Jesus Christ answers the Canaanite wife: I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Here, in our opinion, Jesus Christ in His person represents the Jews and His disciples, who thought so, and does not express His own opinion. Perhaps they will say: He says here that He was sent personally to teach only the Jews, for His personal preaching, indeed, did not concern the pagans. But if so, then is it proper for Him to think and express itself in this way: it is not good to take away a child’s bread and damage it with a dog (Matthew 15:26). No! It is better to take this thought not as frank, but as a Jewish one, which Jesus only repeats in His own person. This is one of the experiences of His wisdom. He temporarily adopted this way of thinking in order to influence both his disciples and the Canaanite wife herself. This goal was achieved, for the disciples were moved and began to ask Him for mercy, and the wife was thereby called to great faith. 4) Should all evidence be accepted as frank? In general, it is known that revelation contains various kinds of truths: theoretical, practical, historical, and others. These truths have been proven in various ways. Judging strictly, we must admit that we need one truth, and not evidence. The proofs were offered by holy writers not for subsequent Christians, but for contemporaries. We believe that revelation is Divine, and therefore we demand truth from it, and not evidence of truth. Evidence was needed for those who accepted it for the first time. Various proofs were used for them, which often convinced them not so much by their inner strength as by their close relationship and adaptation to them, and therefore for us, who are in a different relationship, they may be weak. Their relative and, therefore, non-divine dignity is evident from the fact that the apostles, speaking with the pagans, used some evidence, and when convincing the Jews, they offered others, which would be completely weak for the pagans. An example of this can be seen in the Epistle to the Galatians, where the Apostle Paul proves that the Old Testament passed through an allegory borrowed from the history of the patriarchs, that is, the fate of Sarah and Hagar: This is an allegory: this is for there are two covenants (Gal. 4:24). For a Jew this is strong, but for a pagan it could not be so. Thus, in applying divine inspiration to proofs, it must always be remembered that the proofs spoken in relation to the state of the hearers do not belong to revelation proper. 5) Revelation should include what concerns faith and salvation, for example, knowledge about God, salvation, rules of activity, etc. But other subjects that do not belong here, for example, astronomy, natural history and other truths, or subjects that constitute small fragments of revelation, should not be classified as revealed truths. Revelation leaves them to themselves, allows them to flow in a natural order, without changing their course in the least. It assumes to be true what is true among the people, and what is often not so in itself. For example, the revolution of the sun and so on. Therefore, these inconsistencies with the present way of thinking do not belong to revelation. Thus, this is what can be said to resolve the question: what constitutes the will of God in Scripture or tradition, and what does not? It is impossible to draw a precise and strict line, and, probably, this line was not indicated in order to provide more objects for faith and more food for thought. The features we have shown are partly enough, and they should be remembered; otherwise, you can end up with important theoretical and practical errors. From ignorance of this, the popes theoretically sinned when they persecuted astronomers who claimed that the sun stands and the earth moves, for Joshua confirmed the opposite; the heretics practically sinned in ancient times, and some private sects are now sinning, which, having turned some private institutions into universal ones, have reached the point of extravagance. Let us turn to the second question: How should religion be derived from the Scriptures? How to Explain Scripture? What is the main beginning of this explanation? What is the use and purpose? These objects on one side belong to hermeneutics, because they have historical significance; but there is a dogmatic side here. What is the interpretative principle of Scripture? This must be determined by dogmatism. So, how should Scripture and tradition explain? More private and separate: is this the way all other scriptures are explained, or is there a special way of explanation for the Holy Scriptures? Is universal hermeneutics also biblical hermeneutics, or is it significantly different from the first? First, let us show what the beginning of any hermeneutics in general is. This beginning is the following: to find out the meaning of Scripture through recognizing, using all historical methods, the meaning of words. This is the same beginning in hermeneutics. But is it enough? Partly enough; Having learned the meaning of holy words through three main ways: philological, determining the properties of language, archaeological, relating to antiquities, and material, relating to objects, one can find out the meaning of Scripture. This beginning must be supplemented, as they do, with an analogy of faith. But they object to this. They say that to accept the analogy of faith means to act against logic - against the laws of common thinking. For the analogy of faith is drawn from Scripture; consequently, it is compiled in no other way than through recognition of the truths, or, what is the same, the meaning of Scripture, and therefore determining the meaning of Scripture by the analogy of faith is the same as determining it by oneself; obviously there is a logical circle here. In this imagination there is a part of the truth and, moreover, an undeniable one: For if, for example, a non-Christian wanted to read the Holy Scriptures, then how could he be guided (guided - ed.) by the analogy of faith when he does not have it at all? But in order to resolve it, you need to do this: you need to distinguish between the state of the readers - the state of faith and unbelief. If an unbeliever reads the Holy Scriptures, then he must confine himself for a while to one principle of universal hermeneutics; later, he himself will add to this the analogy of faith, that is, the idea will be born in him that the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, that divine messengers cannot contradict themselves, and this is the analogy of faith with which the meaning of the Scriptures must be verified (verified - ed.). We would do the same if, between the doctrine of revelation in general and the Divinity of the Christian religion, we began to consider the Holy Scriptures; in this case, we would determine its meaning, guided by one principle of reason. Thus, for unbelievers and doubters, the analogy of faith cannot be the beginning that determines the meaning of Scripture: it is the beginning for the faithful alone. Some try very hard to defend the analogy of faith, but this is unnecessary work. The honor of the Scriptures will stand without this, for there is nothing contradictory in them, except for some contradictions that are too unimportant and most inevitable after so many centuries of their existence. II. Composition of the Christian religion We have seen the Divinity of the Christian religion, and how it is contained in its sources. Now, according to the usual course of systems, we should turn to a particular presentation of dogmatic and moral truths. But a private survey of the truths of religion is partly known to us; Moreover, a thing is learned not so much from its parts as from an overview of its entire volume. Therefore, let us dwell on a general overview of religion, consider its main composition, then delve into its particular types in which it exists, finally, we will indicate the general features of the spirit of each Church and conclude by showing the distinctive spirit of our Church. After this, we will begin to present particular truths: first theoretical, and then practical. So, the most important aspects in this review will be the following: A. Let us consider the entire composition of the Christian religion in relation to the human mind; Let us show, that is, in what relation the Christian revelation stands to the principles of the mind in general. This is necessary because when presenting dogmas we will often refer to this. For example, in the doctrine of original sin, the logical mind will immediately turn against it, and therefore it will be necessary to reconcile the principles of religion with its principles. B. Let us show the relationship of the Christian religion in general to other religions: how is it similar to them and how is it different? B. Let's explore her relationship to earthly life, or to citizenship. From now on, let's look at the composition of religion in general. D. Then we will outline its types and distinctive characters. D. Finally, let us conclude by showing the distinctive features inherent in the spirit of our Greek-Eastern Church. A. On the composition of the Christian religion and its relation to the mind In the composition of the Christian religion, two sides must be distinguished: the natural, which consists in the truths of the mind, repeated by revelation, and the supernatural, which consists in the totality of truths not comprehended by the mind. It is this last side that should attract our attention; we should primarily concern ourselves with it. What is the main truth that combines the whole essence of the Christian religion? The Apostle Paul expressed this truth. Regarding redemption, he says: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). This is the essence of Christianity: God reconciled the world to himself through Jesus Christ; in other words: Christianity consists in the restoration of the world by Jesus Christ, or in the Divine restoration of humanity through the Son of God. Therefore, restoration is the essence of the Christian religion. Now this restoration on the part of Jesus Christ has been done once and for all, as the Apostle Paul writes about this in the Epistle to the Hebrews: complete (Heb. 10:10), that is, he has sanctified and purified those who enter His Church. But this restoration, accomplished by Jesus Christ once and forever, on the part of the human race begins in this life - in time, and will be completely accomplished beyond the grave - in eternity; here the moral restoration begins - the perfection of the soul is achieved, and there the physical restoration is accomplished - bodily perfection is achieved. How does this happen? In general, this is done by God, but it is actually done through the second Person of the Holy Trinity - through the eternal Word. And how does It do this? Mainly It accomplishes this through incarnation, that is, through the acceptance of fallen nature, which It wanted to restore. But close connection with this nature is not enough. It is required that It die for the reconciliation of the just Godhead with transgressed humanity. This is the last condition, without which restoration cannot be accomplished. Thus, in general, the essence of Christianity is the restoration of humanity and the world; peace - because the view of those who limit themselves to the restoration of humanity is wrong. Scripture in many places shows that the restoration extends to the whole world, for it is said that at the end of the present world there will be a new heaven, a new earth (Rev. 21:1); in particular, in the incarnation of the second Person of the Holy Trinity; more specifically, in the death of Jesus Christ; even more particularly – in the Cross of Christ. This is the essence of theoretical Christianity, showing only action on the part of God, but this action must be assimilated by man. How is it absorbed? Firstly, with the mind - faith, secondly, with the heart - life, holiness. Thus, the essence of active Christianity is faith with love, or with holiness. This is the composition of Christianity, theoretical and practical! This restoration begins here, and from the moral side it is accomplished here, but from the physical side it ends and is accomplished in eternity; From there, hope is added to faith and love on the part of man. This main thought of the apostle, that Christ reconciles God with the world, presupposes the doctrine of the damage of man and the world. Without this, Christianity cannot stand. This is all about real life; but in the future, all those changes that must follow the restoration are necessarily presupposed, namely: the general resurrection and the change of the whole world into a better state. This is the basis of hope, and this is what distinguishes Christianity from all natural religions. In this plan of Divine restoration, extraneous, alien beings are introduced, who are of two kinds: 1) good creatures; They participate in relation to God as servants and doers of His will, and in relation to man - as his helpers and friends; 2) evil creatures; their effect is negative. They rebel against restoration: Jesus Christ is presented as its restorer, and the devil as its adversary. Here are the actions of the introductory persons. This action of restoration and reconciliation in the Holy Scriptures is presented under the guise of the kingdom in two forms: man was first a faithful subject, then he rebelled, overthrew the Kingdom of God and came under the power of Satan. Jesus Christ restores it, but gradually. Hence the first Kingdom of God is bright, and the second kingdom of Satan is evil. These two kingdoms are often presented in Scripture, and especially in the New Testament. Here is the composition, plan and main conditions of the Christian religion! How is this plan of Christianity set forth in Scripture? In the Holy Scriptures, these truths are presented historically: how has the Kingdom of God progressed since its beginning, what changes has it endured, how did it reach the New Testament, how was it transformed here? All this is presented there in accordance with historical events. In this historical image we notice three main eras: 1) the patriarchal Church, 2) the subordinate Church and 3) the Christian Church proper. How are these three eras different? In church history, which speaks of its division into periods, this difference is shown, but this difference is moral and mystical. Their own dogmatic-moral difference may be as follows: 1) Patriarchal religion is the same as natural or, in other words, philosophical. Positive revealed teaching here appears only in seeds and is concluded in a divinatory manner in sacrifices. Everything that distinguishes it from the natural one constitutes Epiphanies - Theophanies. But this distinctive feature is very inconspicuous, for it was a flicker reflected in the smallest members. The character of this religion is simplicity, naturalness, and childishness. In relation to the Christian religion, this is a weak dawn, where only weak rays are visible, and the sun, the Savior Himself, is not yet there. 2) The Mosaic religion, in the strict sense, must be divided into two sections: the last half, starting from the time of David, differs in a sharp way from the first. She is more Christian. Here a series of prophecies, sacrifices and rituals are presented, here morality is so elevated that the price of sacrifices falls. The first half of this religion is more similar in spirit to the religion of the patriarchs. The general character of this era is expressed by the Apostle Paul, calling it a religion of works. True, it did not exclude, as he says, faith, but the law mainly required works, and they took precedence over faith; This is where it differs from the Christian religion, where works are also needed, but faith takes precedence over them. A spirit of fear reigned there, for a righteous man always fears the severity of the law. Here, on the contrary, the spirit of filial fearlessness reigns, for faith covers all sins. Thus, in essence, these three religions are one and the same, only in the patriarchal religion the natural law prevails, with a small beginning of faith, in the Mosaic - the law, written with greater power of faith in relation to the patriarchal religion, but with less in relation to the law; in the Christian faith, faith dominates everything, everything is permeated and enlivened by it. Here is the composition of Christianity, developed by period. What is the nature of this teaching of Christianity? What are its core truths? All of them, in school language, are properties of the metaphysical. The human race is restored by God; the second Person of the Holy Trinity descends from heaven to earth, does wonderful things and ascends to heaven again. Thus, the basis of Christianity is from the supersensible world. Instead of Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, Christians are given the Holy Spirit, who does not appear, but acts invisibly, excluding some private phenomena. Again a Person from another world - an Actor who exceeds the concept of reason. The beginning of restoration and, therefore, Christianity is the fall of man, the action is seemingly visible, but only its shell is visible - the form; the transition of evil to all people, its effect on the soul is completely imperceptible and invisible to us. The future expectation of a Christian is also incomprehensible to reason. Thus, the Christian religion is supernatural, it goes beyond the limits of the mind. The introductory persons, good and evil, also have this sign, for they are from another supersensible world. So, if by some accident all human metaphysics were destroyed, then the metaphysical truths would remain in the Holy Scriptures. It will not cease to resolve the main metaphysical problems - about the beginning of things, about their fate and end. And those who say that the mind slanderes revelation and opposes it are themselves slanderers and opponents. But how are these metaphysical subjects presented in the Holy Scriptures? They are presented not at all metaphysically, not as in philosophical systems, as, for example, the Stoics spoke about the restoration of things, but in a language generally understandable to everyone; Christianity speaks not to the mind, not to logical reason, but to good feeling and common sense. Here are his listeners! His tongue is turned and adapted to them. Hence, anthropomorphism and anthropopathetism dominate in the Holy Scriptures - an image of expression removed from the sensual forms and features of man and nature. (Anthropomorphism is a way of thinking taken from a person, and anthropopathetism is a way of expression concerning moral inclinations.) It is very necessary to know that in the Holy Scriptures supersensible truths are presented in a sensual way, in features taken from external nature and, especially, from humanity, because theological errors can arise from forgetting this. Why should this be kept in mind? Because these human-like and world-like expressions do not express the thing as it is in itself; So, if you take the expression as the truth itself, then an inconsistency will result. Let's illustrate this with an example. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the Holy Scriptures is called the Word, the Wisdom of God, the Son, etc. All these names are borrowed from man and express very little of the essence of God. Take them for the thing itself, what will happen then? - a complete incongruity. Another example: the foundation of Christianity is the fall of man, a deep corruption, a misfortune that befell the human race. This is beyond doubt, for the human race has been in poverty for a long time. But how is this action expressed? What is it called?.. Original sin is an insufficient expression. For sin presupposes freedom, and we were subjected to this effect through the first man. That is why there is a quarrel between theologians, between reason and revelation. Reason rightfully stands against this, for the word “sin” does not express that single action of man through which the entire human race became unhappy. Consequently, when discussing these truths, one must distinguish words from things; one must not think that a word contains everything that a thing contains: it contains something, but not everything. Therefore, it is not good to build theories based on the signification of words. Christianity is given to feeling and common sense, and not to dialectical and logical reason, which by its fragmentation harms it. Many heresies owe their origin to this latter reason. It is known that in the first eight centuries many people were converted near the Face of Jesus Christ. Why is this? Because dialectics began to look at this; wanted, on the basis of her laws, to explain how the Divine united with humanity - the Infinite with the finite! In what relation do the Divine Persons relate to one another? Guided by the laws of dialectics, they decided to find in the Person of Jesus Christ, and in the Divine Persons in general, everything that is in the definition of “person” made by Aristotle. From here it turned out that some of these wise men fell into tritheism, while others, for example Savelius, Praxeus and Novatius, did not separate the three Persons of the Divine in the same way as the Orthodox Church does, but recognized them only as special powers. If Christianity presents supersensible objects in a sensual way, then in order to understand it, one must interpret it according to the same principles, that is, consult with feeling and common sense. From here follows the following necessary consequence: some Christians may have a higher, deeper view of these same subjects, that is, the mind, taking advantage of the teaching of revelation, can go further, and from here Christian philosophy becomes possible, which ascends beyond those principles set forth in the Holy Scriptures, and also descends to further consequences. The Apostle Paul mentions this philosophy, possible and permissible for those who can philosophize in this way, when he advises and asks to go further in the understanding of Jesus Christ and the love of God (cf. Rom. 5:8), which serves as the basis of human scripture. This shows that not everything is stated in Scripture, and that the mind can go further. Scripture has said how much is needed for the salvation of all mankind, but there may be greater illumination from the Holy Spirit and therefore greater understanding of the plan of our salvation; even the mind itself, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, on the basis of these two ABCs, the Old and New Testaments, on the basis of this catechism, can reveal more than what is contained here. This is what the holy fathers did: they expounded Christian dogmas more clearly and completely than as they are found in the Holy Scriptures. New godly men do this too, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and sound reason. This can be done with any dogma, for this human-likeness lies in all dogmas, both in the Old and in the New Testament, and, moreover, in the first even more than in the last. Therefore, when introducing texts into sermons, one must observe this difference: the same truth in the Old Testament is presented in a lower way, and in the New Testament – ​​in a higher way, and as a result of this, the strong expression of the Old Testament often does not suit us, because we have a stronger way of expression for this. Here is the composition of Christianity, its properties and relationship to the mind. This subject, which is too extensive, is clearly presented here only in fragments. B. On the relationship of Christianity to other religions What is the relationship of the Christian religion to other existing religions? Is this relationship a relationship of opposition or similarity? Neither one nor the other in the strict sense, and separately, and partly opposite, partly similar. Let's use a comparison: Christianity in relation to other religions is the same as the midday light for people living under the equator in relation to the sun's light for the inhabitants of other parts of the globe. The light is the same; the difference is only one of degree. Some peoples in this respect can be equal to people living at the pole, where the sun's rays have little effect; some have more light and warmth; but Christians are those inhabitants who have the sun above their heads. Another comparison: Christianity can be compared with an adult person who understands his duties well, and other religions - with immatures who come in different types: some of them can only babble: “God, eternity, hell”; others know more. Thus, in Christianity there is no opposition with other religions regarding natural objects; but it is similar to them in positive objects. There is an opinion that Christianity is universal in spirit; This opinion is fair, because in all religions everything that is in Christianity is more or less decent. Thus, the foundation of Christianity is the doctrine of the fall of man. It exists in all religions: everyone believed in a golden, lost age and expected its restoration (“everyone” in the strict sense, even the wild ones). Everyone recognized sin as the source of evil and, therefore, saved the honor of the Creator. Many, especially the Eastern ones, explained the image of this terrible catastrophe in a very similar way. The focus of Christianity is the restoration from this upheaval by God. This dogma also exists in all religions - in some secretly, and in others more noticeably: 1) secretly, since all nations allowed sacrifices with which God is propitiated, justifies man and, therefore, raises him; 2) obviously, because among eastern peoples, for example, among Indians, the second person, Vishnu, incarnates to save the world and man from destruction; the Egyptians do the same thing with a good beginning, among the Persians - Arimazd, and among the Greeks - Dionysius. Christianity restores the world through the incarnation of the second Person. The same applies to other peoples, mainly Indians. Further, Christianity speaks of the death of this Restorer; the Indians say the same about their Vishnu, the Egyptians about their good beginning, which, in their opinion, was killed by Typhon; the Greeks - about their Dionysius, who even descends into hell and comes out again. The Indians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks all have traits of resurrection. The features of the appearance of the Deliverer from the unartificial Virgin are visible in the fact that all nations attributed the origin of great people to the inspiration of higher powers. The second main dogma of Christianity is the doctrine of the effects of grace. And it is striking among the Indians, and all the holy books of other nations speak of the moral action of God on the soul. Thus, we find the main tenets of the Christian religion in other religions. As for the doctrine of good and evil spirits, there is even more similarity in this regard. Where does this similarity come from? This is explained in different ways. The common path is a legend, that is, as if the patriarchs passed all this on to the peoples who descended from them. This explanation is natural; but, on the other hand, what can be said against it is that, considering the religion of the patriarchs and Moses, we do not find there the same shades of Christianity in which it appears among these peoples. The assumption that Moses did not write everything that was revealed to the patriarchs may help here. This is how one can think in the discussion of those dogmas that are contained in this religion, that is, one can believe that the patriarchs understood them more extensively; but for them to know all the shades of Christianity by revelation in which it appears among other peoples is still doubtful. There is another way to explain this similarity, which is quite remarkable. In human nature there is a predisposition to everything that we encounter in Christianity. Why did Christianity appear in this and not another form? Because that’s how human nature works. The image of its appearance is determined by need, and need is determined by the disposition of human nature. Consequently, the mind could even before, although in the dark, guess what Christianity would produce, for it itself saw what human nature needed. They will say: he could have done this too late. No! this could be done by living instinct, that is, the unconscious action of all the forces of the soul acting together, and instinct reveals itself very early and always before logical reason. B. On the relationship of the Christian religion to earthly life or citizenship What is the relationship of the Christian religion to citizenship - does it concern civil life or not? As for the Mosaic religion, it not only concerned politics, but was closely connected with it, so that an ecclesiastical crime was also a civil crime, and vice versa. But this is not the case in Christianity; it is completely separate from politics. The main subject of Christianity is morality; it leaves politics as it found it, without in the least changing the rights of civil and mutual social relations. If it has produced any change in political societies, it is not in a direct way: it is a consequence of the moral change of people brought about by the Christian religion. For example, some despot, after accepting the Christian religion, becomes a meek and kind master; he does this not because this is clearly required by the religion he has adopted, for it says nothing about slavery, but because the image of his moral activity has changed in him, that he has come to know his true relationship to humanity, for the religion he has accepted has told him that in Christ Jesus everyone is equal, both free and slave. Consequently, the attitude of New Testament Christianity to politics is the following: it does not contain any civil laws and regulations, but only confirms and sanctifies some of them; such are, for example, the obedience of subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and so on. It also does not make any changes in civil life, but only changes moral life, the change of which is itself followed by a change in civil life. Why is the religion of Moses connected with citizenship, and the religion of Jesus Christ separated from it? Are any of these religions bad? For they will say: if Moses did good by combining religion with politics, then Jesus did bad by separating one from the other, and vice versa. But we will say that both did very well. Let us prove our opinion: it was both necessary and possible to combine religion with citizenship; necessary because without this she would soon be completely lost; citizenship was her support. We see that civil ties were weak (in order - ed.) to support the Israelites in religion, and with political severity they often fell into idolatry; what would happen without her? Without this connection, the Jews would have forgotten their God forever. So Moses was forced to combine politics with religion; but in Christianity there is no such need at all. There were and are heresies, but there is not and will not be complete apostasy. No history says that an entire nation has fallen behind the true God. In the Mosaic religion it was possible and easy to combine politics with religion because here there was one people in action; in Christianity it is impossible, for it extends to the entire human race. Consequently, in the latter case, it is necessary to subordinate all nations to one form of government; but can this be done given such a variety of countries, climates, and other personal and local circumstances? Should we admit that different forms of government are given? But why allow this excess, when Christianity already produces the same effects, albeit indirectly, but powerfully? Such different forms would not bring benefit, but harm, for each people would begin to prefer its own form of government to another. The immediate consequence of this would be mutual hatred of peoples. Thus, Old Testament religion is connected with politics because this connection was necessary and convenient at that time; and New Testament religion is not combined with citizenship because it is both difficult and impossible, and in its further consequences it is harmful. This separation of the Christian religion from politics, on the other hand, proves its Divinity. All those false messengers, who acted to please their passions and had earthly views, combined religion with politics. Mohammed was a king in a certain respect; Jesus Christ does not do this because he acts for one known purpose. This reproach does not come to Moses, for he does not have any selfish views; died in poverty, chose as his successor not a relative, but a man from another tribe, and left his descendants in their former private life. Consequently, it was not his own selfish arbitrariness that led him to combine politics with religion, but the need of the people to whom he communicated it. D. About the different types of the Christian religion, or about the different Churches Why does Christianity exist in different forms? Why did it split into so many churches or sects? Let's see what is the spirit of each Church and, in particular, what is the spirit of our Church, and what is its relationship to others? But let us preface this by resolving the following question: why did Christianity not remain in its first unity? Where are the reasons for this degeneration (division - ed.) of Christian Churches and many sects? These reasons are hidden either in Christianity itself, or in people, in Christians. The height of Christian teaching, accepted with many strict restrictions, is partly a reason for disagreement. The mind, having undertaken to judge the Christian Sacraments, is perplexed in many ways, and therefore is mistaken. The second reason of the same kind may be that the Christian religion is presented in human language, which, due to its uncertainty, can always be a reason for differences of opinion. Thus, in religion itself one can find not reasons or sources for the division of Churches, but only one possibility, which is brought into reality by people themselves. Doesn't this make a complaint about Providence? No, because it could not be avoided. How can human language be defined in all precision? How can religion be made sufficient for the purpose by excluding the Sacraments from it? The reasons hidden in people are of two kinds: inevitable and avoidable. There is one inevitable reason, namely: the natural difference of minds, or talents. This is where the difference in views comes from, because this is why one and the same truth is understood differently in the minds of people, even well-intentioned ones. Millions of people can agree that they say one thing and understand one thing, but you cannot force even two people to imagine the same thing in the same way; It is possible to create formal unity in the words and concepts of people, but this cannot be done in thoughts, at least in the current state of mind. But the effect of this reason does not extend far, for although minds accept the truth differently, this difference concerns only the shades of the truth, and not its very middle or essence. The only thing that would happen from the difference of minds is that one would have a more superficial view of religion, and the other a deeper one; one would see its consequences, and the other would see the very causes, and therefore one would be guided by one simple faith, and the other by Christian philosophy. All these views would be nothing more than parts of one general view. So, this reason in itself is of little effect; it is reinforced by the following main and at the same time easily avoidable reason for the disagreement of Christians, that is, the passions of people, under the name of which one can understand a generally unclean state of mind - both theoretical and practical. This main true reason for the division of Christians began to operate very early. The Church did not remain in unity for long. Within the Apostolic Church itself, different views already existed. The acceptance of pagans into the Christian Church, the attitude of Christianity to Judaism and, especially, the ritual law were at that time the subject of judgment and even controversy. These subjects were understood differently, so that the apostles seemed to others to be indecisive: not in the principles, but in the application of these principles to private actions. For example, the Apostle Peter seemed shameful to the Apostle Paul. After the times of the apostles, this difference of views turned into a difference of opinions. From the 2nd century, Gnostic heretics, sects of Greek heretics, and others began to appear. Since the 11th century there has been a clear division of the Churches, and since the 15th century there has been an even greater fragmentation. Did these fragmentations follow any laws or were they just a matter of chance? Among this diversity one can find general laws according to which all these views on the Christian religion were directed. Different views of Christianity can and have been directed from the following three points: I) from the side of his Divinity - his origin and beginning; II) from the side of the internal and external state - the relationship of religion to the Church and the Church to religion; III) from the side of Christian theory or practice, abstraction or life, speculation or experience. Christianity is visible from all these sides; the extremes of these views are open; a middle ground has been found where our Russian and the Greek-Eastern Church in general has settled. I) What could be the opposite extremes of the first view? The first extreme is the extreme of unbelief. Christianity, they say, is divine only in the lightest sense, that is, it is divine in the same way as everything good in the human race, but not at all miraculous - the divinity of Christianity is natural. This view, which does not distinguish Christianity from natural religion, was expressed in the latest neological French, German and English acts, among rationalists, deists, and others who do not reject the Divinity of the Christian religion, but this Divinity they accept is only a shadow of divinity. Another extreme: the Christian religion is divine in the strictest sense, so that there is nothing natural in its composition, and everything that concerns the holy code, even its letter and format, is divine. This view was expressed not in entire Christian societies, but in the minds of private individuals. This, if any, should primarily include our schismatic talk, which has gone to the opposite extreme in comparison with foreigners, especially in relation to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. This extreme is the extreme of superstition. The average opinion in this regard is the following: the Christian religion is Divine; she came to us from above; but it contained a lot of natural things; Providence, having used miracles, did not leave natural means. This average opinion is accepted by all the main Churches, both in ancient times and today. In relation to the code of revelation, that is, regarding the number of sources, it can be argued that the source of Christian revelation is one, namely the Holy Scripture, as do the Lutherans and the Reformers; It is also possible to place the tradition and teaching of the Church above Scripture, which Catholics accept; One can, finally, as the Quakers and Inspirits think, place inner illumination above all else. Average opinion: all available sources should be used; the main sources are tradition and Scripture; internal illumination cannot be completely eliminated, but due to its uncertainty, instability and infidelity in the minds of people, it loses the height that is attributed to it. In relation to the way of interpreting the Christian religion and its relationship to the mind, there are also extremes and a middle. The first extreme is unbelief: the Christian religion, they say, should be interpreted according to the principles of one reason; everything that exceeds the concept of the mind must be rejected as false. This extreme was expressed primarily in the Socinian sect, who claim that reason is not only an interpreter, but also a judge of Holy Scripture, that there is nothing in it that exceeds the laws of the mind, but there is something that seems to be so. Kant also fell into the same extreme, recommending the practical mind as the only principle with which the truths of religion should be verified; everything, he argued, that is contrary to this principle must, through allegory or other means, be given a different meaning. At this extreme there is an excessive assimilation of rights to the mind. The other extreme, opposite to it, is blind faith in the worst sense: “Believe everything that they tell you, without testing it at all, therefore, give up all speculation, don’t even dare to think whether anything in religion is true or not.” Any doubt in this case is already a sin. This extreme was expressed in foreign religious fanatics; they always make themselves an object of faith, especially among the common people. Middle opinion: Reason is not the supreme judge of revelation, for there are mysteries incomprehensible to it, but there is also a natural side, which reason has the right to understand and judge; even in relation to the sacraments, he can be an interpreter, but he must do this with caution and prudence. The main Churches have maintained and continue to adhere to this middle ground. II) From the view of the relationship of internal religion to external - religion to the Church - many disagreements arise. There are also extreme sides, and there is a middle. The first extreme: the Christian religion can be turned entirely inward and consists only of thoughts and feelings, without any appearance or churchliness. This extreme has even been expressed in a funny way in modern societies - among the Quakers and Independents. They gather together, instruct each other, have lunch and dinner, in imitation of the leading Christians who established public αγαπη, and this ends everything; they have no subordination, no dependence, no other religious ties and relationships. This predominance of the internal over the external is unnatural. The other extreme, opposite to the first, is the mechanism of superstition. Our schismatics are subject to this extreme, who, contrary to foreigners, believe that Jesus Christ and the apostles gave not only religion, but also established the Church, while as soon as the plan of the Church is given, its structure is left to subsequent times. Only seven Sacraments came to us from the Apostolic Church, and other rites were established later. This blind faith, which recognizes everything in Christianity as divine and established from above, was attacked by St. Demetrius of Rostov, who in his “Search” says this: “There is an immovable side in the Church - its main teaching, and a movable side, which can be improved - church rituals.” Average opinion: in Christianity the internal must be united with the external; not only religion is from God, but also the foundation of the Church. This opinion is held by all the major Churches; but there is only some difference between Protestants, Catholics and us. We say that not only religion is from God, but also the foundation of the Church; Protestants do not recognize the Divine origin at all, but Catholics extend the Divinity of the Church far. The Catholics and I attribute all the Sacraments to the Divine institution; Protestants accept only two Sacraments. We recognize the beginning of the hierarchy as Divine; Protestants have no hierarchy at all. Now, having touched on the external appearance of the church in parts, we will find even more sources of disagreement between the Christian Churches. The main thing in the Church is hierarchy. Its two sides are the attitude towards the people and the attitude towards secular power. We affirm that ecclesiastical authority is of God in its origin; This is an average opinion. It has its extremes: the first extreme is unbelief, whose devotees recognize the power of the church as Divine in the light sense, since, that is, everything good is divine. This is the general view of the free sects. The second extreme is that all church power, down to the smallest detail, comes from God. This is the view of Catholics, in whose opinion the entire body of the church: the pope, his assistants, even the lower church degrees (readers, subdeacons) are from God, and therefore their power is divine. Average opinion: in the hierarchy, some degrees, such as bishops and presbyters, are established by God, while others are established by the Church itself. This opinion prevails in our Church. The relationship of church power to secular power can be represented in such a way that the latter is subordinate to the former. This is how Catholics represent church power and this is how it was during the time of Gregory VII (Hildebrandt). This view of church power exists in some small societies of the Greek Church - among the Montenegrins, whose metropolitan is also a king. This is one extreme. The other extreme is this: all spiritual power must be subordinated to secular power. This extreme was expressed by the reformers, who had a secular person as a member of their consistory. The relationship of church authority to the people, according to Catholics, is the following: the shepherds of the Church have a divine right over the people, not subject to research, excluding any appeal. According to all reformers, this relationship is as follows: the power of the Church and the people is the same; The shepherds of the Church are nothing more than representatives to whom this power over the people is entrusted, and from whom it can be taken away. The average opinion that prevails in our Church and partly among Lutherans is the following: church authority is from God; Church pastors, in particular cases, have divine right, but the supreme court belongs to the whole Church. III) The extremes arising from the view of the relationship of faith to activity - theory to practice, and the middle in which these extremes are reconciled. The first extreme is the predominance of speculation over activity. This view was present in ancient times among heretical societies, especially among the Gnostics. These eons and various theurgic calculations served no purpose. Then he appeared among the scholastics, who gave the Christian religion a form of dialectics that was completely unusual for it. Nowadays it dominates German religious societies, which, through excessive predilection for philological, archaeological and similar studies, have turned the Christian religion - the religion of life - into cold scholarship. The second extreme is the one that suppresses all speculation, even sound, and especially in connection with egoism, and does not tolerate any theory. This extreme was expressed in the 3rd century by Montanus and Novatus, who taught that Christianity should consist of only the perfect, and that once sinners should be forever excommunicated from the Church, that is, in their opinion, Christianity should consist of deeds, not words. The Herrnhuters and the recently widespread Methodists say the same thing. The first, valuing one’s life or deeds, allowed points that served to dishonor the faith. Anyone, they claim, can be a Christian, if only he lives according to their rules, without caring in the least about the form of belief. Another similar point: they believe to excess in Providence or, even better, in fate, and therefore wives are chosen by lot on certain days. This is an extreme; the lot is permissible, but where it cannot be decided in any other way, and marriage can be accomplished in the usual way, therefore, here one should not tempt God in vain. The second, that is, the Methodists, believe that conversion (of the lost - ed.) is possible; but it can only be instantaneous, due to some kind of influx. This may be so, but we should imagine it as gradual. Because otherwise you can end up in indifference and some kind of carelessness about your salvation. The average opinion is that which was expressed in the primacy of the Church. There, pure contemplation was not taken away from faith. We see that there were prophets there who explored the truths of religion; We see, on the other hand, a removal from all extremes, from every impulse of enthusiasm. These are the main differences between the Churches! In general, they differ in their opinions when looking at the Divinity of the Christian religion and the hierarchy. The Pope is, so to speak, a bone of contention between Christians. D. About the difference between our Church and others Our Greek-Russian Church is different from all others. The biggest difference is with the Independents and with all dream societies; middle - with Protestants; the smallest in relation to rituals, but the largest in relation to hierarchy - with Catholics. Where is the teaching of our Church? Where can you hear her voice? This subject is worth attention. Foreigners present the teachings of our Church piece by piece, but for the most part they tell lies. We don’t have a word about this in any system; meanwhile, knowledge of the teachings of the Church should precede knowledge of the Bible. So, let us repeat another question asked: what are the sources of the teaching of our Church? These sources are of three kinds: 1) common to our Church with all others; 2) common with all Eastern Churches; and 3) actually belonging to our Church. 1) The sources of church teaching, common to our Church with all others, are the following three symbols: a) Apostolic. It is in little use, but is accepted as a reliable source. Its distinctive feature is brevity. It is accepted by all Churches without exception. b) Nicaea-Constantinople, which is read in our Church. It expresses all the main truths, but not with due completeness. Hence the lack of our catechisms, in which many dogmas are subsumed, often without any connection, under the well-known members of the Creed, and are not derived from them, as should be the case. c) Afanasiev. It is published in the Followed Book, or Great Psalter, with questions and answers, where the teaching about the two most important dogmas is accurately presented - regarding the Person of Jesus Christ and His Divine nature. The last part is not Afanasiev’s own; but its truth is recognized by all Churches. Here are the general sources! 2) The sources we have in common with all the Eastern Churches are: a) Our church books are a vast source, and in terms of their vastness they are little used. The teachings of the Church must be fully expressed in church books. And indeed, some parts of our worship are dogmatic parts; some can rightfully take the place of a theological treatise, for they, as is known, were directed against well-known prejudices and errors. One should only wish that someone would shorten this source, and for this it would first be useful to shorten some church books, compile, for example, a dogma from Irmology, Triodion and other books. In this case, one must be guided by criticism, because these books included unclean thoughts and expressions - Catholic ones. Such, for example, is the word “transubstantiation” in our Service Book. Our own expression, in the words of Saints Chrysostom and Basil the Great, is “translation.” Also in some church verses the principality of the Apostle Peter is mentioned; it is obvious that this was taken from the Catholics. b) Confession of Peter Mogila. It has the indisputable dignity of the true teaching of the Church, for it was approved first by a meeting of clergy in Iasi, then by the Patriarch in Constantinople, and finally by the Council in Jerusalem. It expresses exactly the teaching of the Greek Church of the 15th century. c) Confession of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadius, written by him at the request of Mohammed II, who, having conquered Greece, wanted to know what the essence of Greek teaching was. It is small, but quite sufficient. d) The teaching of the Church Fathers is a vast source, and therefore difficult to apply. It is necessary to bring them together so that their writings can be used profitably. e) Three more works are private, but very important, because they very well set out the distinctive points of our religion. They are: Formula of Orthodoxy, consisting of twelve points directed against heresies. It contains most of the truths that were set forth at the Councils, but there are also those that have been revealed again; such, for example, about the origin of authorities from God; those who do not recognize this are subject to anathema. The dogma regarding the Blessed Virgin is immediately clearly stated; it is clearly expressed that She is a Virgo both at Christmas and after Christmas. It also speaks very clearly about traditions and sets out the distinctive, although, however, negative, feature that separates true traditions from false ones. For those who do not accept traditions in accordance with the word of God are anathematized. The rite of accepting a foreigner into our faith. This formula was compiled by Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople. It expresses the difference between Catholics and Protestants from us. Difference from Protestants: a Protestant is required to believe in the power of prayers sent to saints, therefore, in the calling of saints (Protestants do not have this), so that he believes that church power is from God (Protestants also do not have this). There is also a very important point regarding theologians - about the school. It consists in the fact that everyone must understand the Holy Scriptures according to the teachings of the Church and promise to remain in their Church until death. Ignorance of this point was the reason for the apostasy that is noted in our systems, where the teaching of the Bible is explained without any relation to the teaching of the Church. The difference from Catholics: here it is stated that the invisible head of the Church is Jesus Christ, but there is no visible head, which the pope recognizes himself to be; since Catholics claim that there is no salvation outside their Church, then it is required to believe that there is salvation in the Greek Church. This requirement is very modest and shows exemplary religious tolerance. It should be said, contrary to the proud Catholics, that there is no salvation outside the Greek Church; meanwhile, out of Christian modesty, it is only said that there is salvation in the Greek Church. Formula for the episcopal oath. It was compiled in Greece and is common to us and the Greeks. Various dogmas are set forth here and this exposition is directed against ancient and modern heresies; Most of it contains what concerns church deanery. Here are three small formulas, but significant in their content! 3) Samples of confession, which actually belong to our Church alone, are of two kinds: some contain with all accuracy, judging by the time of their origin, the teaching of the Church, and others only partially, and therefore they can be divided into samples of faith of the first kind and approximate samples, not so accurate and complete. Samples of the first kind are as follows: a) Catechisms. The Catechism of Peter Mogila was unknown in our Church for a long time. We got it translated from Greek from the Dutch. It must be thought that before this Catechism the Russian Church had other short ones, the authors of which are unknown, and therefore they cannot relate to our subject. Actually the following can be taken into account: The Catechism, compiled under Peter I, revised under Elizabeth and appeared in two forms - Long and Short, under Catherine II. This Long Catechism expresses the true teaching of our Church of the 18th century, for it was compiled by the Holy Synod by the highest command and for general use. The newest catechism, replacing the previous one, which is an abbreviation of our entire religious teaching. This Catechism is of great importance, for it was also published by order of the Holy Synod with imperial authority and is intended for use in all ranks and classes. Here are the main and first examples of religion. b) These also include some fragmentary works, such as: The rite of conversion, compiled on the occasion of the acceptance of our faith by the first wife of Emperor Paul, where the difference between our Church and others is set out with all modesty. Foreigners often refer to it, and therefore you need to know it, although it is in little use among us. Books published on behalf of the entire Church to ward off errors have a similar dignity (relation - ed.) to these catechisms. This is the essence of all polemical works. It is rightly said that the truth is revealed most of all in disputes. Therefore, it is also true that polemical books are more able to show the teaching of the Church than others. Such accusatory books of our Church are directed against other Churches. For example, “Conversation between the Testing and the Confident” is directed against Catholics. The main points on which Catholics differ from us are indicated clearly, modestly and with such tolerance that one cannot wish for more. But it should be noted that not all differences in this regard are indicated. Whether circumstances or other reasons forced this to be done, it is only known that many points were kept silent. However, in any case, this book can be recognized as the voice of our Church, and the main difference between us and Catholics is sufficiently expressed in it. "Stone of Faith" by Stefan Jaworski. This book should be taken into account when we talk about the difference between our Church and the Protestant Church. This is a complete picture of such differences, especially regarding Lutherans, who fully adhere to Luther’s teachings. This book was published by the Holy Synod and expresses the way of thinking of our Church at the beginning of the 18th century. By the way, it should be noted that foreigners do not recognize it as the source of our religion, especially Protestants; Some of our people thought like them and perhaps still think like them. The reason for this, or, better, part of the reason, is that this book, especially in the latest treatises, is very different and has the character of intolerance. Essays against schismatics. They set out the voice of our Church very clearly and completely. Most of all they concern the appearance of the church; however, the dogmas are also stated and the attitude of the Church to religion is shown. We have published quite a few works of this kind. Here are our own examples and together the sources of our religion. Samples of the second kind are approximate. These are the essence of various theological works, published on behalf of the Holy Synod. However, it should be noted that not all works published on behalf of the Holy Synod are of ecclesiastical importance, although the Holy Synod represents the entire Russian Church and is, so to speak, its abbreviation. Why? because when there was no censorship, all spiritual books were published with Synodal approval; but not everyone found this approbation to be of symbolic importance. Consequently, division must always be made between books written “by command of the Holy Synod.” This division should be made on the following basis: if the Holy Synod itself compiled a well-known book and designated it for general use, then it has ecclesiastical importance. If a well-known book bearing the name of the Holy Synod was compiled by a private person and has some private purpose, then it does not have such importance. But despite this, many of these books have symbolic importance. These are our theological systems. By the importance of their content, by their purpose, even by the importance of their writers, they should have attracted the special attention of the Church; and therefore, if they were published, it was only with the consent of the entire Church. Books published during the reign of Catherine for church use are of the same kind. They are: “A collection of sermons for all days of the year,” adapted to systematic theological teaching; “Collection of teachings on the Lord’s holidays,” and short speeches found in the Service Book, during (the celebration of the Sacrament - ed.) Marriage and other Sacraments. All these works were compiled by the Holy Synod and therefore should be accepted as the opinion of our Church. These are all the sources from which the teaching of our Church should be drawn! The most faithful of them are: the Creeds, the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the formula of Orthodoxy, the Rite of converting a non-Believer to our Church, the bishop's oath, our Catechism and polemical books; others do not have such dignity. Thus, when we present dogmas, we will first of all present the teaching of our Church about each dogma. The character of our theology should consist in comparing church teaching with the Bible. We do not need to compose the points again, for they are correctly defined by the Church. We need to prove that our church teaching is biblical teaching. The previous way of theology is not characteristic of our Church, that is, it is not typical for us to posit only biblical theses and derive everything from them. This can be done by Protestants, from whom this method is used, because they either do not have church teaching, or it is not of such importance. Our method must be different, and it began in the “Christian Reading,” in a treatise on the Trinity, where first the teaching of the Church is proposed, and then the Scriptures. You might be interested in: