A page from the recent history of theological science

Audit of academies for 1908 1 In 1908, an audit of theological academies was carried out in all parts of academic life. The Moscow (and Petrograd) Academy was audited by Dimitri, Archbishop of Kherson, in collaboration with prof. M. L. Ostroumov (for administrative and editorial purposes) and the manager of synodal control I. S. Damansky (for economic matters). Eminence Demetrius presented a report on the audit to the Holy Synod. Report on the review of the Moscow Theological Academy in September-October 1908 (Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson and Odessa). .... Noteworthy is the program of readings on Moral Theology, 1906-7. It's short, so I'll rewrite it all. Types of modern ethical thought. 1. Utilitarianism. 2. Evolutionism, 3. Positivism. 4. Social ethics and socialism. 1. The Old Testament basis of the Gospel teaching. That's all moral theology is. For six months we listened to all sorts of isms 3 . And in the second half of the year they did not hear about Christ and the life of humanity reborn by the grace of the Holy Spirit 4 . Are Christian moral theology really exhausted by the last three paragraphs of a general nature, “with the Old Testament basis of the Gospel teaching”? And this after the professor spent the entire first half of the year revealing utilitarianism and so on to the students! In 1907–8, Professor Tareev apparently did not present a program. It was not delivered to me 5. And only on September 24, 1908, several months after the end of the academic year, when the auditor had already arrived, instead of the program, he presented “information about the teaching of Moral Theology at the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1907–8 academician. read to students this year." What did you read? prof. Tareev now realized that in the previous year he acted awkwardly: at first (the first half of the year) he spoke about various ethical errors, and in the second half of the year he suggested something about the gospel teaching. Now he has rearranged departments one in place of another 6. And that’s all. An appendix is ​​added to this: “At the exam, students answered the book Faith and Life according to the Gospel, in which the lectures of the first half of the year are reproduced. From the lectures of the second half of the year, students were asked questions outside the syllabus.” What does it mean “questions were offered outside the program”? Does this mean that the program was not issued, or that the exam required something other than what was in the program 7 given out before the start of the lectures?.. Prof. Three years ago, Tareev arranged his lectures in such a way that in the 1908-9 academic year, at the beginning of which I reviewed the Academy, he had no lectures at all 8. IN In the further course of the speech, in the chapter: about attending lectures, I will not meet with him again. Therefore, now I will say a few more lines about him. Professor Tareev attracted attention in theological and pious circles with his theology in 4 extensive volumes, each with a special title. His peculiar theology caused bewilderment, censure, and indignation among many, and in some theological circles it was met with curiosity. They say that provincial theologians, especially young ones, clearly express a desire to adapt to Tareev’s theology 9 ; whereas in Sergiev Posad many heatedly protested against the Lavra bookstore accepting Tareev’s books for commission, against placing on the shelves of the store, among soul-saving books, and Tareev’s books, godless and immoral 10 , the Lavra authorities had to remove these books from the store (reported to me by the Viceroy of the Lavra) 11 . Professor Tareev decided to pave new paths of theology, to introduce new ideas into Christian theology, which he believes will be established on the basis of the Gospel; it is desirable for him to bring Christian theology into agreement with modern mental tasks, moral needs and demands. In his theology, he imperceptibly moved closer to modern theological and philosophical movements that deviate from evangelical-church Christianity and are trying to create some kind of philosophical neo-Christianity. Merezhkovsky and Rozanov made a very noticeable impression on Tareev with their theory of the cult of the flesh, and he made an attempt to clarify the problem they posed of the relationship between spirit and flesh from an exclusively evangelical point of view. In his theological thought, under the influence of new ideas, a turning point was made. There is naturally a confusion of concepts in his head. Unfortunately, what was not matured, not defined, not established, not matured in his own consciousness, he, through the press, made into common property, to the great temptation of many who recognized him not as a theologian thinker, with difficult mental work seeking to clarify the problems put forward by the movement of theological thought, but as a heretic, with his sophistication corrupting the inexperienced and weak. I will give an excerpt from his article Spirit and Flesh (Theologian. Vestn. 1905, Jan. pp. 22–27). “Freedom of spirit can have the necessary support point only in freedom of the flesh. Freedom of the flesh is in the fullness and originality of carnal life, in the fullness of its joys, its passions, especially the joys of marriage... It would be a mistake to attribute exclusively divine origin and heavenly character to morality; on the contrary, it has a utilitarian side, an earthly character. The joy of carnal love in itself is not only not immoral, but it also constitutes the natural foundation of morality: it creates shame, like the tension of sexual love; from it a family develops... Without natural carnal passions, without carnal joys, without personal pride... there would be no world history. “From the evangelical point of view, the carnal life should be given complete freedom. Christianity, or the gospel, cannot define the carnal life. The Gospel cannot be preached to children, because this would mean instilling in them hatred of their father and mother, of brothers and sisters, and this would be complete absurdity... If it were possible to instill in someone the Gospel from childhood, from the first days of consciousness, to raise him in true Christianity, then he would grow up to be a pathetic freak, good for nothing for anyone. "... After reading these lines, one response can follow: this is not theology, but nonsense, the impression of which is further enhanced by the harshness of the tone, for the sake of persuasiveness. But what can we do? After all, this new theologian, seeking freedom of spirit in freedom of the flesh, is a professor of Moral Theology, imbuing future theologians of the church with his ideas. He instructs students, according to his own statement, to study moral theology (prepare for the exam) from his works. And the lectures he again delivered to students, appearing in print, are spread further to the student audience. I got acquainted with the 4 volumes of Tareev’s Theology, especially the fourth volume, and I felt sorry that an undoubtedly talented scientist, a diligent worker in theological literature, wanting to pave new paths for theology, became entangled in the slums of false teaching. Is it possible to give him a helping hand? Namely, to allow him to carefully reconsider his theological works, re-discuss his new ideas, and imagine when and where a proper report on his theology will be indicated, explaining, correcting, and perhaps completely discarding many of his views, the incorrectness of which is now imperceptible to him. Because, rushing forward, carried away by the development of a new path, he does not look back and does not see the crookedness of his work. Let him be directed to examine his work with careful hindsight. Upon receipt of a report from Tareev, self-criticism, so to speak, let specially appointed competent persons be instructed to review it. The case deserves attention. About the Library... Prof. Andreev subscribed to the academic library not books, but books, little books, brochures, at 30, 25, 20, 15, 14, 10, 8, 6, 4, even 3 kopecks. And among this rubbish there is nothing not only scientific and theological, but also some trifle from popular edifying religious literature. All politics, sociology 12 ... Andreev is not very inferior to prof. Tareev, who with his penny (but also more expensive) desiderata filled the academic library with political, anarchist and socialist rubbish 13, as well as Konovalov, whose desiderata are filled with trifles from the field of psychopathy, neurasthenia 14 and so on. The liberation movement and the struggle for autonomy at the Moscow Theological Academy. Note from Prof. M. A. Ostroumova. .... It is noteworthy that this entire demonstration (of professors) together with students in honor of the liberation movement and for the sake of protest against the existing government regime coincided with a series of lectures on monasticism, given to three senior courses by professors of moral theology, Patristics and Russian church history. Back on February 1, S. Smirnov, in the fourth and third years, gave lectures on the following program, listed in the journal of the fourth year: “The circle of views of advanced monasticism. Monastic sport and demonology. The position of monasticism in society in the Kyiv period. The ideals and sympathies of the best people of that time. Old Russian preaching of these ideals." At the same time, a second-year student wrote in his journal: “Monastic ideals according to the views of ordinary monasticism. Tonsure before death. Burial in monasteries. The impossibility of salvation in the world according to the views of ancient Russian society. Monastic discipline and its influence on Russian society." On the 16th, in the second course on Patristics, it was written: “At the 1st lecture, the origin of monasticism was read”; but what was written by the student was prof. Iv. Popov crossed out, and instead, in the professor’s hand, it was written like this: “Due to lack listeners (one person was present), instead of continuing the course, a conversation was offered about the points of view from which the creations of Fr. O. church, and about the ideas underlying monasticism." On the same date, in the fourth year, it was written: “In the first half hour (sic!) on Russian church history, 13 listeners, students of the academy, were offered a “scientific conversation” (inscribed: lecture) on the life of Epiphanius about St. Sergius of Radonezh. At the second lecture, a story about the same thing was offered. S. Smirnov." February 18, in the fourth year: “At lectures on Moral Theology, students were offered reading about monasticism from the point of view of Christian ethics, which should be based on the two-part basic commandment of Christianity about love for God and neighbors. Analysis of the judgments of Archimandrite (now bishop) Nikon about the ideals of monasticism. Review of the activities of women's charitable monasteries in the southwestern region, with historical information about their origin and further development." Thus, during the strike at the Moscow Academy, students were offered, essentially out of the order of presentation of the relevant sciences, 15 conversations on monasticism by three professors in three courses. It is not difficult to guess what such a strange coincidence meant: it was a foreshadowing of what was then expressed with all frankness by the professors in their notorious “Note” presented to the Academy Council during the second strike on October 13 of the same year, in which they took up arms against the monastic academic authorities. After reviewing and discussing the audit reports, the Holy Synod made a determination (June 15, 1909): ,,...B) Regarding the personnel of academic teachers:... 3) In view of the doubts aroused in readers by the theological writings of Mikhail Tareev, an ordinary professor at the Moscow Academy in the Department of Moral Theology, to require him to submit to the Holy Synod by October 1 of this year a brief statement of the system of his theology.”... The requirement of the Holy Synod was fulfilled in a timely manner. A brief summary of the system of my theology. The content of my writings includes two components: firstly, a dogmatic foundation and, secondly, a subjective moral structure 16 erected on this foundation. In terms of its massiveness, the fundamental part is dominant. The introductory treatise “The Humiliation of Christ” provides only an exposition of the apostolic-patristic Christology, and there is not a single author’s thought here. “Philosophy of Gospel History” and “Gospel” (Volumes I and II) do not have a single quotation other than biblical ones. In the third volume there is not a single page without excerpts from patristic-ascetic writing, without sayings of Irenaeus of Lyon, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius of Alexandria, Anthony the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Mark the Ascetic, Isaac the Syrian, Macarius the Great, Nile of Sinai , John Cassian, Simeon the New Theologian, Abba Isaiah, Diadochos, Demetrius of Rostov, Tikhon of Zadonsk, bishop. Theophan the Recluse and other church writers, Orthodox theologians and preachers. In all three – main – volumes I did not say a single word of my own, not a single thought of my own. If I were to give a fundamental exposition of my system, then I should begin my answer with the words “I believe in one God the Father” (vol. II, p. 165 ff.) and end with: “the tea of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century” (III, 143-156; cf. I, 344-345; II, 357-358) - I would have to convey the apostolic-patristic Christology in words Apostle Paul, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, Leo, Pope of Rome, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Agathon, Pope of Rome, and John of Damascus, set out the gospel story, beginning with the birth of Christ and ending with His resurrection, set out the gospel teaching under the headings: “Heavenly Father”, “spiritual righteousness”, “eternal life”, “Savior” and “kingdom of God”, repeat the biblical and patristic teaching about Christian life point by point: “repentance”, “prayer”, “fasting”, “Christian foolishness”, “love, faith, hope”, “church”, “resurrection from the dead”. In my system, not a single dogma is omitted or violated, and it includes all dogmas, not only verbally, but essentially - especially dogmas such as the God-manhood of Christ, His eternal sonship with God, His sinlessness, etc. In view of the unconditional closeness of my writings to the biblical patristic language, their presentation according to the points of Orthodox dogma would be a presentation of the generally accepted and well-known. Let me take the doctrine of grace as an example. This is how I present this point (vol. III, p. 132 next): The action of the Holy Spirit in the church is called grace. In a broad sense, grace refers to everything given to us by God: God gives us understanding, heart and will. He works in us to will and to do for good pleasure (Philip. II, 13). Our entire spiritual life, as having its beginning in Christ, is a work of grace. In a narrow sense, grace is the assistance of the Holy Spirit to our natural powers: grace does in us what we ourselves cannot do with our natural powers. In this sense, grace is the action of the Holy Spirit in our nature, in contrast to our free mood. The necessity of grace is called the limitation of our will in its action on nature. If nature were subject solely to the action of our will, then, even with the best direction of our will, over the course of an endless series of millennia it would not move a single step towards that kingdom in which God would destroy food and belly. To expect this kingdom, to expect the resurrection of the dead, a spiritual body, a new heaven and a new earth, and at the same time not to believe in the action of God’s grace can only be due to a misunderstanding. Just as the formation of the world and man, all cosmogonic and biological development goes beyond the limits of personal limited will and was and is accomplished through the action of the Spirit of God (Gen. I, 2), so is the future transformation (μεταμορφουσθαι, μετασχηματιζεσθα) of our body and all nature in accordance with the glorious body of Christ (Philip. III, 21) can only be accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit. The only difference between the cosmogonic and biological action of the Holy Spirit and Christian grace is that the gracious action of the Holy Spirit became possible as a result of the moral feat of Christ, after His glorification - the resurrection from the dead and the departure to the Father (John VII: 39, XVI: 7), and is carried out through the church, which is the body of Christ. The Church acts by grace, in particular, on our body and external nature and, then, on “this world.” First of all, the church acts by grace on our body and soul. Man is not given the opportunity to achieve natural perfection; even the failure of his efforts in this regard - the well-known “I don’t do what I want, but what I hate, I do” - has the highest religious significance: it gives rise to humility in a person, by which a person is brought to God. However, our flesh is not just an accidental appendage to our spirit: the union in us of the divine spirit with dust indicates our calling in order for this dust to be glorified, so that dust can be overcome by life. In this meaning, our nature is soul and body, which we must glorify. “Your bodies,” writes the apostle, “are members of Christ. Your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit living in you. Therefore glorify God both in your bodies and in your souls, which are God's. Whether you watch, drink, or whatever you do, do everything to the glory of God” (1 Cor. VI:15, 19, 20, X:31). “Our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also await a Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body so that it will be like His glorious body, by the power by which He works and subjects all things to Himself” (Philip. III, 20-21). Already through fasting, a Christian protects his spiritual life from the grips of the flesh, overcomes his flesh, but the flesh does not exhaust the entire content of natural life - no, our sinful flesh covers the nature created by God, called to full life and having from the spiritual to become spiritual; Christian fasting does not hinder, but even promotes the fullness of natural development, but fasting cannot produce a transformation of this nature from mental to spiritual: decay is the same lot of the ascetic as of the incontinent - not the flesh, but the body is eaten by worms. Fasting only promotes the action of grace: it cleanses the fleshy crust so that grace can act on the very nature. Fasting is digging, spiritual life is sowing, which can only grow from grace-filled revival. What man himself cannot do is accomplished by grace. “The farmer, having labored and invested seeds, must still wait for rain from above. And if the cloud does not appear and the winds do not blow, the farmer’s labor will not be of any use to him, and the seed will lie without anything. If a person confines himself only to his own and does not accept what is unusual for his nature, then he cannot bear worthy fruits to the Lord. What is the doing of man himself? To renounce, to withdraw from the world, to remain in prayer, in vigil, to love God and brothers - to abide in all this is his own business. But if he confines himself to his own doing and does not hope to receive something else, and the winds of the Spirit removed do not blow on the soul, a heavenly cloud does not appear, rain does not fall from the sky and water the soul, then a person cannot bear worthy fruits to the Lord” (Macarius the Great). Grace acts on our nature invisibly; its effect will only be felt in the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, a Christian continues to live in such natural conditions that continuously nourish his humility and require his ascetic deeds. Grace “enlightens the soul only partly, so that within it remains great pasture for vice” (Macarius the Great). Only sometimes is it possible for a person to anticipate, of course incompletely, the future state of resurrection, just as the resurrection of Christ was preceded by His transfiguration. A similar anticipation of the future state in the life of a Christian is called in the language of patristic writing the time of “rest of grace”... The grace of Christianity acts not only on our soul and body, but also on the entire external nature. All creation awaits with hope the revelation of the sons of God and its freedom from slavery to corruption. Grace meets these expectations. She prepares from all nature the church of God, a new heaven and a new earth. In these expectations of the creature is the deepest basis for the church consecrations of water, fields, dwellings... Along with the essential invisible effect of grace on nature, it is also visibly manifested in the special inspiration of Christians - in particular, in extraordinary spiritual gifts, such as the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and in Christian art. This inspiration, together with the mentioned “resting time of grace,” serves as a preview of the future state of resurrection. On the inside, it is that “foretaste of the sweetness of life according to God,” which is given to a person at the beginning of his conversion to Christ, binds him to Christ and strengthens him for the time when grace “then hides its presence from him, leaving him to act as if alone, among labors, sweats, bewilderment and even falls.” Just as it happens at the beginning of each personal conversion to Christ, so it was abundant in the first days of Christianity, a time of extraordinary spiritual gifts. On the internal side, inspiration thus has meaning for the animated themselves. On the outer side, manifested in extraordinary talents and art, it serves as a symbolic preliminary to the future revelation of the sons expected by creation, and, in this meaning, it is either a sign for the world (σημειον τοις ἀ πιστος), or an edification for believers. Etc. My books give the same biblical and patristic answers to all dogmatic questions. And if I were to systematize my answers to all these questions, I would have to rewrite almost the entire content of “Fundamentals of Christianity”; and if they were stated briefly, they would coincide with the creed. I extremely regret that the requirement of the Holy Synod does not indicate a single dogmatic point on which my presentation would raise doubts in the readers, and according to my knowledge, my writings did not raise any objections from the dogmatic side 17. It would be extremely easy for me, with my books in hand, to give a clear solution to every dogmatic question definitely indicated, but I am afraid that the presentation of the entire dogmatic foundation of my system will be considered deliberate on my part, a deviation from what is generally accepted, from what is peculiar to me. And in the future I will limit myself only to the last, moral-subjective side in my system, thus moving on to what has no dogmatic significance, although it must be consistent with the spirit of Orthodox dogma, and which in this system forms a quantitatively insignificant part, or better yet, only some ornamentation, finishing of the main material. I myself, in the preface to the first volume and in the introduction to the second, speak about the subjectivism of my system. Although subjectivism in Christian moral teaching is essentially inevitable, 18 it is deliberately noted in my prefaces as a method of presentation, and not in the sense that I have something protruding from the dogmatic limits, deviating from biblical and patristic sources and introduced “from myself.” On the contrary, learned criticism reproached me for excessive dogmatism in relation to the sources of Christian teaching. “At the present time - this is what my official reviewer, Prof. M. D. Muretov (Journals of the Meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1904, p. 185 - 186) - not a single scientist, no matter what direction he is, has the opportunity to talk about the Gospel history without first establishing, with possible accuracy, in a scientifically critical way his attitude towards its source, especially on the issue of the origin and relationship of the synoptic gospels, about the origin of the Gospel of John and its relation to the synoptics, about the individual characteristics of each gospel, about the gospel ap. Paul, other apostles, early Christian writers, etc., etc. These questions do not exist for the author; he takes the Four Gospels dogmatically in their modern church form and uses them without scientific examination of the various questions that arise in this case. For a strictly Orthodox theologian, this of course should be so, but... the history of the Gospel and New Testament theology are built in modern science on the basis of scientific research of sources. Therefore, instead of “history,” it would be more correct for the author to say “the four gospels,” and instead of “New Testament biblical theology,” it would be better to use: “the system of Orthodox moral theology.” Moreover, by the “Four Gospels” we mean the current Orthodox Church text of the canonical gospels, and by the “system of Orthodox moral theology” - a theological discipline, like dogmatics, whose task is only to compile, systematize and clarify the material that is given to these disciplines by the modern Orthodox Church, without scientific-critical research, which is the task of other theological sciences "... Prof. Muretov is absolutely right when he calls my attitude towards the Orthodox sources of Christian doctrine dogmatic. I really treat them dogmatically: I fully accept the Christian Orthodox teaching - this is not enough, I operate only on the data of church teaching, that is, I speak only in the language and concepts of its sources, I process and systematize only the material that is given by them, I do not bring a single stone from myself into my “moral-subjective construction”, I do not step out of the dogmatic limits one step, I never go beyond from the Orthodox Church mainstream. I do this so consciously and consistently that my entire system would collapse if I introduced into it even one element from myself or from philosophy. Just as an architect, tasked with constructing a building exclusively from Russian materials and in Russian taste, would not have fulfilled his task if he had used one foreign nail, so I set myself the task of building a religious worldview exclusively from the data of revelation, without bringing anything from my mind, without borrowing anything from philosophy. But with my decisive statement, “I present my religious worldview within the framework of traditional concepts,” I resolve the issue of the Christian worldview not in my own words, but in the words of church tradition (III, 5). And it seems to me that among modern theological literature it is hardly possible to point out another work that, like my system, would be far from the rationalistic-philosophical spirit. But prof. Muretov is wrong when he reproaches me for my lack of scientific and critical discussion of Christian sources. He did not appreciate my subjective method. G. Muretov speaks not on his own behalf, but on behalf of non-believing scientists who demand critical justification for everything. But this is exactly what Messrs. I say to scientists: “I don’t need to critically examine Christian sources and rationally substantiate Christian teaching. I accept Christian teaching because I experience it so that it becomes my own. And within the framework of traditional concepts, in old words, you can present your religious worldview. My Christian system requires attention even if we assume that it does not correspond to a scientifically objective understanding of the gospel.” In this way I place Christian truth beyond the reach of all critical objections. It would not be for me to point out the apologetic merit of my method; I would deserve to have it embraced by other theologians. This has not yet happened, but when a secular writer, who does not miss a single opportunity to throw stones at Christianity, publicly declared that I “made Christianity invulnerable to criticism,” then I feel satisfied. As for Orthodox readers, they have the right to cross out the above lines from my preface and introduction: in the main text they will not find a single line that could be called my personal opinion inserted into a series of Christian concepts, my personal words and concepts included in the structure of church thoughts. My “moral-subjective construction” not only belongs to the non-dogmatic area; it does not represent a special addition to the dogmatic foundation. I personally own only the system of Christian material, its unification in my own experience. Dogmatic concepts can be presented purely objectively in an established system; but the moral side of Christianity can only be perceived through one’s own experience, so that for each theologian Christianity fits into its own system. We are not talking about personal opinions here, but about the fact that each theologian - whether he is aware or not of the inevitability of subjectivism - in this biblical patristic material will pay attention to one thing, another to another, one will give primary importance to one, another to another, etc. So I discover my personal understanding of Christianity solely in the fact that in the biblical patristic tradition I noticed and put forward points that usually remained in the shadows - and I did conclusions that follow from them. Thus, considering it unnecessary to expound the dogmatic foundation of my system and limiting myself in the future to its moral and subjective side, I will have to indicate those biblical and patristic (not strictly dogmatic) points along which my personal religious experience went. I begin my system with a Christological formula, but at the request of my religious feeling, my personal religious experience, in the Christological formula I focused my attention on the mystery of God’s condescension, on divine kenosis, which in our country has never yet been the subject of theological study. I accept the entire dogma about the Holy Trinity and the entire dogma about the two natures in Christ, but I do not limit myself to these formulas - I reveal the inner idea of ​​the Christological formula, those feelings that are generalized and crystallized in this dogma. I do not invent these feelings on my own, I do not compose my own theory of kenosis, as is the custom among Protestant theologians, I am content only with the patristic teaching, with what I found in St. fathers. The most perfect expression of the doctrine of divine condescension, except for St. Paul (Philip. II, 5–11), found in the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. In the Christological system of St. Cyril is especially important in the doctrine of the voluntary submission of the Son of God to the laws of human nature and the doctrine of the heterogeneity of the divine and human natures (vol. I, 92–101). If the Son of God was incarnated in all the fullness of the divine properties of His nature, if even a natural union occurred, then how was human nature not diminished from union with the divine, was not absorbed, hidden by it? how could she resist the superiority of the divine nature? In answering this question, Cyril sees the only basis for relative independence, for the natural and free development of the human nature of Christ in the free will of the incarnate Son of God. According to Cyril, the incarnate Son of God freely possessed His united natures: their relationship, the action of the divine nature on human nature, and finally, the natural development of human nature - all this was determined by the free will of the Son of God. The Word, which did not consider it robbery to be equal with God (Phil. II, 6), gave Himself up to voluntary humiliation (καθ ῆ κε ἑ αυτ ό ν ε ἰ ς ἑ κο ύ σιον κ έ νωσιν) and according to His will (ἐ θελοντ ῆ ς) condescended to resemble us, without ceasing to be God and without despising the measures of humanity. The union is natural, not by habitation, but true, so that the Son of God did not add human nature to the divine, but Himself became man - a union that does not merge natures and does not mix them up, is the free self-abasement of the Son of God; he did not humble himself without will, but voluntarily became man ὴ ς γ έ γονεν ἄ νθρωπος): this is how one can summarize Cyril’s richly thought-provoking defense of the third anathematism against Theodoret. The Son of God possessed the fullness of the divine nature, but He freely possessed it, and therefore could become weak and limited by His human nature: He could restrain the superiority of the divine nature by His will. It was not difficult for the humane God to show Himself in this way tolerable for the conditions of limited human nature. Moses outlined this secret of the incarnation of the deity in the shadowy image of a fireproof bush. Just as wood, a flammable material, by the will of God was not destroyed by the action of fire, so by the will of the Son of God His divinity became tolerable for His human nature. Cyril repeatedly applies this principle of explanation to particular phenomena and forms of human limitation and weakness, such as birth from a wife (Virgin), gradual growth and development, hunger, thirst, ignorance, fear and death itself. “It was not impossible for the omnipotent Word, when He decided to become man for our sake, to form a body for Himself by His own power, rejecting the virgin birth, just as Adam was formed without the mediation of birth. Only because this might give occasion to unbelievers to slander the Incarnation as invalid, it was necessary that He should submit to the ordinary laws of human nature." ί νης φ ύ σεως ν ό μων). Then, according to the bodily universal birth, “for the Word, as for God born (essentially) from the Father, it was not impossible and inaccessible to raise the body united with itself from the very shrouds to heights and raise it to the measure of perfect age. After all, it would be easy and convenient for Him to impart amazing wisdom to a baby. And only because this would have been a miraculous action and inconsistent with the goals of the economy, the mystery was accomplished gradually. For the purposes of economy, the Word allowed the conditions (measures) of human nature to rule over Himself.” Therefore, the union of natures was not accompanied by a sporadic and arbitrary intervention of divine nature in the realm of human nature, but the intercommunication of properties, bestowed on human nature by God, was determined by the laws of human development. Christ, writes Cyril, excelled in wisdom, age and grace. “The wise evangelist, beginning the story of the Logos who became flesh, shows that the Word, for the purposes of economy, allowed his own flesh to develop according to the laws inherent in the nature of the flesh, for which it is natural to advance in age and wisdom, as well as grace, in accordance with the growth of the body.” Kirill did not consider deity and humanity to be equal parts of one whole, but understood them as non-identical, heterogeneous. In what exactly is the heterogeneity of deity and human nature expressed? Cyril’s view can be briefly expressed in the words of the historian Socrates Scholasticus: “Christ was a man on the visible side, and God on the invisible side.” According to the teachings of Cyril, the divine and human natures in Christ constituted not two parts of one whole, but two sides of the single life of the incarnate Son of God: human nature was the external side, or form, of divine life, as internal content; it related to the deity as the visible to the invisible, as appearance to essence, form to content. Having become incarnate, the Son of God, as it were, put on the external form of human nature, hid His divine life in it, and covered itself with our flesh. Hence His revelation of His human nature was in the proper sense a revelation, an outward manifestation of His inner, invisible, divine life. This includes Cyril’s favorite analogy of a person consisting of spirit and flesh. Just as the body serves as an organ of the soul, so the Logos used his own flesh, understood not without the soul, as an organ. Relating to each other as the external to the internal, the properties of human nature and the properties of divine nature were not two homogeneous parts of one whole, but were heterogeneous and different in meaning, they were two sides of a single life or being. It is easy to understand what consequence follows from this for the question of the unity of the divine-human life, or being. Divinity and humanity in Christ, precisely because they are heterogeneous, were united into the unity of theanthropic life, into natural unity: it was the one nature of God the Word incarnate. Two human bodies, no matter how different or how similar they may be, even if they have the same head, cannot form one body, but are two bodies; on the contrary, clothing does not increase the number of one body, but a clothed body is one body. Also, the soul in connection with the body is not two souls, not two bodies, not two people, but one rational flesh: word and thought, idea and picture - not two, but one. Unity, and not composition or mixture, which happens when parts are heterogeneous. “Truly there is one nature of the Word made flesh. For if there is one Son, by nature and truly originating from God the Father, the Logos, ineffably begotten, and if He, having taken on flesh, not soulless, but animated by a rational soul, became a man, descended from a woman, then He should not be divided as a result of this perception into two persons or a son, but remained one, only no longer incorporeal and not outside the body, but having adopted it by virtue inseparable connection. But whoever says this does not at all affirm confusion or merging, or anything like that; such a consequence does not necessarily follow from the preceding premises. If the only begotten Son of God, incarnate and made man, is called one by us, then we do not thereby affirm that He underwent confusion, as our opponents think, that the nature of the Word was transformed into the nature of the flesh, or the nature of the flesh into the divine nature; but we say that He, through an ineffable and incomprehensible unity, showed us a single filial nature, only already embodied - we say precisely because deity and humanity exist and are understood each in the peculiarities of their nature. For, in fact, unity is attributed not only to simple things, uncomplicated in nature, but also to complex ones. So there is one person, consisting of soul and body. Soul and body are heterogeneous and unequal in essence, but in combination they formed one human nature. We talk about such unity, not forgetting that things that are united in composition are inherent in the difference of elements from which the unity was made.” These two patristic ideas run like a red thread through all four volumes of “Fundamentals of Christianity.” And first of all, I laid this apostolic and patristic teaching as the basis for explaining the Gospel history and presenting the Gospel teaching. “What is the most general meaning of the gospel story and its main plan? The life of Christ is divine, spiritual, eternal life, He revealed the Heavenly Father to the world: in Him life appeared, eternal life, which was with the Father (1 John I, 2)... True, divine life in the word of God is called divine glory. Having revealed spiritual life to the world, Christ glorified His Heavenly Father among people, gave them the glory that He had with His Father, His life was a manifestation of divine glory. Calling the divine life of Christ glory introduces us to the manner in which the revelation of the divine life took place in Him. This method is humiliation. In order to glorify the Father on earth, to reveal His name to people, Christ humbled Himself, renounced the external manifestation of divine glory: in Him, divine life appeared not in the properties of unlimited omnipotence, boundless greatness, which the conditions of human existence cannot endure, but in the properties of spiritual life, which fits into the limitations of human existence, endures its insignificance, endures its suffering... But in addition to the glory that Christ had with the Father and from the external manifestation which He renounced in the feat of humiliation, and that inner glorification of human life, which was the fruit of His humiliation and humility, in the life of Christ we see external glory - His miracles... And here arises, of extraordinary importance for theology and for the Christian worldview, the question of the relationship of the miracles of Jesus Christ to His humiliation and inner glorification of human life, as the fruit of His activity... The philosophy of gospel history answers this question in the sense that the miracles of Christ, symbolically covering the gospel idea, were a transition from His internal humiliation to external suffering: symbolizing spiritual benefits for believers, they caused His enemies to sell Him to death” (I, 149-151). The meaning of the gospel story is outlined with particular clarity in the temptation of Christ. “According to the expectations of the Jews, the Messiah was supposed to be their miraculous nourisher, and, of course, personally stand, as a miracle worker, above material dependence. This was the meaning of the first temptation. Then the Jews expected in the Messiah a man who would enjoy the special protection of God in the name of the shrine of the church and Old Testament symbolism in general, and in His kingdom they hoped to see the triumph of the zealots of the Old Testament law. This constituted the content of the second temptation. Finally, the Jews hoped to see in the Messiah their national king, who would bring dominion to the Jewish people, with theocratic symbolism, over all pagan peoples. This is the meaning of the third temptation. I. Christ rejected and could not help but reject the tempter’s proposals. To give in to the hopes of the Jews meant to perpetuate Jewish symbolism, to impose the yoke of the Old Testament ritual law on all people, to abandon the foundation of the spiritual kingdom, instead of serving the national passions of the Jewish people in accordance with the will of God for the salvation of the human race, and to bow to the evil spirit. Jesus Christ responded to the first temptation with humble submission to the natural laws of human life, its natural limitations; to the second proposal He responded by refusing to tempt the Lord with a demand for extreme visible protection; He contrasted the third temptation with refusal to serve the evil spirit of national pride. He did not separate Himself from the society of people, in relation to the conditions of life, so that His divinely filial dignity would become the property of all people. The boundaries of national symbolism must be destroyed to establish a universal spiritual kingdom. Victory over temptations was not a complete evasion on the part of Jesus Christ from the use of miraculous power, according to the will of God; but this was His renunciation of using it for His personal well-being, for personal freedom from the conditions of human existence, as a permanent norm of life, and for serving the national passions of the Jews. He called His followers to spiritual life, to victory over attachment to the world. This renunciation of Jesus Christ did not exclude, but even assumed a temporary manifestation of miraculous power in a sense consistent with the expectations of the Jews, but the purpose of such miracles is the same as constant humility and constant struggle with the demands of the Jews - to raise people’s gaze from the sensual to the spiritual. But if, therefore, Christ’s victory over temptations in the desert was a rejection of the national aspirations of the Jews, then at the same time it prepared for His death from embittered Jewish pride. The victory of Christ was His supreme self-denial, His readiness to accept death from the malice of the Jews” (1,193-195 cf. III, 258-282). I express the last moral conclusion of the gospel story in patristic words. “Our promises are hidden in sorrows, sufferings, patience and faith, and our very heavenly glory is hidden in them. We must rise to glory through dishonor. He who prays to God and desires to have miracles and powers in his hands turns out to be boastful and weak in his conscience. The true righteous not only do not desire this, but also refuse it when it is given to them, and not only in the eyes of people, but also in secret for themselves they do not desire this” (I. 286; III. 70). Following the Gospel story, I apply the same principle to the presentation of the Gospel teaching. The essence of the Gospel teaching is, firstly, in the creatively new fact of personal-absolute God-son life, i.e., in the fact that the divine (spiritual) life of Christ the Son of God becomes the property of believers, and secondly, that personal-spiritual absoluteness is combined with natural-historical necessity, which fills the visible gap between the initial (evangelical-historical) miraculousness and eschatological promises, that, in other words, in a Christian absolute love is united with faith (II, 189 and generally 165-198). Hence, evangelical spiritual righteousness is a principle of personal spiritual life, and not a conditional law of natural-social existence (II, 199 seq.), and in this respect it characteristically differs from the Old Testament religion. The difference between the New Testament righteousness and the Old Testament is that the Old Testament law was a conditional law of social improvement, while the Gospel principle of life determines the absolute nature of personal life arising from the filial basis. All the Old Testament commandments established the order of social life, they all related to forms of social structure and had the sole goal of the good of the social system, so Jewish law necessarily presupposes a given social system and relates to the individual solely as a social element. On the contrary, the gospel principle presupposes a religiously free, creatively and internally acting personality, and all the New Testament commandments relate solely to a free, creatively acting personality, marking the path that a person with God’s self-consciousness must inevitably follow. And although Christian love is not an abstract love for God, but real love for man, and this binds the Christian personality to society, however, for the gospel principle, society acts only as an object of personal love, while the subject of both divine love and the gospel principle of life is a free person. The Old Testament law acted through the social system on the individual, the New Testament principle acts through the individual on society. Therefore, the unchangeable properties of the Old Testament law are convention and nomystical externalism. The Old Testament law was conditional, because it was directly applied to social forms - and it was also, in the strict sense, an enactment, paving the way for nomistic externalism, because it was an external commandment for the individual, directed from the periphery of the individual to its center, which it could never reach. In contrast, the evangelical principle is imprinted with the character of absoluteness and does not have the specific features of legalism: it only reveals the absolute basis of the evangelical experience as applied to the entire breadth of personal life, covers with internal absoluteness all relationships of the individual, and it does not add anything in content to this basis, nor does it command anything, since it is directed from the center to the periphery, from free personal creativity to external relations (II, 200–201). Eternal life according to the gospel is the manifestation of divine life in conditions of temporary existence, there is bliss in visible humiliation and suffering. “The Gospel teaches that a person can, even in conditions of temporary existence, live a divine-spiritual life” (II, 248). Hence, “the gospel looks at worldly life in two ways - from a natural point of view and in relation to eternal life. In a natural sense, physical and worldly life constitutes the domain of the will of God, as this latter manifests itself in the laws of nature. From this side, it is good, this external, spiritual good, which enters the heart from the outside and has no moral properties, is not subject to ethical assessment. There is nothing unclean here, but nothing is holy either. Natural life receives an ethical form only from the moment it enters into relation to eternal life, to spiritual good. In relation to the spiritual good, worldly life becomes not in itself, not in its external features, but through the medium of the human heart, which is the only arena of their collision. A person’s attachment to worldly goods, his contentment with the forms of worldly life, his soulful self-satisfaction, meeting the call of eternal life, acquire a negative ethical meaning, act as obstacles on the path to the kingdom of heaven and to this extent turn out to be evil. Hence evangelical asceticism. The most characteristic thing about him is that he has no signs of natural pagan or nomistic-Jewish asceticism. In Judaism, as in paganism, asceticism served as a direct means of pleasing God and communicating with God, and was a “good deed,” a natural or external ethical value. On the contrary, for the gospel, just as there is no natural impurity, there is no natural or external ethical value - asceticism is an ethical value only conditionally, acquiring an ethical appearance only in relation to spiritual good, as a negative condition for spiritual birth. The Gospel requires self-denial only for eternal life, for spiritual good: it is exclusively self-denial of love. And as soon as the connection between natural and worldly life is broken with the demands of love and faith, with the spiritual realm, the entire volume of this life is freed from the sorrow of asceticism and covered with the rosy light of natural and sociable complacency. The God of the Gospel has two aspects, being both the God of natural gifts, natural providence, and the God of love, requiring self-denial, but the gospel does not know dualism. It is this line between the two aspects of the Christian God and dualism that marks the path along which the problem of evangelical asceticism goes - a problem of deepest interest, but almost impossible to popularize. According to the superficial dualistic idea, one of the natural-social areas is allowed to a person, the other is not allowed, some of its benefits are allowed to him, others are not allowed, the use of it is allowed up to a certain limit, to a certain extent, so that the enjoyment of what is permitted is not ennobled by anything and the sorrow of what is not permitted is not mitigated by anything. Dualistic asceticism inevitably has a dark connotation. On the contrary, according to the Gospel teaching, everything natural and humanitarian is permitted to man, all natural goods are allowed to him, “everything is permitted to him,” as the apostle says, because all blessings are bestowed by the one Heavenly Father, so that there is no natural limit to the enjoyment of them, and at the same time he is required to sacrifice in the name of love every good without exception, absolutely all of his own.” From the one Heavenly Father are all the blessings bestowed on every living soul to every person, and from Him is spiritual life, which requires self-denial to the point of death, sacrifice of every good. The joy of life from the natural side is not limited by anything, and at the same time the sacrifice of love knows no limit, because both good is from God and sacrifice is for Him. At the same time, through sacrifice, possible or actual, all pleasure is purified, and the natural integrity of the joys of life is not darkened by anything. In the same way, the grief of the “narrow gate” is indisputable and knows no boundaries, including even the cutting off of a tempting hand and the tearing out of a tempting eye, but with all this, this grief is not only secret, invisible to people, not expressed in natural social terms, but also not hopeless, since it is permeated with the inner bliss of absolute aspiration, the bliss of a found pearl. And although the gospel knows fasting from sorrow, it does not know sorrow from fasting and sacrifice. A Christian renounces good and sacrifices it not because it is evil - every good is from God, and yet he is not saddened by the sacrifice, since his sacrifice is not from an external commandment, but from an internal absolute aspiration, for the sake of the highest good. The real meaning of the two aspects of the Heavenly Father is that spiritual perfection will be given to a person in external humiliation and spiritual bliss in external suffering, that is, all visible humiliation and all external suffering are overcome by the fullness and bliss of eternal life. This is the final resolution of the actual dualism of nature and good, although, perhaps, this logical formula does not exhaust the whole mystery, which has the final basis in the fact that by the work of the Son a new trend is introduced into the realm of natural-social" (II, 258-261). In the third volume, in determining the purpose and meaning of life, I also proceed from the idea of ​​divine condescension. “Getting glory to God in nothingness is the goal of world and human life” (III, 63). “The first thing that is instilled in a person with the idea of ​​the glory of God is the duty of life. Man was created for life on this earth and therefore he must live in the fullness of his nature, created by God. We should not be turned away from life by any suffering that is inextricably linked with one or another form and requirement of natural life” (III, 65). Christianity represents the highest realization of this very goal, since “the combination of spiritual perfection with visible humiliation and bliss with external suffering is the most characteristic thing in Christianity” (III, 58). From the point of view of the same idea, and precisely from the point of view of the temptations of Christ, I consider world history, starting with the Fall of our ancestors and ending with the history of the Christian church. The peculiarity of the third volume, which gives it the right to exist next to the second volume, giving it specific weight, is that here Christianity is considered not in an abstract idea, not in the form of a given teaching, ideally realized in the person of Christ, but in a living Christian personality, in the reality of church society and in the reality of history. – This is a circumstance to introduce new elements into the system, stemming from the sinful weakness of man and from the actual temptations of Christianity: this is, firstly, a pedagogical-ascetic element and, secondly, an element of church grace. First of all, “spiritual life is the implantation of God in man. This planting needs appropriate nutrition and proper strengthening, especially at the beginning, when it is tender and easily susceptible to adverse influences. Prayer, fasting and foolishness for Christ’s sake serve as such nourishment and strengthening” (III, 93–94). This is asceticism in the usual sense of the word, more specific than the asceticism of the Gospel (II. 259–260). Then Christianity necessarily takes on a church form. “The Church has a religious and ethical genesis; its germ is in the personal essence of Christianity, in the personal mystical depths. But in its historical appearance, the church is not covered by the basic essence of Christianity: it is broader than it... Just as through a chemical combination bodies acquire new properties, so church life has features that are completely unthinkable in individual Christianity” (III, 129). This, on the one hand, is that “in the form of the church, Christianity acquires natural and historical significance and becomes a cultural force. From a cultural-historical point of view, the church is more important than personal Christianity” (III, 130). On the other hand, the church is a treasury of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (III, 130, 132 seq.), a treasury of grace with which the church acts on nature and the world, destroying the very depths of original sin and invisibly preparing the world for the resurrection of the dead and for eschatological renewal. These aspects of Christianity are most clearly understood in its historical destinies. In terms of its content, as can be seen, the third volume is most suitable for the usual interests of our theology and covers issues that primarily fill theological and ascetic works. And I have the opportunity to declare that my essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” never aroused even the slightest suspicion in anyone - the reviews about it were the most enthusiastic. According to the reviewer Mosk. Ved. 1901 No. 291, here I “formulate in my own way, according to my own system and method, what the ancient Christian teaching says, I formulate independently, with a rare understanding of the meaning of the teaching, with rare clarity” (cf. ibid. 1903 No. 348 and 1908 No. 74 reviews by Mr. Basargin). “A wonderful book in all respects,” according to a recent review by The Pilgrim (1909 No. 8). I could point out quite a few other reviews of the same kind. However, I know of an attempt to discredit my ascetic views, which, however, ended in the decisive disgrace of my accuser. G. Zarin, in his extensive work “Asceticism,” stated that my “thoughts do not give a completely definite and accurate—even, of course, general—idea about asceticism and other closely related subjects” (I, 204–205). Moreover, he refers to one chapter of the “Philosophy of Evangelical History” and one article of Volume IV. Meanwhile, the question of asceticism is presented in my works in volume III, which Mr. Zarin deliberately does not mention, although in his study he borrows all the fundamental parts from these works, to the extent of obvious plagiarism. Convicted by me of this, Mr. Zarin had to confess both to plagiarism and to the fact that in my works in Volume III “a definite and correct concept of the meaning and basic accessories of Christian asceticism is really given,” so that he and I “present the same teaching” and the “sources” turn out to be “common” (Christ. Read. 1908, Dec. p. 1697). I finally move on to volume IV, where I offer some conclusions from the first, fundamental volumes and express judgments on the issues of the system, the most peripheral, the most distant from the central dogmatic core. The fourth volume is assumed to be all previous volumes and, in particular, the third volume, the contents of which are not in the least canceled or replaced by the last volume. The fourth volume has its own special tasks, which are far from coinciding with the tasks of the third volume - and presenting to it the issues resolved in the third volume is the most unscrupulous overexposure. The fourth volume begins with words that precisely define its subject: “The subject of this volume is the question of the attitude of Christianity to life in the fullness of its natural needs and historical development, to modern family, social and state tasks. This issue is resolved here on the principle of Christian freedom - the freedom of the absolute religious spirit from the conventions of historical forms and the freedom of natural-historical life from the external claims of religious authority.” Thus, when deciding here the question of the relationship of the spirit (i.e., the divine content of life) to the flesh (i.e., to the world in its forms and laws), I mean only “what is essential in Christianity and what is essential in paganism” (IV, 136). In other words, volume IV examines not the specific natural-historical life of a Christian in human sinful weakness, which gives rise to pedagogical-ascetic practice, and in the church-gracious influence of Christianity on nature and the world, but here the subject is Christianity in its evangelical idea, in personal-spiritual absoluteness, as pure divine life, and natural-historical life in its forms, in its laws - here the relationship of the personal-absolute, divine-spiritual content of life to natural-historical forms, to natural-historical laws is considered. Christianity relates to nature and the world, firstly, as a moral force that cleanses personal, family and social life from pagan dirt, from immoral growths in nature. A Christian can accept natural-social life only in a morally purified form, “Before the idea of ​​absolute heaven, the earth is only the kingdom of chaste nature, before the abyss of heaven, the human is only morally human” (IV, 175). Secondly, Christianity relates to nature and the world metaphysically, as a power of grace. These aspects of Christianity are discussed in the third volume and speeches are sung in the fourth. But between the area of ​​the moral-conscious attitude towards the world and the area of ​​the metaphysically gracious there lies also the area of ​​natural-historical laws established by God, natural-social forms (family, state, society): these areas are not affected in their essence by the morally conscious activity of a Christian and are not changed in their appearance by the grace-filled action of the church. It is about the relationship of personal Christian absoluteness to this area of ​​natural-historical laws, natural-social forms that I speak in Volume IV: I define this relationship as the relationship of freedom. “In itself, considered objectively, in its forms, the flesh is not assessed from a Christian point of view and is not condemned, and has no positive religious significance. Flesh is the kingdom of nature, indifferent in religious terms, just as physiology and technology are indifferent in ethical terms. The kingdom of nature and history is determined by its laws” (IV. 129)... “Intimate-religious, internally absolute life or conditionally social life, divine and earthly, these are two heterogeneous forms of life, and in this very heterogeneity lies the final foundation of their highest harmony (IV. 385). Saying forgive me, in the fourth volume I ask: in addition to the moral and gracious action of Christianity on the world, is there also a political action of Christianity on the world? And I answer this question in the negative. “The natural socio-historical development of forms of community life should be revealed with complete freedom from external religious instructions. And conversely, this matter of earthly dispensation should not have its own, economic-materialistic, religion and its own, evolutionary-egoistic, ethics; it should be entirely an external economic matter. In this case, the economic and political structure cannot come into significant conflict with spiritual religion. There is no need to cover up an earthly cause with any transcendental goals; let it appear in all its truth. On the other hand, Christianity does not declare any ready-made forms of economic-social affairs, does not declare a Christian system of state and family, does not have any points of contact with the unique natural development of economic-social relations, although from the inside, from the side of ultimate goals, from the side of attitude towards people, to their sorrows and joys, it is included in all earthly interests” (IV, 396-387). This is the sense in which I use the expression: freedom of the flesh (IV. 123–124). In this case, I completely and absolutely stand on patristic grounds. The patristic thought about the subordination of Christ to the laws of human nature and about the heterogeneity of the divine content of life and carnal (natural-human) life, expressed by me on the first pages of volume I and maintained in all volumes, remains a criterion for me on the last pages of volume IV. The relationship of the deity in Christ to humanity, defined by the holy fathers, serves as a model for me by which I determine the relationship of the absolute Christian content of life to natural-historical laws, to its natural-social forms. My speeches about the freedom of the flesh, that is, about religious freedom, the flesh (IV, 128), more precisely, about the freedom of the absolute religious spirit from the conventions of historical forms and the freedom of natural-historical life from the external claims of religious power (IV, 5), about the heterogeneity of intimate-religious, internally absolute life and conditionally social, divine and earthly life (IV. 385) - these speeches of mine are a faithful and exact repetition of the speeches of St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Word, for the purposes of economy, allowed its own flesh to develop according to the laws inherent in the nature of the flesh ( λογον ο ἰ κονομικὼς ἐ φ έ ντα τῇ ἰ δ ί ᾳ σαρκ ὶ δι ὰ τ ῶ ν τ ῆ ς ἰ δ ί ας φ ύ σεως ἰέ ναι ν ό μων). On the pages of the fourth volume (pp. 325–327) I persistently indicate this connection of my last (conclusion) theses with patristic teaching; I insistently explain that the words “spirit” and “flesh” are used here not in the popular specific ascetic sense (cf. III, 96 ff.), but in the biblical and patristic dogmatic sense, according to which the spiritual is divine, and the carnal is natural-human (IV, 404–405 cf. I, 344–345; II, 247, etc.). I persistently, on almost every page of Volume IV, explain that I am talking about freedom of the flesh not in the sense of moral freedom, that is, freedom from morality, in the sense of immorality - I am talking about religious freedom within moral limits. “I in no way equate the freedom of the carnal, or pagan, life with immorality and licentiousness. Carnal life, in all the fullness of its development, has ethical foundations” (IV, 124). “I will not dwell long on the question of the Christian’s personal relationship to the flesh (=subject of Volume III). The flesh and Christianity are more at odds the more objectively they are considered; Christianity has no direct relation to forms of life, cannot create a code of social life, there cannot be a Christian marriage, a Christian state. But the flesh and Christianity come into closer contact, the more intimate a person’s relationship with them - they come into contact in the only relation of Christian, ethically active love for the flesh. And so – our topic is not to depict this intimate relationship, but to establish the relationship of Christianity to the forms of natural life, to reveal the concept of evangelical freedom” (IV, 132). Thus, I make every effort to accurately define my subject and adhere to strictly established terminology. And my lines: “If it were possible to instill the gospel in someone from childhood, from the first days of consciousness, to raise him in true Christianity, then he would grow up to be a pathetic freak, good for no one and for nothing - that lukewarmness that is spoken of in Scripture would degenerate from him” (IV, 128) - and these lines have a biblical and patristic meaning for me. When St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of the free subordination of Christ the Logos to natural laws, then among the laws inherent in human nature, he includes (and first of all) the law of ages, the law of infancy. Christ, according to the evangelist, in infancy gradually grew and became stronger in spirit - He was in obedience to His “parents” (Luke II, 40, 51-52). “The wise evangelist (writes St. Cyril), beginning the story of the Logos who became flesh, shows that the Word, for the purposes of economy, allowed his own flesh to develop according to the laws inherent in the nature of the flesh, for which he naturally excelled in age and wisdom, as well as grace, according to the growth of the body... For the Word, as for God, born essentially from the Father, it was not impossible and inaccessible to lift the body united with Himself from the very shrouds to heights and raise it to the measure of perfect age. After all, it would be easy and convenient for Him to impart amazing wisdom to a baby. And only because this would be a miraculous action (τὸ χρῆμα τερατοποιίας οὐ μακρᾶν = aliquid monstri simile = monstrous, ugly) and inconsistent with the goals of the economy, the mystery was accomplished gradually. For the purposes of economy, the Word allowed the conditions (measures) of human nature to rule over Himself” (I, 94–96). This is a common thought among St. fathers. They give an application of this Christological thesis to moral Christian life. I could give dozens of pages of extracts, but I will limit myself to the beautiful words of St. Basil the Great: “Come out into the middle, you, defiled by sins: you fall down, cry and groan; and leave the baby to do what is appropriate for his age” (Creation IV, 117). On the question of the religious education of infants and the time when a child can become a conscious Christian, all St. the fathers and teachers of the church speak with one voice. I will quote the words of Bishop. Feofan. One must be raised religiously from the first days of infancy. But how? “The will of parents for small children is the law of conscience and God. What frost is to flowers, so is deviation from the parental will for a child... It goes without saying that all this (instruction) will concern only ordinary objects.” Actually, a person, despite religious upbringing from the first days of life, becomes a Christian only later. “It is impossible to determine,” continues the bishop. Feofan, - when a person comes to the consciousness of himself as a Christian and his independent determination to live as a Christian. In fact, this happens at different times: at 10, 15 years and later... There must be a special moment when one must deliberately renew in one’s consciousness all the obligations of Christianity and impose their yoke on oneself as an immutable law. In baptism they were accepted unconsciously, then they were kept by someone else's mind, according to someone else's mood and in simplicity. Now we must consciously put upon ourselves the good yoke of Christ, choose a Christian life, and exclusively devote ourselves to God, so that later all the days of our life we ​​can serve Him with enthusiasm. Here only a person himself actually begins the Christian life” (The Path to Salvation). St. Tikhon of Zadonsk writes that children need to be taught “natural law” (V, 162). Wed. St. Basil the Great V, 122, etc. That “from the first days of consciousness a baby can and should be raised in true Christianity,” that the law of infancy does not matter for Christianity, I have not encountered this idea among any of the church authorities. But I put passions among those inherent in human nature?! “Freedom of the flesh - in the fullness and originality of carnal life, - in the fullness of its joys, its passions, in the freedom of the personal principle, in the fullness of natural development in all forms - in the family, national, state, scientific, artistic” (IV, 124). Again, to understand this, it is necessary to turn to the first, fundamental volumes of my system. There we read: Christ (Philip. II, 7) “in appearance” (σχ ή ματι) became a man, “Σχ ῆ μα – habitus, way of life, way of life, behavior, embracing (except appearance in the sense of figure) body movements, speech, actions, also finitude, convention, passion of human nature” (I, 29–30). “Christ, according to St. Cyril, - used His own flesh as an instrument and performed carnal deeds through it, - He was not alien to physical infirmities and everything that does not deserve blame - and again, through His own human soul, human, although only immaculate affects, - passions (π ά θη - affectiones) were accessible to Him" ​​(I, 74). According to St. John of Damascus, “Christ accepted all the natural and immaculate passions of man”... (I, 132). The Fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council solemnly decreed: “We, without making a joke of the sacrament of the economy, believe that the all-holy soul of the Savior was really agitated by all natural forces and was arbitrarily overwhelmed by passions similar to ours, but sinless” (I, 154)... If the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council call anyone who denied human passions in Christ a joker, then what can we call someone who denies the inevitability of natural passions in an ordinary person, in a simple Christian? But, of course, I have never written anywhere about the free development of vicious passions, sinful lusts. In the third volume, having established the moment when natural aspirations for happiness and improvement become sinful lust, I reveal the idea that the very desire of a person for happiness and improvement in a person is ineradicable and is a condition that makes a person capable of accepting Christianity (III, 17–84 passim). “Spiritual love is the opposite of carnal love and grows through it. However, natural love. serves as a preparatory form of spiritual love, just as human language serves as a preparatory form of divine revelation. Everything that a person says himself is not the truth, but the divine truth can be revealed to him only in his language, and in order to perceive the divine truth he needs to renounce - not his language, but his lie. Likewise, we can perceive divine love, because we naturally know love; we can perceive it with our natural ability of love. This is why lukewarmness is far from the kingdom of God. Strong in natural love and hate is also a seat for spiritual love. But the power of love must be cleansed of natural attachments in order to become spiritual love. Here the energy is the same, but the direction is different. This is a kind of transformation of force” (III, 115). “Just as Christian love has a natural preparatory form in the human heart, by analogy with which it is understood and by which it is perceived with the replacement of the old content with a new one, so Christian faith has its natural and preparatory form in the human heart, and this form is not knowledge, which in Christianity remains knowledge, but man’s confidence in himself. It is known that the success of a human endeavor depends on a person’s self-confidence: this very confidence is the active will, illuminated by consciousness. It is this self-confidence that serves as a preliminary form of Christian faith. But both with the replacement of natural love with Christian love, and with the transition of personal confidence into the Christian faith, a significant change occurs, completely changing the content of this act! Personal confidence in a Christian is replaced by confidence in the power of God, which is perfected in weakness. This is faith” (III, 119). This is exactly the same as what we read in St. Gregory the Theologian: “I do not condemn in the least that ardor, without which it is impossible to succeed either in piety or in other virtues... Souls weak in relation to both virtue and vice are equally slow and motionless; they do not lean much on either side; they have the same movements as people suffering from torpor” (Creation III, 112). These biblical and patristic thoughts lie at the basis of my conclusions. This is precisely what I mean when I write in Volume IV: “Souls can be won for the gospel only if they grow up in the sphere of free carnal life, in the warmth and joy of carnal passions, if they develop strong and free personalities, if they are first enriched with all the riches of worldly life” (IV, 128). In the same train of thought and on the same patristic grounds, my thesis about the one-sidedness of church-historical asceticism receives proper illumination. The very idea of ​​a one-sided understanding of asceticism is found among all Christian teachers and theologians, starting with St. Paul and ending with modern members of the Holy Synod 19. For me, the concept of one-sided asceticism is precisely defined in volume III, p. 131: “Already in personal Christian asceticism, since it is part of the system of the Christian worldview, a specifically Christian character is revealed, although personal Christian asceticism is only “nourishment and strengthening” of spiritual life, has the sole goal of spiritual freedom and, in this sense, does not restrict the fullness and freedom of natural development. Church asceticism goes beyond these limits and brings something new here, since it turns out to be a reflection of socio-historical convention. Church asceticism, to put it differently, is symbolic in nature. If, moreover, the memory of the religious and ethical foundations of the church darkens in the church consciousness, then inevitably the church’s symbolic-ascetic practice becomes one-sided and encroaches on the fullness of free-natural development.” The concept of one-sided church-historical asceticism presupposes unshakable evangelical asceticism (II, 259–260) and pedagogical asceticism, as an essential element of the Christian worldview (III, 93–94), which are mentioned above. The one-sidedness of church-historical asceticism is possible in another area - in the area of ​​the relationship of Christian absoluteness to natural natural-historical laws, to natural-social forms: one-sided is that asceticism that has a negative attitude towards the very forms and laws of natural life. I call this one-sided asceticism church-historical 20, firstly, because church history knows such, even heretical, extremes of asceticism. Already the apostle writes about false talkers, seared in their conscience, who considered marriage bad, and teaches that every creation of God is good (1 Tim. IV, 1-4), and that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. XIII, 4), and that all power is from God (Rom. XIII, 1 ff.), etc. The same was decided regarding marriage, this basic form of natural life, and the church canons: “if anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general from the sacred rank, withdraws from marriage, meat and wine, not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because of abomination, forgetting that all good is evil and that God, creating man, husband and wife, created them, and thus blasphemes slander the creation: either let him be corrected, or let him be expelled from the sacred rank, and rejected from churches. So is the layman” (Ap. 51, etc.). Secondly, I mean that the entire church, due to its historical tasks, namely the fight against paganism, which desecrated all aspects of natural life - marriage, the state, and art - could allow its members to participate in the forms of natural life only under the condition of cleansing them from pagan filth, which involuntarily developed the ideal of flight from the world, abstinence from all forms of natural-social life. This was quite natural in a certain period of church life (IV, 188–198). Meanwhile, Catholicism not only retained this attitude towards natural life even after the passage of the indicated historical conditions, but also brought it to conceivable limits in that it sought to master all forms of natural life and especially the state - it sought to master state power (III, 299-309), so that Catholicism necessarily led and is leading to stagnation in natural development. The Catholic Church has its own policy; it wants to give Christianity a political meaning and Christian morality a legal form. This Catholic asceticism is what I always mean when I talk about one-sided church-historical asceticism - and I never forget to note this (IV, 38. 193. 333, etc.). But, of course, rejecting this Catholic asceticism, I do not at all lose the opportunity to assert that “a Christian, by the essence of his spiritual life, inevitably enters into natural-historical life without the moral dirt that sticks to it outside of Christianity: the natural life of a Christian can only be chaste... This provides a wide opportunity for preaching influence on life, the possibility of eloquent instructions to spouses, parents, children, masters, servants, rulers, judges... We will find examples of such instructions already among the apostles. In the fight against personally conscious immorality, Christianity is an irreplaceable educational force” (God. Vestn. September 1909, pp. 77–78). This is the Christian worldview as I present it. For my justification, I did not cite the patristic and biblical passages that I only now remembered - no, I indicated the biblical and patristic foundations of my worldview, which are expressively given in my system itself, and are given not as random quotations, but as the organic foundation of the whole structure, including the most distant conclusions. Maybe I didn’t quite understand something - errare est humanum; Perhaps my presentation in places suffers from darkness and vagueness; Perhaps I do not always allow expressions that are sufficiently prudent and popular. Shouldn’t I have said instead of “freedom of the flesh” - “unhindered development of natural-social life according to its inherent laws?” Shouldn’t I have limited myself, on the question of the Christianity of infants, to what was literally said by Bishop. Theophan, and in general in volume IV - to adhere to the same closeness to the biblical patristic language as in the first volumes? Perhaps, although one should take into account the fact that almost this entire volume is a criticism of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solovyov, Rozanov, Merezhkovsky, which I initially read before a secular audience. In any case, in general, I stand unshakably on Christian-church soil, and my most apparently risky theses are nothing more than an accurate transmission of biblical and patristic thoughts. Recently, several articles written by our bishops have appeared, directed against scholasticism and calling for the experimental construction of theology. This is what I have. More and more often we are called from German slavery to the genuine study of biblical sources. That's what I do. We have long been told that an Orthodox theologian should explain the Bible itself not according to his own reason, but according to patristic guidance. That's what I do. I am a theologian, an Orthodox theologian, in the most precise and literal sense of the word. In the eighteen years since I completed my academic course, I have been steadily and unremittingly engaged in theological questions. I have not written a single line in which I would have betrayed my theological calling. Is there one significant question in the Christian religion that I have not thought through? There was not a single day when the gospel was not on my desk. All my scientific enthusiasm, all my “delights of comprehension,” were continuously focused on one object - on the person and work of Christ, on the Gospel history and on the Gospel teaching. My entire scientific system, which I have now given an artistically smoky appearance, is my prayer gift to the One whose image completely filled and fills my soul, whose plow, heavy for my weak strength, I drove recklessly and with love. But does my system raise doubts in readers? In principle, this is how it should be - precisely in view of the fact that I am imposing genuine biblical and patristic teaching, which was and remains a temptation for the Jews (who base salvation on the law of works) and madness for the pagans (fans of the idea of ​​natural perfection). It is no secret to anyone that the popular Christian worldview differs significantly from the strictly biblical and patristic one. The word “flesh” and the representation of the readers; and professional pilgrims has a different meaning than in the biblical and patristic dogmatic usage. The Apostle Paul made significant efforts to defend Christian freedom and to combat “arbitrary humility and weariness of the body.” Or - the apostle teaches that the law was given “for the sake of crime,” and this is translated in Russian, in the spirit of popular concepts, “because of crimes” (Gal. III, 19). Even seminary students, during entrance exams at the academy, explain this passage in the sense of the Russian translation; when they are pointed to Rome. V, 20 (“the law came after, and thus the crime increased”), VII, 9 (“when the commandment came, sin revived”), Art. 19 (“sin becomes extremely sinful through the commandment”; and other places forcing us to understand “crimes for the sake of” in the sense of “to multiply crimes”, then 9/10 of those asked shrug their shoulders in bewilderment, and some even object that God cannot give a law for the multiplication of crimes. Is it surprising if some “Orthodox”, whose education, apparently, did not go beyond the parochial school, is indignant (in Moscow Vedas, 1915, No. 83) with my thoughts in the spirit of St. Paul and draws from them the conclusion: “If you have not sinned, you cannot pray,” and he refers to the two “nigella pilgrims” who killed the baby, as if it was for this reason that the Epistles of the Apostle Paul were already considered “not intelligible, which the ignorant and unstable, like others, turn to their own destruction.” scriptures." On this incomprehensibility, resulting from the collision of human thoughts (τ ὰ τ ῶ ν ἀ νθρ ώ πων), the philosophies of the “black wanderers,” with the thoughts of God (τ ὰ το ῦ Θεο ῦ ), and moral theology stands, like on a volcano, since its The direct goal is to replace the wisdom of the pseudonymous Orthodox teachers with truly Orthodox biblical and patristic teaching. The confusion of the simpletons will be abundantly rewarded by the benefits that theological truth will bring in other respects, for the world is not made up of simpletons alone. I have the right to point out the great apologetic significance of my writings in relation to the intelligentsia, for whom my books, which are decidedly alien to popularity, are intended. The fourth volume of “Fundamentals of Christianity” is filled primarily with criticism of our secular theologians - Tolstoy, Solovyov, Dostoevsky, Merezhkovsky, Rozanov and others. Even after the publication of “Fundamentals of Christianity,” I continue (and intend to continue) this polemic in a number of apologetic articles 21 . My theological system puts in my hands an irresistible weapon for polemics with all sorts of false interpretations of Christianity and with its enemies. By fencing off Christianity, as an absolute spiritual religion, from politics, from socio-historical conventions, I - in the above expression of one secular reviewer - “made Christianity not vulnerable to criticism.” Among our intelligentsia, my writings are known and valued as an apology for Christianity. But let us look through the entire long series of well-known enemies of Christianity - Renan, Strauss, Comte, Feuerbach, Marx and all socialism, Stirner, Nietzsche and all anarchism, etc. It is obvious to me that nothing is easier than victory over these negative thinkers - from my theological point of view 22. My theological system is especially valuable for judging all external claims on the practical direction of church life - about our domestic claims. It is known what hopeless jungles Catholicism has long gone into and what difficulties Protestantism finds itself in regarding practical issues. And we are constantly repeating attempts - especially intensely in recent days - to put Orthodoxy in the same impasse. And here two extremes meet. On the one hand, there is religious and social absolutism in the spirit of Leontyev, who professed the mysticism of power, deified the state and in this sense interpreted the Christian religion. Leontyev is little known among us; the pagan theory of the social state cannot be tempting to Christians. But in recent days, the Christian justification for socialism and anarchism has come into force in our country, the struggle in the name of Christianity against family and state foundations is the other extreme in the direct application of Christianity to politics. One can point, for example, to the “Brotherhood of Struggle,” whose program is set out in a brochure of the same name; You can further point out Merezhkovsky’s Christian-negative attitude towards marriage ethics, which I have said enough about in Volume IV; You can point to Berdyaev’s Christian anarchism, about which my article “Religion and Society” is about. Here I wrote: “No matter how weak and unstable Mr. Berdyaev’s religiously negative judgments about the state are presented, they must be kept in mind by all supporters of a religious view of the public, even if they belong to the Leontiev type. At first glance, it seems to them that the whole problem is in the religiously neutral concept of social life. Meanwhile, with a more or less careful consideration of the issue, it is not difficult to see that the religious-neutral concept of state and family life does not pose a danger either to religion or to state-family life: both are essentially heterogeneous and therefore are each subject to their own special laws. Of course, there cannot and should not be complete isolation, since every believer is at the same time a member of state and family unions, which, under the influence of Christianity, are inevitably moralized. There remains full scope for the church’s beneficial influence on these unions. With all this, these unions, in their essence, in the conditionality of their own tasks and in the pattern of their prosperity, are “original”, pre-Christian, cannot be determined by the transcendental instructions of the Christian, absolute religion, i.e., they are religiously neutral. On the contrary, the religious view of the public is fraught with a double danger. Two paths are inevitable here: the path of religious-social absolutism or the path of religious anarchism. Now we want to point out that each of these extremes contains much that is instructive for the supporters of the other extreme. The fact is that each of them, no matter how poorly substantiated, turns out to be irrefutable for the defenders of the other extreme. Thus, representatives of religious-social absolutism are helpless before the logic of religious anarchism. Whoever thinks sufficiently about this circumstance will understand all the benefits of a religiously neutral concept of the public, not to mention the fact that this is a truly evangelical view of the public,” etc. No matter how well-intentioned the application of Christianity to politics may be, the very path of political interpretation of the Gospel texts makes it possible for the opposite political use of Christianity, so what results is a hopeless struggle between different church-political parties. No, to fight socialism and anarchism on Christian soil, it is necessary to undermine the very idea of ​​Christian politics. And therefore, to combat the Christian justification of socialism and anarchism, my theological system provides inexhaustible and irresistible weapons, which I have evidence of in dozens of letters of gratitude from such figures as teachers of secular educational institutions and the like. Admitting the fundamental possibility of doubts that are aroused in ordinary readers by a book of a strictly biblical direction, I cannot, however, forget that my works, due to the philosophical nature of the presentation and the extensiveness of the (four-volume) system and, even at a high price, are inaccessible to a wide circle of readers. Therefore, I cannot help but call the noise raised around them an extremely artificial phenomenon. The whole variety of articles directed against me in various spiritual and secular bodies, most anonymously or pseudonymously, belongs, according to my exact information, to two or three persons. What is most remarkable is that not one of these articles satisfies the most basic requirements of good faith. The usual technique for these articles should already be called dishonest - tearing out individual thoughts and even individual phrases, which receive their real meaning when poured into the connection of an integral system. This is not enough. Usually these articles incriminate me with thoughts and passages that are not my own. Here's an example. In the newspaper “Bell”, January 1909. (No. 255) a furious feuilleton is dedicated to me. Here the following are quoted as my literal words: “In addition to my heart, I have a mind, an imagination, an interest in science and politics; there lives a complete pagan world, not in the least connected with Christianity; and I give all these parts of my soul to the world with complete freedom, as it does not in the least hinder me from believing in Christ as my Lord and God... When people tried to apply the gospel in general to a healthy natural life, they thereby distorted both natural life and the gospel,” etc. From here the author of the feuilleton concludes that I teach about “the Divine, whose commandments absolutely everyone only spoils, and the less they are fulfilled, the better,” about “God, Which is completely superfluous and without Which everything goes immeasurably better by itself”, about “religion, which is in itself, and people, their lives, actions, aspirations, goals are in themselves”... But these words, which the feuilleton with emphasis passes off as my literal words, I don’t have anywhere, and these conclusions resemble my actual thoughts, like black and white. What does it mean? Is it not that my accusers do not find it possible to accuse me on the basis of my actual words, my true thoughts? It always happens with us that on whom the right puts their mark, the left puts their varnish on those. The same thing happened to me. I mainly mean Rozanov’s feuilleton in Nov. Time 3 Jan 1909, No. 11, 786. I dedicated an article to G. Rozanov in Volume IV. A significant part of this article reveals the idea that Rozanov usually does not say enough in his judgments about theologians. “He lovingly dwells on one priest of our days, who points out and proves with references that the gospel does not condemn the reasonable, appropriate enjoyment of the blessings of nature... G. Rozanov accepts this interpretation of Christianity for the purpose of promoting his idea and is completely without interest in the essence of Christianity. He has his own religion... Rozanov only in these articles, in journalistic forms, accepts a superficial interpretation of Christianity, concealing within himself his explanation of this historical phenomenon... “Yes, says Rozanov, the resurrection of the body... and further - the recognition of birth, family, marriage - this is good.” Also, in another place, Rozanov praised the monasteries... After all, you need to understand Rozanov’s tactics... I reproach G. Rozanov for vagueness and lack of understanding... Again Rozanov does not finish his book” (IV, 402–408), etc. I am now experiencing the same tactics of Rozanov on myself in his review of my “Fundamentals of Christianity.” He writes: “The Gospel in its great seriousness, in the great tragedy hidden in it, is completely inaccessible to the comprehension of a child, a youth, inaccessible to the comprehension of a generally healthy spontaneity. His spirit is revealed only in tragic situations and tragic moods... The true covenants of the gospel are addressed not to children, not to a happy natural family; they are addressed to adults and, moreover, those caught in a family tragedy, where the family is decaying, sick, vicious. Commandments to husbands to “leave their wives”, to wives “to leave their husbands”: while they love each other and are happy with themselves, this is unacceptable for them, does not apply to them and they simply do not need it,” etc. Here the truth is mixed with untruth in such a way that it is difficult to understand. Rozanov almost expresses my thoughts in almost my own words. He imperceptibly moves from childhood to youth, losing sight of the fact that between these limits lie those “10–15 years” when a person experiences a religious revolution, and that the religious neutrality of childhood cannot in any way be extended to youth. Just as imperceptibly, Rozanov further moves from youth to the natural family, not only extending religious neutrality to it, equating family people with babies, but also subsuming his favorite family religion under the concept of religious neutrality of the family. I will not unravel this cunning weave, this intricate knot - I will stop pouring at the extreme link. I am only saying that the law of marriage is of pre-Christian origin - nothing more. Rozanov asserts that “the true covenants of the gospel are addressed not to a happy natural family, but to a decaying, sick and vicious family.” However, my opinion on the issue that Rozanov raises is exactly the opposite of this. And what is most remarkable: my opinion was expressed with sufficient completeness, by the way, in a critical article about Rozanov himself. “Family selfishness is not only tolerated, but they require family purity, nobility of relationships, and the beauty of raising children. The whole culture of the family grows solely out of family egoism... But the whole point is in a certain pass: until the family moral culture has crossed this pass, it remains the fruit of family egoism, it is completely resolved in it, and as soon as it has crossed to another slope - the slope of the Christian spirit, then the rupture of the family necessarily begins" (IV, 410-411). Already from these lines it is clear that, by deriving family culture from the natural law of marriage, I attribute to the highest Christian spirit the ability to tear apart a family, whereas, according to Rozanov, Christianity is needed only by a family that is naturally decaying. I say: the Christian spirit even tears apart a healthy, normal family. Rozanov says: Christianity should not tear families apart; it needs to wait until the family naturally falls apart. These are diametrically opposed opinions. I continue to develop my view: “When God calls a family man to some Godly work, and he blesses his family, entrusts it to God and good people, and he himself goes to a heroic deed, to torture and death, and lays down his soul for God’s truth, for love for people - then only he will prove himself a Christian” (IV, 411)... “Let them understand (the Rozanovs) that just as life is needed for an idea, in order for it to be embodied, and flesh is needed for spirit, in order for it to be realized, and paganism is needed for Christianity, in order for it to be alive, - so carnal paganism needs the Christian spirit so that it does not become vile flesh” (IV, 417). “With a good family, giving and sacrificing love is limited to a circle of objects, and this creates a fresh psyche of humble deeds and gentle joy; when either a family (for example, an overly well-fed, self-satisfied, self-absorbed one) begins (even without any disorder or “resentment” in marital relations itself) to vulgarize a person, to destroy him, or some “extra-family” matter becomes an internal need for him, he has the right to break the family, because the highest thing is that “the person lives.” And it seems that this possibility, sometimes turning into necessity, of breaking up one or another family (not because of natural oppression, or from people, or adultery, but for the sake of the kingdom of God, for the sake of human life) will not humiliate the family at all, but will elevate and sanctify it” (IV, 420-421). In view of Rozanov’s teaching, I pose a direct question: “is the Christian consciousness satisfied with the flesh?” – and I answer this question in the negative (IV, 136–137). “The family is natural, aesthetically beautiful, has its joys and its sorrows, by which it is justified, it harmoniously combines personal egoism with the common good. But when the divine, absolute consciousness awakens in a person, can the family then satisfy him? Is it possible to squeeze this consciousness within the boundaries of your family? To establish the religious integrity of the family does not mean to banish from human life every thought about the sacred, about the heavenly” (IV, 140)? “Absolute, religious consciousness cannot tolerate carnal limitations. According to the gospel, as a result of internal abundance and God’s calling, the boundaries of the family are broken by themselves, the living spring of universal love flows over the edge of the family, one’s own worldly goods are neglected for the sake of the internal good” (141). “I think that, on the one hand, it would be sad if all religion were limited to the family, just as if there was no sun in the sky and the whole world was limited to one home” (IV, 142), etc. Isn’t this the complete opposite of what Mr. Rozanov is now writing about me?! “If at the present time any, even a simple, humble Christian sticks to talk about the truths of faith (in new terms), but without any contradiction to church tradition, then such an author, while remaining in agreement with Orthodox theology, does not reveal new secrets of faith, but from the point of view of the eternal truth of faith explains new needs of modern human thought. A modern reader, seeing in his words a long-awaited answer to his perplexities in faith, is ready to proclaim such an interpretation as a “new revelation,” while another, alien to these requests, an admirer of school authorities, hesitates to agree with the author with distrust and hostility and persistently looks for heresy in him, not wanting to come to terms with the fact that the subject is explained better than in established textbooks. Meanwhile, he did not say anything contrary to the textbooks, and the very assessment of the comparative merit of his interpretations with educational literature depends primarily not on the presentation of the eternal content of faith, which is identical in both of these interpretations, but on the explanation of the changing demands of modern thought. I would ask these words from the archbishop. Anthony of Volyn, which he said not about me (IV, 161–162), were applied to me so that I could be judged by this criterion, for it was also said about me that “the main merit of Prof. Tareev’s reputation before our theological, and indeed before Russian thought, lies precisely in the fact that he, having guessed with a correct instinct the urgent demands of historical necessity, took into himself and endured in himself all those doubts and thoughts, requests and torments with which our thinking society suffered and is suffering, worried and worried in this last half-century, and without at all bypassing or hushing up difficulties, according to the custom of other theologians, he tries to overcome them. overcome, everywhere introducing the rays of my sincere and convinced thought,” and my work impresses with its extreme stability in the main, in all essential points: establishing itself on the unshakable soil of the Christian worldview, the author does not yield an inch to his opponents on any essential point and everywhere acts as a convinced apologist for the “Fundamentals of Christianity” (“Moscow Ved.,” March 29, 1908, No. 74). If the internal mission of the Orthodox Russian Church cannot be limited to the “Trinity Leaves”, designed for “literate pilgrims”, if it is necessary to expound and apologist Christianity before the Russian intelligentsia, then I hope that my “spiritual talent” will find a place in the complex system of “church ministries”. I am convinced that I act in the interests of the Orthodox Russian Church, as an apologist for Christianity, within the framework of modern intellectual thought. So, I will say with the apostle: “I have nothing in myself,” and with him I will add: “But I am not justified about this.” And although I wait, “until the Lord will come, who will bring the secret of darkness into the light and reveal the counsels of the heart; and then everyone’s praise will come from God”: however, I dare to point out the following. Of the four volumes of “Fundamentals of Christianity” there are two volumes, I and III. - master's and doctoral dissertations, passed through the lenient but authoritative censorship of His Eminence the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and, like dissertations, were approved by the Holy Synod. Extracted from the Archives of St. Synod: case (1908) No. 86 (according to the II table, I department) vol. IV. The same auditor at the Petrograd Academy about the lectures of Prof. Bronzova gave this feedback. “With pleasure and complete satisfaction I listened to the lectures of professors:... A. Bronzov on moral theology: Criticism of socialist morality. Lecture on a very modern topic”... So, what does prof. Bronze is a nice modern theme; then at Prof. Tareeva - all sorts of isms. This is called: “not good for good, but good for good.” This is how history is written and this is how revisions are made. In the explanatory note to the academic charter of 1910, teachers of moral theology are already “charged with the duty to expound as fully and thoroughly as possible the doctrine of the Christian foundations of personal, family and social-state life... so that the inconsistency of socialism and related doctrines is clear to listeners” (M. T.). "Gospel Doctrine" is the second volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity. If the second volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity is not the teaching “about Christ and the life of regenerated humanity,” then what, in the opinion of the Right Reverend Auditor, can be called the teaching “about Christ and the life of regenerated humanity”? If the second volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity does not fulfill the program of “Christian moral theology” and is only “something about the gospel teaching” (see below), then why does the Reverend. Demetrius did not tell the world a more perfect word “about the Gospel teaching,” for in our literature this is the only experience of presenting the Gospel teaching? (M.T.) The department's audit report on lecture programs begins like this: “Contrary to the instructions of the Charter (§ 81, a, 3), lecture programs are not submitted to the Academy Council for consideration and approval. They are not included in the Council archives. Apparently, upon admission to the rector, they are not considered by anyone; Only a few have a note by the rector of the time of their arrival. They are kept in the rector's home archive, and seem to be scattered among other papers in the archive. In response to the desire I expressed to the Reverend Rector to get acquainted with the programs of recent years, they were not sent to me quickly, and not all at once, but in several stages, obviously, as they were found during a deliberate analysis of the papers accumulated by the Rector. (M.T.) Eminence Demetrius prof. Tareev was portrayed (that is, was painted by those interested in it) as a swindler, a shady businessman, and his task was carried out by the reverend. The auditor's goal was to expose all of Mr. Tareev's machinations, to find traces of his tricks, to track down his cunningly planned moves. At the same time, you need to remember that the entire audit was carried out behind the scenes, secretly. (The legend is fresh, but hard to believe). Prof. Tareev does not submit a reading program at the beginning of the year. It's obvious why. He wants to cover his tracks, not to leave a documentary memory of his godless lectures. But unexpectedly the auditor arrives. The tracked professor rushed about and sensed trouble. Found a way out: a clever man! He took it and submitted it, for no apparent reason, only in September, when the auditor had already arrived, he submitted information about what he had read instead of the program. However, it was not such an auditor that Mr. Tareev attacked: His Eminence Demetrius, assisted by M.A. Ostroumov, took him out to fresh water and did not allow himself to be led to the chaff. The tracker is cunning, but the trackers are even more cunning... This is how the audit was carried out. The matter was much simpler than it seemed to the heated imagination of the auditors. Information about what has been read is usually submitted to the Moscow Academy by October 1st - to be included in the report on the state of the academy, which is read at a ceremony on that day and then printed. There was no adaptation to the auditor here, no “instead of the program”, nothing like that! Prof. Tareev “came to his senses”... and in order to rub glasses into the auditor’s eyes, he rearranged the departments of the program one in place of another. It is impossible to understand why this might be necessary, what, in the auditor’s opinion, was the trick here: why is it more reliable to read in the first half of the year about the gospel, and in the second about socialism, than to read in the reverse order? That the testimony of “information about what was read in 1907–8,” printed in the “Report on the state of the Moscow Theological Academy in the 1907–1908 school year. year" (see V. West. 1908 November), were not invented for the auditor, but correspond to reality, this is evidenced by the fact that the second volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity in the first half of the year (read at lectures and directly) was published in several magazines, so that in the second half of the year (in Lent) it already appeared in printed form (hence, could not be read at lectures). But it is also significant that in the “Report on the state of M.D.A. in 1906–1907 academic year. g.,” already published a year ago (B.V. October 1907) before the revision, it is reported: “Ordinary professor Mikhail Tareev on moral theology read to second and fourth year students: Faith and life according to the gospel... The moral nature of man and the natural teaching of morality”... Again, readings about the gospel took place in the first half of the year. Why were the auditors weaving their web?.. (M. T.). What was the auditor’s bewilderment?.. Of what the professor read during the year, part (Faith and life according to the Gospel) was printed by the time of the exams, and the exam program included only this printed part, which the students prepared for the exam and answered in the exam “on tickets”, and the rest of what they read during the year was not included in the examination program, the students did not prepare for the exams - there was nothing - and the tickets were not asked, and they asked (in strict compliance with the circular, so that the exam corresponded to what was read) only “on questions outside the (examination) program.” And from this procedure for conducting the exam, the “witty” auditors came to the conclusion that “what was required in the exam was not what was in the program issued before the start of the lectures”! (M.T.) It was not “Professor Tareev who arranged it” this way, but the Academy Council; which is recorded in the minutes of Soviet meetings. (M.T.) The rapid spread of the Fundamentals of Christianity especially worried M. A. Ostroumov, who, for some reason, saw in this circumstance a personal insult to himself. (M.T.) The foundations of Christianity - a godless (atheism) and immoral (immoralism) composition?! (M.T.). In fact, this is true. At that time, the water supply in the monastery had deteriorated and a legend spread among the monks: God was punishing the monastery because the Fundamentals of Christianity were printed in its printing house and sold in its shop. The monastic administration took measures to avert the wrath of God... The vicar of the Lavra, Archimandrite Tobias, for his persecution of the Fundamentals of Christianity later, through the efforts of the rector of the Academy, Rev. Theodore, was elected - as one of the prominent monks of the Lavra found out the connection of events - to an honorary member of the Academy (M. T.). “Written out”: this will give the wrong light to the entire learned physiognomy of Prof. Andreeva. I. D. Andreev copied the liberation literature of 1905–1906 to the library in as much detail as possible, and thus provided an invaluable service for the future historian of these years (M. T.). As prof. Could Tareev have written his study on socialism without this “political, anarchist and socialist rubbish”? (M.T.). On the subject of the dissertation by D. G. Konovalov (M. T.). So, in the opinion of the auditors, the program of readings on Moral Theology should not include a section on evangelical teaching, a critical section on positive ethics, or a section on monasticism! What cannot the auditors agree on if they write in the confidence that their report will be kept under lock and key forever?.. I am talking about the subjective-moral side of Christianity in the same sense as, for example, Archimandrite. (now Archbishop) Sergius (“Orthodox teaching on salvation. Experience in revealing the moral-subjective side of salvation on the basis of Holy Scripture and the works of the patrists”). On the inevitability of subjectivism in Christian morality and in Christian moral theology (cf. “Orthodox Christian teaching on morality” by Protoprepreneur I.L. Yanyshev, 2nd ed. pp. 20 – 21. “Assuming we are talking about morality in general and in particular about Christian Orthodox morality, we will be forced to talk only about personal, subjective morality in each of us. From this subjectivity there is nothing for us there is no way out, but it is not needed. Subjectivism, and Christian subjectivism at that, is not only inevitable, but also obligatory for our science"), and also about the boundaries of this subjectivism, see our article “Churchfulness as a principle of moral theology” (Theological Vestn. September 1909). I just remember that Archpriest. Lavrsky made me an objection to my article about the resurrection of Christ (in Miss. Ob. 1904 No. 7). I not only gave him the necessary explanations (Bog. Vestn. June 1904), but also revised this article, with a new edition, in the sense of a more accurate transmission of Orthodox teaching. See vol. I, pp. 344 and 315 cp. II, 357 – 358; III, 143 – 150. Cf. also Shower. Thurs. 1903 p. 651. See prototype. I. L. Yanysheva “Orthodox Christian teaching on morality”, 2nd ed. pp. 200 – 201 (approx.) and the entire book passim. This expression, of course, does not have the meaning that all historical ecclesiastical Christianity was one-sided and ascetic, but there will be a new Christianity, rosy, against which my entire fourth volume is directed, but has the clearly indicated meaning that “Moses was given the gift of seeing the “back” of God. And church history sees only the historically conditional results of Christianity” (III, 137). So, for example, the archbishop. Anthony of Volyn distinguishes “monasticism in essence” from what “monastic life, according to the facts of its fifteen-century history, was” (II, 416 – 417 etc.). Christian. 1907 Jan (The moral tragedy of socialism); 1908 May to June (Apology for Christian Morality: Evolutionary Ethics); Theologian Vestn. 1908 July-Aug. (Haeckel – monistic ethics); ib. Oct. (Sociological morality); ib. Dec. (Orthobiosis); ib. 1909 No. 1 – 3 (The religious problem in modern light); ib. June, July and Aug. (Religion and Public); Vera and R. 1909. Jan. (Can morality be considered only an inevitable product of social instincts?)... On Comte, Feuerbach and Strauss, see my above-mentioned article “The Religious Problem in Contemporary Light.” You might be interested in: