Response to criticism of Professor M. M. Tareev

In the May and June books of the “Theological Bulletin” in the “bibliographic department” prof. M. M. Tareev published an extremely harsh review of my essay “Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching.” Volume one: fundamental - in two books. St. Petersburg, 1907, - under the title: “About the book of Mr. Zarin: Asceticism” 1. Since this harsh article in its largest part (almost entirely) is also extremely unfair, casting an undeserved shadow of sweeping condemnation not only on my work, but also on my very personality - intellectual and moral - I cannot leave it without a response. In my present answer, I make it my duty to stay on a purely business basis, avoiding any polemical antics and personal scores. True, fulfilling this obligation is not always easy, since my most respected opponent stands from beginning to end on a clearly subjective point of view, with the undisguised intention of causing me personally the greatest possible trouble. Trample both my work and my personality into the mud. This is fully consistent with the most external way of presenting a bibliographic article: it often leaves a calm tone and the speech turns into a scolding address to the author of the dissertation under review, i.e. to me 2: its tone is unpleasant (not only for me), harsh and passionate, etc. and contains some paradoxical statements. Already the preliminary remarks of my critic, which define his initial point of view on my work, lack strict objectivity. According to him, he “began reading the grandiose work” of mine “with sophisticated attention, with an intense reverent feeling” 3 - in any case - “with favorable feelings” 4. And this is not only in view of the “character of the religious literature of our days,” which represents “the most advantageous background against which such scientific work stands out” 5 , but also in view of some “preliminary data” 6 . These preliminary data are “rave reviews from official reviewers, newspaper noise. Zarin is the second Bolotov: such a rumor swept through our theological world” 7. – As for the reviews of official reviewers, they undoubtedly had in mind the comparative merit of the essay and determined its significance among other master's theses. Official reviewers - naturally - did not apply any special, increased standards to my essay, since there was no reason for this. Newspaper noise was limited to Mr. V.V. Varvarin’s feuilleton in “Russian Word” 8 . He also made a comparison between me and the memorable prof. V.V. Bolotov, based on the impression of several of my speeches at the first religious and philosophical meetings. Studying the issue of asceticism specifically with deep interest in primary sources, I - naturally - at the meetings could report something valuable, even new for the majority of the meeting. It is characteristic that this personal impression of the writer-publicist from my several speeches at religious and philosophical meetings is for some reason transferred to my essay and is considered a source of preliminary awareness of “our theological world” about its dignity. All this is carefully attracted by my critic, and the colors are tendentiously thickened in order to further mock my work as much as possible. “First impression,” writes Prof. M. M. Tareev, from this dissertation and the final judgment that follows from a careful study of it, radically diverge” 9. Namely, “the first external impression of these books was joyful, invigorating, revealing solid ground under one’s feet and wide horizons in the future. Taking in your hands this “fundamental” weighty volume, printed on excellent paper, in a clear and solid font, decorated with tables of contents, prefaces, introductions, conclusions, indexes, divisions, subdivisions, introductory provisions and conclusion theses, historical and philological references on every issue, endless quotations and notes to almost every word of the text, you involuntarily rejoice for our theology as a science" 10. My “ethical-theological” study is called “most learned”, since “on almost every (out of 1145) pages the reader encounters an overwhelming abundance of quotations, Greek and Latin texts” 11. Despite all this, the final “sentence” of my dissertation is extremely harsh and even terrifying: “this is a pitiful, beggarly work that has no meaning” 12. I won’t lie, it’s very difficult to receive such a verdict from a professor, whom I previously always treated with sincere respect. To work with selflessness for 8 years out of pure devotion to religious truth, in an unfavorable - for the most part - environment for scientific activity, to use a lot of labor, to noticeably undermine even one’s health, to spend, in addition, significant (for me) material resources on the purchase of manuals, on correspondence and printing of an essay - and as a result such a review, which, due to its terrifying significance, the critic himself calls a “sentence”, almost a death sentence. The critic does not hide the fact that he wants to morally destroy once and for all not only the significance of my work under consideration, but also the very personality of the author, to kill in him all energy to continue scientific activity, to place him in impossible conditions in the surrounding society 13 . All this would be not only painful, but also downright terrible if the criticism of Prof. M. M. Tareeva was objectively impartial and indeed at least somewhat impartial. In fact, this criticism was caused by the personal irritation of Professor M. M. Tareev with the author of the study on asceticism. The main tone of this criticism - sharply polemical - and the judgments about the dissertation - inexorably ruthless and extremely intolerant - take their main source from the fact that the author of the dissertation on asceticism allowed himself to treat the works of Prof. M. M. Tareev is not the way the professor would have wanted and how – let’s be honest – we should partly treat him. True, the explanation of the reasons for this phenomenon and its very nature are presented by Prof. M. M. Tareev is too tendentious and in many ways completely wrong, but we must immediately establish the fact that a personal motive predetermined everything - from beginning to end - the attitude of prof. to the dissertation he was reviewing. The critic, in his assessment of my dissertation, could not and did not want to rise above personal motives. Prof.’s final judgments about my dissertation. M. M. Tareev substantiates the consideration of the work from two sides “firstly, from the formal side - in relation to its manuals and, secondly, from the fundamental side - in relation to biblical and patristic sources” 14. At the same time, Prof. warns in advance that his criticism will be very strict 15. The need for such criticism of Prof. M. M. Tareev points out that it is “one of the necessary conditions for the prosperity of every science” 16, and the basis for its application to a particular extent in relation to the work under consideration is, according to the critic, the fact that “the author himself treats the works under review extremely strictly. His entire first book is some kind of wild orgy of pedantic arrogance and boundless narcissism” 17. In particular, prof. M. M. Tareev cites the following examples of my reviews as proof of their “ruthlessness” 18. “Oh Reverend. Feofan: “In this case, to our surprise, we meet at the Reverend. Feofan, apparently, some inconsistency, inconsistency. In general, the relationship of ecstasy, as the highest goal of contemplative asceticism, to the requirements of the general Christian ideal of religious and moral perfection does not seem clear in the presentation of the Rev. Feofan and arouses extremely important and serious bewilderments.” A.F. Gusev: “Prof. Gusev failed to quite correctly grasp and accurately express the essence and fundamental features of the Orthodox ascetic view. We don’t see consistency and certainty in A.F..” "A. F. Gusev did not grasp with sufficient depth and did not note with sufficient certainty the dual unity of the Christian religious and moral ideal.” P. P. Ponomarev: “in the circle of thoughts of Mr. Ponomarev being analyzed, we do not see strict consistency and complete consistency, we do not observe a strictly logical disclosure of one specific position... Unfortunately, which one experiences very often when reading the work being analyzed, the author did not thoroughly, accurately and thoroughly reveal the content of the central and fundamental concept of asceticism - salvation.” I.V. Popov: “In the further disclosure of these thoughts, some uncertainty, ambiguity, reticence, and sometimes even confusion and inaccuracy are noticeable.” M. M. Tareev (me, the critic explains): “His thoughts, unfortunately, are not distinguished by the definiteness of their meaning and the accuracy of their formulation. It is our deepest conviction that Prof. Tareev expressed the Orthodox teaching on this issue inaccurately.” Harnack: “Harnack’s writings do not stand up to strict and precise scientific scrutiny. Such a way of reasoning cannot in any case be recognized as scientific.” Holl: “This scientist, in his judgments and conclusions, often misinterprets actual facts, exaggerates their significance, gives them the wrong color... He lacks a holistic, correct, so to speak, organic representation of the subject being interpreted; we do not find in him a completely clear, precise, definite idea of ​​the content of ascetic contemplation” 19. Regarding the above excerpts, it must be said that here fragmentary expressions are taken from the first book, which do not make it possible to judge the general nature of the review of sources in my work. For example, Rev. Feofane is interpreted in this spirit: “The works of Rev. Theophanes with remarkable completeness, closeness and accuracy reflect the spirit and character of the patristic ascetic worldview, which was the subject of his especially careful comprehensive study and constant unremitting attention. A wonderful, rare and outstanding expert in ascetic writing, Rev. Feofan reflected its features not only in his numerous creations, but also in his life, testing the truth of the ascetic basic premises with his own spiritual experience... In this circumstance lies the special, rare value of the works of St. Theophan for every researcher of the ascetic worldview. At the same time, and what is also especially important, Rev. Theophan was influenced not by any one, even an outstanding and completely authoritative ascetic writer, not even by one particular group of them, expressing the characteristics of only one or another direction of the ascetic worldview - no, his acquaintance with the ascetic patristic writing was outstanding not only in the depth, but also in the breadth of the ascetic material he embraced. Excellent acquaintance Bishop. Theophan with a large number of the most outstanding, characteristic and important ascetic writers had the consequence of the penetration of the saint by their common spirit, the assimilation by him of the most significant, characteristic, basic features and salient aspects of their worldview. This, at least, is the case with Rev. Feofan in the vast majority of cases, the opposite is only insignificant exceptions” 20. Consequently, if I state in one case, “some inconsistency, inconsistency,” I say that “the relationship of ecstasy, as the highest goal of contemplative asceticism, to the requirements of the general Christian ideal of religious and moral perfection does not seem clear at all in the presentation of the Most Reverend. Theophan and arouses important and serious bewilderments,” then it is clear to any impartial reader that here we are talking about the particulars of the theological system of the Reverend. Feofan. At the same time, I express myself extremely carefully: “in this case, to our surprise, we meet at the Reverend. Feofan, apparently, some inconsistency,” etc. - Moreover. To enhance the desired impression, Prof. M. M. Tareev makes arbitrary abbreviations, abbreviations, etc. in the quoted words of the essay, which already turn out to be devoid of contextual connection. For example, about prof. M. M. Tareev is actually told that “his thoughts in this case do not differ in the definiteness of their meaning and the accuracy of their formulation.” Prof. MM. Tareev uses the words “in this case” in his review, obviously in order to give my phrase that sharpness that actually does not exist in it. About A.F. Gusev prof. Tareev gives the following review of mine: “Professor Gusev failed to quite correctly capture and accurately express the essence and fundamental features of the Orthodox ascetic view.” But this phrase is taken out of the entire period: “despite the fact that the most venerable author, when writing the above-mentioned works, had significant knowledge, remarkable erudition, liveliness, insight and depth of vision and, as a result, on some particular points he expressed thoughts that were remarkably correct, and very deep, and quite accurately expressing the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the matter, in general, however, despite all this, Professor Gusev failed,” etc. etc., follow the words cited by the critic. In its present form, the description obviously sounds completely different: it pays due tribute to both the talent and insight of the author, states the presence in his system of “thoughts that are both remarkably true and very deep, and quite accurately express the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the matter”; indication of shortcomings against such a general background - obviously - cannot indicate either “arrogance”, or “pedantry”, or “narcissism”, or other similar nice qualities that Prof. M. M. Tareev rewards me with such generosity and zeal. I speak about Harnack only insofar as his works are relevant to my work, and precisely about those of his works that I specifically examine - I mean “Das Mönchhum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte” and “Das Wesen des Christentums”. In the same cited prof. M. M. Tareev presents the matter in such a way that it’s as if I’m talking about Harnack’s works in general. For this purpose prof. M. M. Tareev omits the word “named” (works) 21 that I use. Other excerpts from my characteristics cited by Prof. have the same nature and the same meaning. M. M. Tareev. Thus, the critic’s tendentiousness is visible at every step from the very beginning and does not leave him for a minute. After all, if I come across statements that this or that author under analysis turns out to have certain particular inaccuracies, contradictions, etc., then such conclusions are proven every time. Consequently, in order to refute them or recognize them as unfounded, harsh, etc., it is necessary to refute the argumentation itself. Without doing this, the professor, based on the examples given, considers himself entitled to conclude that “the whole” of my “first book is some kind of wild orgy of pedantic arrogance and boundless narcissism.” Prof. M. M. Tareev, further, categorically declares that the general techniques, the basic methods of my critical review are completely wrong. “Without suspecting the integrity of this or that worldview,” I seem to “with airy ease” prove “the one-sidedness of one, another, third, fourth authors.” In this case, I seem to be doing the same thing as we “are accustomed to trashing Catholicism and Protestantism; We put Protestant ones against Catholic provisions, and Catholic ones against Protestant ones.” So, I supposedly “against A.F. Gusev (for example), who stands for active Christianity,” I put F.F. Gusev, “who advocates contemplative religiosity, and vice versa. Against everyone,” I seem to put “the same formula: “yes, some ascetic fathers have such thoughts, this is one of the types of asceticism, but other fathers have other thoughts” 22... When analyzing the systems, I allegedly did not see the image of God in anyone, did not overhear the living beating of the human soul, personal hopes, personal aspirations.” For me it’s like “there are only dead words.” “With terrible persistence,” I seem to divide systems into phrases, sayings, words, and I repeat and repeat the same thing: this phrase is incorrect, this saying is inaccurate, this word is unclear. Not once have I risen to the point of looking into the soul of the authors under review, to look at the whole of this or that religious system, this or that worldview” 23 . I must emphatically state that Prof. M. M. Tareev gives a completely incorrect description of my review. Namely, every time when analyzing this or that system, I set myself the task, first of all, to understand and restore the worldview of this or that author under review in his entire system, in his holistic, individual appearance, to grasp the basic idea of ​​his worldview, to find the driving nerve of his system. For this purpose, I first of all present in a system the views of this or that author - bearing in mind, of course, mainly his relation to my question, but at the same time trying to establish the general point of view of his theology, his method, his logic. To accomplish this task, I sometimes had to study enormous literature 24 in order to understand the system being analyzed as accurately and definitely as possible, so that nothing most significant and characteristic of it would escape my gaze. Then I tried to conduct the analysis of this or that system, first of all and primarily, taking into account the main point of view of the author being reviewed, so that the criticism was, if possible, immanent in the system itself 25. The shortcomings found in a particular system are highlighted and explained, mainly, also from the point of view of the author himself 26, which always takes into account those particular reasons that determined the very peculiarity of expression, the very external form of certain views 27, which sometimes directly explains some of the noted inaccuracies in the formulation of the analyzed theses. I resolutely refuse to understand what prompted the critic’s words about me: “he does not comprehend that A.F. Gusev, as a living moral personality, was reflected in his works, and F.F. Gusev, as if alive, was reflected in his book, and Bishop. Feofan, and prof. Ponomarev and others.” 28. O Reverend Theophanes, for example, I write: “a wonderful, rare and outstanding expert in ascetic writing, Rev. Theophanes reflected its features not only in his numerous creations, but also in his life, testing the truth of the ascetic basic premises with his own spiritual experience 29. “Some inconsistency in the bishop’s judgments. Theophan’s opinion on this issue is explained, although not scientifically, by highly respectable considerations - pastoral care for weak, not yet strong Christians, but still sincerely seeking salvation, the “kingdom of heaven” 30. The analysis of A.F. Gusev’s system is preceded by the following remark: “having entered the arena of scientific and literary theological activity, the young, talented and energetic A.F. Gusev devoted all his first literary works to the development of issues related to the field of ethics, to the clarification of various moral problems from a theological point of view. The freshness of his scientific direction was completely harmonized with the burning interest of those questions, which he took upon himself to resolve in his venerable way,” 31 etc. Fully “comprehending” the meaning of the personal element in one or another religious system, considering this position to be generally known, and therefore without putting it forward explicitly, specifically, I had to take into account, however, the undoubted fact that the personal point of view on any, and especially on a religious question, is limited and in itself is insufficient in the sense of an objective clarification of this or that idea; passing and refracting through the prism of a personal worldview, even a very sincere and lofty one, this or that truth turns out to be imprinted with the features of individual limitations and human one-sidedness. Depending on his individual characteristics, one or another author—in this case, one or another theologian—reflects in his worldview and expresses in his literary works primarily one side of the multifaceted truth. It often happens that at the same time other aspects of the truth are obscured or smoothed out, unnecessarily exaggerated or downplayed in their significance. From this side, not only the possibility opens up, but also the obligation of a comparative study of theological systems that consider this or that issue from different points of view. In particular, analyzing the worldview of prof. A.F. Gusev, I, for example, point out that “he perhaps clearly presented in the ideal of the Christian ascetic those features, those sides and properties that express its most striking and striking difference from Buddhist asceticism and, on the contrary, tried to silence, more carefully obscure those features in the first ideal that represent some, at least for the most part only visible, external, and not real, similarity with the second” 32. I insist that “it is completely impermissible to replace the concept of a Christian ascetic with the concept of a Christian who has already achieved moral perfection” 33 . I note that A.F. Gusev, when presenting the Gospel teaching, almost exclusively puts forward only positive features of Christian perfection and leaves aside the Gospel demands calling for self-denial, commanding, for example, to hate father and mother, to deny oneself in the pursuit of heavenly things, to renounce everything earthly,” 34 etc. When considering the system of F. F. Gusev, I, in particular, analyze his view of the “psychological the fact of the narrowness of consciousness” and “the opinion about the limited and quantitative certainty of the sum of emotions inherent in a person” 35; I provide historical information on this matter - whether, according to the views of ascetics, contemplation, even in the form of ecstasy, requires unconditional and complete detachment from everything external for its implementation; As a conclusion, I find out to what extent and in what sense “F.F.’s statements” are true. Gusev regarding the incompatibility of contemplation of any external activity" 37 ; I clarify the relationship between love for God and love for neighbor 38 and - as a final conclusion, I establish the “position that contemplation” and “practical activity” should not supplant one another, but, if possible, be carried out inseparably. “According to the normative requirement of Christianity, Christian life should, if possible, be a holistic and harmonious embodiment of the principles of this or that” (in this case, I refer to the clear teaching on this issue of St. Gregory the Theologian). “However,” I add, “the imperfection of earthly conditions and the individual limitations of each person separately are the reason that a Christian can realize the Christian ideal not in its full, integral content, but only in part, cultivating in himself primarily one or another virtue with a predominance of contemplation or activity” 39, and the patristic teaching itself is cited in support of this thought. These words of mine are commented on by Prof. MM. Tareev as follows. In my opinion, “Orthodox teaching unites different paths of communion with God that have opened up in the history of patristic teaching and ascetic practice, so that the normal requirement of Christianity is a holistic and harmonious unification of different church-historical principles” 40. This “unification that Mr. Zarin dreams of,” adds Prof. M. M. Tareev, - smells of carrion” 41. My thesis, based on the teachings of St. Gregory B., that in a normal Christian life there should be both contemplation (reason, prayer, religious meditation, reading Holy Scripture, etc.), and activity in the spirit of Christian love for others, - under the pen of Prof. M. M. Tareev turns out to be completely wrong - I seem to demand “the unification of different church-historical principles” - and this is also expressively called “carrion”. This is done, of course, intentionally, in order to present my work not in the real thing, but in a caricatured form. To prove that my main principle is the “mechanical” “unification of different church-historical principles,” Prof. M. M. Tareev also draws on another passage from my first book, but in connection with the thesis already discussed, he also gives it completely incorrect coverage. By the way, I am considering the experience of classifying various ascetic means, which is given by Zöckler 42. This classification is established and applied by the German scientist in the form of a complete and orderly presentation of the indicated means in the scientific system, and it does not have any historical-critical significance. This experience of classification is based on purely formal principles - it differs, for example, who is the subject striving for the ascetic realization of virtue - one individual or a whole society, whether the ascetic desire is negatively or positively realized, etc. It is precisely this attempt at a systematic generalization of various types of historical asceticism that I am talking about; my system uses its own special point of view, from which these or other ascetic means are considered. For example, the monastic practice of poverty, renunciation of the possession of private property, is brought under the category of “social asceticism” by Zöcler. For me, it is viewed from the point of view of individual following Christ 43 . Zöckler in his classification primarily refers to the spirit and practice of Western monasticism, from the point of view of the characteristics of which he even considers “the greatness of the ascetic aspiration, rooted in the area of ​​​​primitive Christianity” 44. That is why I stated that my fundamental point of view, in comparison with Zöckler’s, is different, and his systematization of various types of ascetic striving for my system does not have a direct positive meaning. Prof. same M.M. Tareev claims that I stand on the point of view of recognizing the mechanical unification of various manifestations of historical asceticism, and do not recognize the benefit of historical systematization. Thus, in a form that does not correspond to reality, inexorably consistently and mercilessly cruelly presented in the review of Prof. M. M. Tareeva both the very nature of my critical review and its guiding principles. How and where exactly do I contrast A.F. Gusev with F.F. Gusev and others? If prof. M. M. Tareev understands that some of the objections that I make to one and the other were previously raised by one of them against the other, this in itself does not at all speak against my critical method, and on the other hand, even this kind of objection is framed by me with argumentation based on modern scientific data 45 and receives a more in-depth form and a more fundamental character. According to Prof. M. M. Tareeva, “against each” of the authors I review, I put forward the same formula: “yes, some ascetic fathers have such thoughts, this is one of the types of asceticism, but other fathers have other thoughts” 46. Let's see how things stand in reality. Against Rev. Feofana, bishop Peter, Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, I not only do not put forward such or a similar formula, but, upon the most careful examination, I cannot find even the slightest reason for such a statement on the part of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. Some reason, perhaps, was given in my analysis of the system of A.F. and F.F. Gusev. Considering the system of the first, I decide, among other things, the question: “is the opinion of A.F. Gusev on the question of the meaning of various forms of Christian life completely consistent with the patristic spirit? Doesn't it require not only deepening, but also some limitation, significant additions? 47 And I answer this question positively. I document that from an ideal, fundamental point of view, indeed, in accordance with the opinion of A.F. Gusev, both solitary contemplative and socially active forms of Christian life can, under certain conditions, have equally high importance in achieving religious and moral perfection; If you look at the matter from a factual, concrete point of view, if you take into account the empirical conditions of human life, within the limits of which Christian perfection is usually realized, then, according to the teaching of many saints. fathers of ascetics, one can talk about more or less convenience, about more or less ease of one or another path 48 . Here I, therefore, consider the issue from different points of view and give patristic justification for both views. But this is not at all what Prof. attributes to me. M. M. Tareev. When considering the worldview of F. F. Gusev, I establish the position that “this view represents a systematic disclosure of thoughts actually expressed by some ascetic contemplatives and represents, in general, a psychologically correct picture of one of the types of ancient eastern asceticism” 49. On this occasion, I establish the indisputable fact that in the justification and practice of Christian contemplative asceticism we observe not one, but two main, most noticeable and prominent directions 50. At the same time, I try to portray a consistent, holistic picture of the worldview of both types, to reveal its psychological, ethical and religious justifications 51 . The purpose of this consideration is so that one can see which of the two types of mystical asceticism more closely corresponds to the Gospel ideal of Christ's love. In relation to the considered worldview of F. F. Gusev, the conclusion is that he reflected in his depiction of the ascetic contemplator not a pure evangelical ideal, but noticeably colored by the features of the views of Neoplatonism - with the nature of speculative abstraction in the representation of God as a Supermundane Being, with attributes of a predominantly metaphysical nature. As a result, it is noted that this ideal is not consistently pursued by Christian ascetic mystics, even of a certain type, and it was impossible, since he did not agree with the teachings of the Gospel. Ultimately, it is indicated in what sense and to what extent F. F. Gusev’s views are correct, which side of the matter and in what sense he has sufficiently established. Regarding, finally, the view of F.F. Gusev that love for God and love for neighbor are two different elements, is revealed both from the psychological side and on the basis of the teachings of St. Scriptures and St. Fathers, the true relationship between the states of love for God and neighbor 52. The general conclusion from the consideration of F. F. Gusev’s system is that “he separated and isolated both of these equivalent requirements from each other, sought to show their incompatibility and gave decisive preference to the first, almost completely obscuring the second. As a result of this, there was an inconsistency between its provisions and the definite and indisputable teaching of St. Scripture and its patristic interpretation" 53 . This is the main method of my analysis. Where is the confirmation of the presentation of the case given by Prof. M. M. Tareev? The patristic element is attracted as required by the essence of the matter. If there are different points of view on the same phenomenon in the patristic teaching, then this gives reason to find out the reasons for this phenomenon and to establish more firmly and definitely which point of view is most in harmony with the Gospel. Other sections of the first book can provide even less evidence for M. M. Tareev’s assertion. By the way, I must note here with bitterness that prof. M. M. Tareev, expressing certain too general and categorical accusations against me, almost nowhere accompanies them with an indication of the relevant places in the book, putting me in the difficult position of guessing what exactly he means in this or that case, placing the entire onus probandi on me. From what has been said, it is already partly clear how fair it is to accuse me of being carried away by “easy victories” over the authors under discussion. I was not looking for “victories”, but was looking solely for clarification of the truth, which was not at all easy: the first book, and not only the second, required enormous work from me, a lot of study of the relevant materials and serious mental work. But it is possible not to see what really is, especially if it is pleasant and meets the interests of the observer. My assertion that, according to the undoubted meaning of Orthodox Christian teaching, true contemplative religiosity and practical activity for the good of people must be carried out - in one form or another - in an indivisible organic unity - is called the “mechanical unification” of various church-historical principles.” But if you wish, you can present in the wrong light the point of view of Prof. himself. M. M. Tareev on the need to unite Christianity and European culture, which is fundamentally - with the necessary restrictions - assumed in my thesis. This is how Prof. defines it. M. M. Tareev’s main task in his literary theological activity: “we are the children of Christianity and European culture. We value both. Our worldview should embrace these two poles of our life. And on our shoulders lies the weight of a new task - to unite what in historical reality has diverged and in our days has clashed hostilely. We must find a formula that would not cut anything in Christianity, that would take the Christian religion not in its historical convention, but in its purely evangelical absoluteness, and that would not cut anything in our culture, but would accept all natural and socio-historical life in all the fullness and freedom of its natural laws” 54. “The Divine spirit as a spirit for life, for its illumination - this is our salvation. Only the flesh is paganism; only the spirit is historical Christianity; spirit for life is our future" 55 . Regarding these words, it could be noted that culture is accepted by prof. M. M. Tareev entirely, in all its inviolability, while Christianity has to sacrifice a lot. Here, “the establishment of pure gospel truth” is possible only “by abstracting it from the conventional church-historical vestment” 56. because, according to prof. MM. Tareev, “we oppose the evangelical unconditionality to church-historical convention” 57 , because church-historical asceticism “covered up and even distorted the evangelical truth” 58 . But if we put aside the particulars, we must admit that the thought of prof. M. M. Tareeva is not essentially opposed to my thesis about the need to implement in life - both private and public - pure religious absolute love for God, serving Him in spirit and truth, with all-round activities for the benefit of people. True, I also look differently at the church-historical implementation of Christianity, which - in principle and in fact - was not against culture, but, on the contrary, introduced into it many very valuable elements of life-giving force. According to Prof. himself. M. M. Tareeva, said on another occasion, “Christianity is not only not something alien to Western European civilization, but this latter was born and developed under the living and direct influence of the Christian spirit” 59. Historical Christianity was not only “spirit,” although - perhaps - it can be said that it strived to be “spirit” primarily and, precisely because of this, contributed to the deepening of human culture, directing man’s gaze primarily to his inner world and thereby facilitating a refined comprehension of the inner spiritual world, its essence, its laws. It is I who am against the unification of different, even not so different historical, psychological, etc. "began." Regarding the system, Rev. Theophan, I, for example, say: “in patristic writing, the basis of asceticism is sometimes the “heart” - in full agreement with the teaching and terminology of St. Scripture, and sometimes “mind” (νοῦσ), - not without significant attraction from the then metaphysics and psychology. Ep. Theophan in his worldview reflects both of these trends in ascetic patristic writing, without more precisely defining their relationship, as well as their relationship to the teaching of St. Scripture, without putting them in an organic connection, so that these currents in his system are, as it were, parallel - essentially not coordinated, not brought to unity. Meanwhile, in a consistent theological system, only one of these principles should be accepted and implemented, with the second subordinate to it. Combining them should lead to an undoubted inconsistency of the conclusions 60 . Further, this idea is revealed in more detail and proven with specific examples. “It turns out,” writes Prof. M. M. Tareev that most of the manuals that he (that is, I) had at hand stand at the height of personal-religious creativity, religious-philosophical thinking. Such are the works of the bishop. Feofan, A.F. Gusev, F.F. Gusev, etc. From all sides, Mr. Zarin received persistent warnings and valuable instructions. He had the most worthy leaders. And driven by the demon of petty vanity and waves of superficial thinking, he neglected these warnings and instructions, passed by all these valuable experiments. I left them with the same thing I came to them with – with invulnerable self-esteem. How was he not amazed by the ease of his criticism, the ease of his victories! And if the fragility of all these experiments is so obvious to him, was it worth it for him to devote a whole book to them? 61 ... There is nothing easier than expressing general provisions, sweeping accusations, without even trying to substantiate them in any way or confirm them in any way. In first place is Prof. M. M. Tareev puts Rev. Feofan. But he comes first for me, and mainly because his rich theoretical study of the results of church-historical, patristic experience passed through the crucible of personal experience. I say directly that Rev. Theophanes “tested the truth of the ascetic basic premises with his own spiritual experience” 62. It is “in this circumstance,” in my opinion, “that lies the special, rare value of the bishop’s works. Feofan for any study of the Orthodox ascetic worldview" 63. Rev. System Theophan, in full agreement with the peculiarities of the patristic works, rests entirely on the psychological basis of real observations of the religious and moral life of man in its various moments, in the various ways and forms of its implementation and various stages of its development” 64. That is why, in terms of its significance, the system of Rev. Feofana stands out from a number of manuals for me and is placed almost along with the sources of my research 65. But here is my attitude to the works of A.F. Gusev; “from a detailed study of the works of prof. A. F. Gusev, we have extracted for ourselves more than one indication and motivated justification for the need to follow the best method and plan in our dissertation - no, this careful study has also brought us positive benefits in the sense of enrichment with some apt, thorough and practical thoughts” 66 . I also note what useful instructions I extract from the work of F. F. Gusev 67 , from the dissertation of P. P. Ponomarev 68 , and I not only take his point of view, but also indicate what definition of asceticism logically and consistently follows from the main tendency and general content of his work 69 . About the work of Rev. Sergius, I give the following review: “the study of this dissertation served as one of the motivations for me to undertake a real study and helped to understand the general patristic point of view on the subject” 70. About Goll I say that his research (“Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt”) very lively and original touches, in part, on some interesting questions about asceticism and monasticism from a fundamental point of view, trying to characterize the ideals of monasticism, note its most outstanding psychological and grace-filled features, and generally clarify its religious and moral appearance. If the solution to these questions is not always correct, then it should still be recognized that the author, raising lively and interesting questions, also has some indisputable data for their independent solution and original consecration. Therefore, I took the trouble to analyze his work from the principled side, as thoroughly as possible, proposing, at the same time, a positive solution to the issues raised in this book, which should, in part, achieve the direct, positive side of the study 71 . All these are examples that show that I have always tried to treat the authors under review quite correctly - I set out to understand the main point of view of each, to trace how consistently it is carried out in his system, how objectively consistent it is, etc. After all, if, for example, F. F. Gusev claims that in the history of Eastern contemplative asceticism, love for God, taking on the character of affect, passionate love, almost completely replaces love for neighbors 72, then I had to check historically whether this statement is factually correct, whether there is an exaggeration or misinterpretation in it, etc., and then evaluate these views from a fundamentally Christian point of view - which is what I do. Equally, I was obliged to check how objectively correct Golle’s position was, that monastic enthusiasm and church institutions were in fundamental mutual antagonism in the history of Eastern monasticism 73 . With all due respect to everyone’s personal point of view, with the most correct and accurate understanding of it, I cannot allow the history of asceticism to be drawn tendentiously, so that general conclusions and categorical statements are drawn from exceptional facts, etc. If, let’s say, F.F. Gusev said that, according to his convictions, in accordance with his individual characteristics, love for God can only be affective and that it excludes any possibility of realizing love for one’s neighbors in external activity, then I, of course, would have neither the right nor the grounds to object to him; but if he speaks in the form of a general position, elevated to the law of religious life, refers to psychological laws, to facts from the history of Christian asceticism, then an objective point of view is possible and obligatory, verification of personal experience by the experience of other people who are completely competent in this or that issue 74 . And if, for example, a well-known group of Eastern ascetics says that even the state of highest prayer in some cases and for some people does not interfere with their external activity, then how can one not draw the conclusion from this that, therefore, it is impossible to affirm in the form of a general proposition the idea of ​​the complete incompatibility of contemplation and activity? etc. If I sometimes compare one view with another, its opposite, then this is not done with the goal of “mechanically” replacing one with the other, but only so that in a comparative way we can more definitely and more specifically understand the psychological or historical phenomena they interpret, the thesis and antithesis can be raised to synthesis, etc. So, I tried to get “indications” and “warnings” - if possible - from each of the authors under review. Having undertaken my work with the goal of clarifying for myself, first of all, the vital question of asceticism, I was naturally grateful to everything that contributed to the accomplishment of this task. What “instructions” and “warnings” I received from one or another of the authors reviewed is sometimes directly noted by me, at the end of a paragraph, in the form of conclusions 75 . In any case, I favorably note the correct point of view further and in those works that do not specifically examine the issue, I dwell on them with pleasure and sympathy 76 . And I have not expressed a sharp final conclusion about any work that destroys all its significance. “There is asceticism, asceticism and asceticism,” Prof. teaches me. M. M. Tareev. “There is evangelical asceticism, there is church-historical asceticism, there is ethical-humanitarian asceticism... and there is no just asceticism. You can’t just say “asceticism,” but you need to add a qualifying word every time. It is impossible to avoid the word asceticism in the gospel teaching; it is necessary in the Christian worldview, appropriate in humanitarian ethics, but everywhere it has its own meaning. Zarin (while remaining faithful in this case to the traditions of the secondary theological school and old scholastic theology) understands the system of Christian thought in the sense that he lumps everything into one pile... In A. Blok’s “Balaganchik” a beautiful girl is shown with “a braided braid lying behind her shoulders.” While Pierrot is delighted with the beauty of the girl and her braid, to the mystics this braid appears to be the scythe of death. But this is a booth. But Mr. Zarin, with a serious look, inseparably uses different meanings of the word asceticism. And he not only does this himself, but also condemns those who act differently. All of his reviewer judgments are a farcical game consisting of mixing different meanings of a word. He stubbornly does not want to know that one thing is meant by the word “bulls” when talking about a herd, and another when talking about bridges...” 77 . And so, in the criticism of Prof. M. M. Tareeva often uses puns and piquancy instead of evidence and illustrations. The situation is completely different. As for ethical-humanitarian asceticism, in my analysis we could talk about it only when analyzing the worldview of V.S. Solovyov, and I don’t even think of condemning him, but consider his proposed understanding of asceticism from the point of view on which the philosopher himself stands 78, and only sometimes I pose the question to what extent Solovyov agrees with Christian teaching in one point or another 79. Analyzing the concept of asceticism from the psychological side, I - along the way - pose, for example, the question of whether in patristic teaching the feeling of “shame” is recognized as having a pedagogical - ascetic meaning 80. I speak directly and definitely - and more than once - about the fact that there is evangelical asceticism, in contrast to patristic asceticism. Not only that. And in the apostolic and patristic writings, the concept of “asceticism” has its own history, and it is given not only by different church writers, but often even by the same writer, a different meaning. In the “introduction” to the essay I present the results of my observations - and I do not know of a more detailed and documented presentation of the history of the named concept in the literature 82 . When considering the systems I analyze, it is always, where necessary, noted what kind of asceticism we are talking about, for example, when revealing the worldview of F. F. Gusev, it is established what type of ascetic worldview is actually reproduced in him 83. If prof. P. P. Ponomarev treats the asceticism of the 4th century, then from this point of view the analysis is carried out, and a consistent and accurate implementation of the basic principle taken exactly once is required 84. Considering the A.F. system Gusev, I first of all pose the question: “actually what, exactly whose view of Christian asceticism the author undertook to present, and in fact presented” 85. But whatever asceticism - in this sense - may be understood, in any case, I say, “asceticism, by the very concept of it, by its very essence, is a process of achieving moral perfection, a path from bad empirical reality to a moral ideal. Consequently, it is completely impermissible to replace the concept of a Christian ascetic with the concept of a Christian who has already achieved moral perfection” 86. It is impermissible - from any point of view, from the evangelical, no less than from the patristic point of view. Indeed, despite all the differences, in evangelical and patristic asceticism there is something in common: a common grain, one root. Asceticism, in any case, refers to a dynamic moment, and not to a static one. If prof. MM. Tareev “even observes the idea of ​​foolishness” as “a link in the system of the Christian worldview” 87, then why can’t I see the “idea of ​​asceticism” “as a link” in the “Christian worldview”? Prof. himself M. M. Tareev says in one place that “in personal Christian asceticism, since it is part of the system of the Christian worldview, a specifically Christian character is revealed,” 88, etc. It is implied that there is a Christian worldview, and not specifically just evangelical, apostolic, patristic, etc. When prof. M. M. Tareev identifies “Christianity” and “gospel”, then, if we stand on a formal point of view, we could also cry out: “for mercy, Christianity is not the same as the gospel: the first concept is broader than the second; There is evangelical Christianity, there is apostolic Christianity, there is patristic Christianity”... 89. An exact distinction in all cases, where - specifically evangelical asceticism and what actually - asceticism in its patristic interpretation - was, in my opinion, essentially impossible. For example, according to the teachings of Rev. Theophan, “asceticism, asceticism” has a very broad meaning: it embraces the entire consciously free, intense activity of a person, aimed at assimilating the salvation of Christ, towards achieving godlike perfection... “Asceticism” permeates all Christian life activity, gives a specific character to both “faith” and “good deeds...” Perhaps, Prof. M. M. Tareev will say, hand on heart, what kind of asceticism is of course here - evangelical, apostolic or patristic, - or asceticism in the personal understanding of the Reverend. Feofan?.. When prof. M. M. Tareev asserts, for example, that “other than as an ascetic and holy fool a Christian cannot be in the world” 90, that “a Christian acts on his body by fasting 91, then whose teaching does he express? Evangelical, apostolic, patristic or some other? Probably the professor will say that he is expressing his understanding of Christian teaching, its general spirit, its basic meaning. Why is Prof. M. M. Tareev makes demands on me that he himself does not fulfill, and which sometimes cannot be fulfilled due to the very essence of the matter? Prof. himself M. M. Tareev says that the authors I discuss for the most part stand at the height of personal creativity; They express, therefore, their personal understanding and, moreover, for the most part, precisely the Christian teaching, and not specifically just the evangelical, apostolic, patristic, etc. What reason did I have when analyzing them to constantly substitute the word “asceticism” with the qualifying word “evangelical”, “Christian”, “humanitarian”, etc.? This was not caused by the very peculiarities and nature of the works that were subject to my consideration, but where this requirement was assumed by the essence of the matter, it was actually fulfilled by me. In the Christian worldview, “asceticism” is understood primarily in two main senses: 1) in a general and broad sense, as “the general principle, the all-pervading principle of Christian life, determined and conditioned by its very character, since it is a process of gradual, two-sided religious and moral perfection, carried out by the free tension of human strength, albeit with the inseparable assistance of grace” 92, and 2) in a close and special sense - as a special kind of Christian life, characterized by the implementation of external self-denial from family and social ties. This is stated in my “conclusion” of the critical section, indicating the features and shades given to this concept in the systems being characterized. Thus, on this side, in the scope and application of the basic concept of “asceticism,” I followed the method that was determined by the essence of the matter, the very content and basic meaning of the systems being analyzed. Where is Prof. Does M. M. Tareev imagine a “farce game”?.. I must say that prof. M. M. Tareev, characterizing my attitude towards the authors under review in the above way, meant, first of all and predominantly, almost exclusively, himself personally. As an example of my “attitude towards benefits”, the critic considers my “attitude” specifically and only towards him, Prof. M. M. Tareev, works 93. It can be seen that when prof. M. M. Tareev generally characterizes my reviewer techniques; he means - first of all and primarily, and sometimes exclusively - himself. Wanting to resolve the question of how “carefully and conscientiously” I treat the manuals “which” I supposedly “treat so arrogantly,” the critic stipulates that in order to resolve this issue he “must dwell on one of the “authors” I review and, in applying it to him, trace step by step” my “operations.” Since Mr. Zarin and me, explains prof. M. M. Tareev, deigns to be placed in the field of his “review”, then I will check for myself the “good quality of his critical techniques.” “My name,” continues the critic, “Mr. Zarin mentions on page XV. “Traditional asceticism, according to him, sometimes even among theologians is decisively opposed to Christian love, as a principle completely alien to it, decisively incompatible with it.” Link: "Wed. prof. M. M. Tareev. "Theological News." 1906, Apr. 716 = Living Souls, page 76." But in this place I (following the excerpt cited by Mr. Zarin) write the following: “traditional asceticism can be looked at differently, and we do not talk about it. But its modern theorists, whom we are talking about, take it in a certain light. They consider the feat of asceticism the highest form of Christian life, the highest Christian ideal, and at the same time asceticism is understood in a sense that decisively distinguishes it from the feat of Christian love.” How can one refer to this passage as proof that theologians (i.e., I) oppose asceticism and love? I’m just talking about modern ascetics who understand asceticism in the sense opposite to the feat of love” 94. – First of all, my reference does not necessarily have to be understood in the sense that Prof. M. M. Tareev contrasts traditional asceticism with the feat of Christian love. I could refer to the passage I cited to confirm that Prof. MM. Tareev states the fact that “sometimes” found among modern theorists of traditional asceticism, whom I called “theologians,” the opposition of “traditional asceticism” to the beginning of “Christian love” for people. Doesn’t any of the “modern theoreticians of asceticism” even deserve the name “theologian”? After all, if I wanted to indicate by name, even if only as an example, theologians who contrast “traditional asceticism” with active Christian love, I would, in any case, name more than one of my critics, since I know other names as well 95 . But prof. M. M. Tareev hastens to identify: theologians, that is, me, prof. M. M. Tareev. But prof. M. M. Tareev is not a “theologian,” but a “theologian.” But let's not insist on this. Having acquired and thoroughly studied the collected works of prof. M. M. Tareeva, I claim that he “sometimes” (that’s what I said - carefully) contrasts asceticism with the beginning of active Christian love. Here, for example, is one passage from the professor’s writings: “nowadays asceticism, with amazing frankness, almost impudence, has declared that it does not care about love, that it is not of the gospel nature. This needs to be assessed and understood. Our time is a laboratory in which pure Christianity is revealed, freed from the historical vestment of symbols" 96 ... "The central idea of ​​a free spirit and free flesh is expressed in a more concrete image of ethical religion. On this path, two extremes meet - historical asceticism and immoral aestheticism, equally far from our idea: absolute love for God should become a real force in love for man, and this connects religion with social life" 97. Thus, according to Prof. M. M. Tapeeva, not only modern asceticism itself resolutely declares its polar opposite to the beginning of Christian love, but in reality, not only modern, but also “historical” asceticism is far from the realization of truly Christian active love. Therefore, in any case, I acknowledge the reference I made to the article by Prof. M. M. Tareeva is correct. From the very first steps of assessing my critical techniques, Prof. By M. M. Tareev, we thus encounter excessive “pictiness” and “pettiness” - qualities that constitute the negative properties of theological criticism, according to the testimony of Prof. M. M. Tareeva 98. Impartiality in assessment is not favored by the fact that out of a significant number of authors analyzed by me, prof. M. M. Tareev takes himself for a detailed check. Here the inconvenience is already reflected in the fact that, assessing my critical techniques, Prof. M. M. Tareev has to involuntarily deal with the assessment of his own views, techniques, etc., and yet to be an impartial judge of himself is a very difficult matter. I, therefore, have to answer to a judge who is interested in presenting me in the light that is most unfavorable for me, because thereby, in inverse proportion, his interests benefit. A person who is interested, offended or insulted by someone, or who only considers himself such, cannot - according to sound legal standards - be a judge anywhere, cannot pronounce a final verdict on a person who is or is considered an offender, etc. Prof. M. M. Tareev, who does not hide his dislike for me, who considers himself offended by me, in addition, takes himself for analysis... But this, of course, is the formal side of the matter. Much more important is that the critical review of the works of prof. M. M. Tareev was associated for me with some difficulties - external and internal - that were not present in the review of most other authors. And here - first of all - we should include the fact that only this year the theological works of prof. M. M. Tareev received the completeness of the system, republished in one collection, in volume IV. At the same time, the author also clarified those basic points of view from which one should look, understand and evaluate one or another of his works, one or another group of his thoughts; it is indicated what place one or another of his main ideas occupies in his system, etc. Without such deliberate explanations and special warnings, much could have been understood differently. And this is all the more so because, according to Prof.’s own interpretation. M. M. Tareev, his “religious system has neither confessional-didactic nor purely objective significance”; “It gives a personal understanding of Christianity, a personal religious worldview.” His books “discuss... something in Christianity that... inevitably involves subjective experience, individual illumination 99. Now, if only such a publication by Prof. existed. M. M. Tareev during the writing of my dissertation, then it would be possible to impose “strict” requirements on my review of his worldview... Meanwhile, the articles of Prof. MM. Tareev's works were published gradually, in various periodicals, which under my circumstances were difficult to even follow systematically. For example, his essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life,” originally published in the magazine “Faith and Church” (for 1901), which was generally not very widespread in St. Petersburg, completely escaped my attention 100, and then it escaped in the form of separate reprints, and meanwhile prof. M. M. Tareev does not believe this and claims that I, along with his other work: “The Temptations of the God-Man,” had this work of his at hand, used it, but, wanting to hide this fact, kept silent about it completely. True, Prof. M. M. Tareev is in more favorable conditions in this case compared to me: I actually studied one of the books, which I did not name (The Temptations of the God-Man), having become thoroughly acquainted with it when I was still in the last class of the seminary; As for the essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life,” I must emphatically assure you that I did not read this essay until very recently, when I had to write a response to Prof. M. M. Tareev. However, Prof. himself M. M. Tareev only proves that I am “closely acquainted” with the first book. He speaks quite decisively about the essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” in this sense, but does not provide any evidence, although he promised to do so, since it is absolutely impossible to provide it. But my critic almost always claims much more than can be proven. Indeed, having the opportunity to prove that I am familiar not only with the second edition of his work: “The Temptations of Christ,” but also with the first, he is not content with this: he wants at all costs to aggravate, endlessly exaggerate my mistake, if there is one. And this, of course, is done not only under the influence of extreme irritation, undisguised dislike towards me, but also with a specific goal - to characterize my essay in the most unfavorable way for me. Since from the fact that the first edition of the work marked in the second edition is not specifically marked, it is still impossible to draw particularly sharp and decisive conclusions, then “by the way” a new accusation is added that I do not mark the work at all, which I not only knew, but also used. If this is so, then it was necessary to prove, first of all, that I used, as a guide, precisely this work - “The Purpose and Meaning of Life,” which actually gives some provisions concerning both the goal and the meaning of Christian asceticism, although only in a general form. At any trial worthy of this name, balance and equality are ensured between what serves to justify the defendant and what serves to accuse him. In dubiis interpretatio in melius accipienda est. Prof. M. M. Tareev, as an example of my attitude towards the authors under discussion, takes himself and by this wants to say that my attitude towards his works is typical. But from what has already been said, it is partly clear that this is not the case. But prof. MM. Tareev, as I said, wants to see only one bad thing in me; All his techniques adapt to this trend. – Let us now proceed to a detailed analysis of this point of criticism by Prof. M. M. Tareeva. Moving on to the paragraph dedicated specifically to him in my book, Prof. M. M. Tareev draws attention first of all to the presentation of this section, which he really does not like. “What attracts attention,” he says, is that this paragraph already contains an exposition. Here, each line is replete with the following phrases: “we would express this thought in this way... Not entirely precisely... It would be more accurate and correct... G. Zarin admires himself, enjoys his words. A thousand pages are not enough for him. He would have put this line before the other, rearranged these two words, here he would have changed the comparative degree to superlative, and there the superlative to comparative; here, unfortunately, the comma is not in his spirit, and there, instead of a major dash, it would be better to write a small dash” 101 . Thus, prof. M. M. Tareev, if we abandon his ironic and, at the same time, hyperbolic method of speech, points out the pettiness and pickiness of my criticism. Let's see how things stand in reality. Considering the question of asceticism in connection with the question of “spirit and flesh”, “exclusively from an evangelical point of view, exclusively on the essence of the relationship between spirit and flesh,” Prof. M. M. Tareev finds that “there is no reason to consider the ascetic problem an exhaustive evangelical problem” 102. Regarding these words, I say that “we would express this thought in such a way that the ascetic moment in the gospel is not only a comprehensive beginning, but even the main, fundamental, initial one. No, this moment is secondary, auxiliary, completely and completely, in all its accessories and details, subordinate, dependent. Its content, volume, meaning and significance are determined by the absolute and universal principle of Christian love” 103. In this case, it is easy to see that we are talking about a significant shade in the concept of evangelical asceticism. Prof. MM. Tareev, in my opinion, makes a very big concession when, discussing the attitude of “defenders of the holy flesh” to asceticism, he says that “there is no reason to consider the ascetic problem an exhaustive evangelical problem.” I found that here one can see an excessive exaggeration of the importance of the ascetic moment in the Gospel teaching, and therefore I made the above reservation. Equally, it seemed to me insufficient to characterize evangelical asceticism, recognizing it only as “a symbol that hides the gospel truth,” “the result of spiritual life,” “an external good deed” 104. In the Gospel there is, indeed, an indication of some ascetic deeds as “symbols” of spiritual life 105. But, on the other hand, the active, essential auxiliary significance of certain ascetic means is indicated no less clearly for the acquisition of spiritual goods, for achieving a normal relationship between the inert principle of human nature “flesh” and the rational-spiritual, freely active principle – the spirit 106. The necessary and important importance of fasting and prayer for acquiring freedom from the violent invasion of the spirit of malice into human life 107 is also definitely indicated. Therefore, it seems to me that it is impossible to accept in all rigor the following position of Prof. M. M. Tapeeva: “the gospel problem of the relationship between spirit and flesh is the problem of the relationship of the divine to the human: this relationship is far from the same as the ascetic relationship of spirit and flesh” 108. Prof. himself M. M. Tareev quite definitely expresses in another place the specifically ascetic meaning of fasting and prayer: “prayer and fasting give a person freedom of spiritual life, strong alertness, strength in the fight against temptations, power over nature and the world. This freedom, vigor, inner strength have their own value, independent of the consequences, provide inner good, etc.” 109. Treating asceticism specifically, I naturally followed every shade of the opinions being studied, and it is hardly fair to reproach me with “tirelessness,” which was by no means petty. Even less can one attribute to me the desire to “admire” myself, the desire to “enjoy my words”... However, Prof. himself. M. M. Tareev, not missing the opportunity to tell me a sufficient number of “courtesy” about this, in conclusion admits that “this, of course, is nonsense.” “But it’s no longer trifles,” continues Prof. M. M. Tareev, the fact that Mr. Zarin on the issue of asceticism considers from all my works “Philosophy of Evangelical History” and “Spirit and Flesh” - works of choice that are not directly related to asceticism, and does not mention a word about those of my works where the ascetic question is treated systematically by me - “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” and “The Temptation of Christ”, which I later combined in one volume under under the general title “Christian Worldview”. In the preface to the latter, characterizing these books, I now write: “When presenting the historically Christian worldview, it is impossible to completely avoid a bias towards asceticism and symbolism: the philosophy of the Christian worldview is inevitably nothing more than a philosophy of ascetic-symbolic illumination of life” 110. It is these books that Mr. Zarin does not consider, but focuses his attention on the named two in order to be able to come to inevitably self-satisfied conclusions. Well, please tell me, what does the philosophy of gospel history have to do with the ascetic question? G. Zarin analyzes that chapter of this philosophy, which has as its subject the resurrection of Christ, and ends his review with the following self-satisfied and pedantic conclusion: “as for the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism, the real illumination of this issue is more or less achievable only from the point of view of the integral essence of Christian teaching, with which it is in an inseparable organic connection. An analysis of the single fact of the resurrection of Christ, taken in isolation, is insufficient” 111. “You, Mr. Zarin,” the critic turns to me about this, “are absolutely right, as you would be right if you began to assert that Easter follows Great Lent, and the Assumption Fast occurs after Petrovka. But what gave you the reason to read instructions on this point? Have I ever argued that the entire ascetic question can be resolved based on the single fact of Christ’s resurrection? Not only did I not assert this, but I wrote that this fact has no direct relation to asceticism: “from the fact of the resurrection of Christ no direct conclusions can be drawn regarding our mental and physical conditioning” 112, etc. Likewise, the article: “Spirit and Flesh”, an integral part of the study that was later included in Volume IV of the Fundamentals of Christianity under the general title “Christian Freedom”, this article only scratches the surface asceticism, since this study and this volume lie in the non-ascetic sphere. “To free spiritual religion from the symbolic (historical-symbolic) shell and introduce it into living life,” is the task of this study and the entire fourth volume 113. In the writings included in Volume III, I systematize the historical-Christian ascetic-symbolic worldview, and in this study “a personal critical element comes forward, foreseeing the future.” Is it surprising if Mr. Zarin comes to the same conclusion regarding this article: “All these concepts require special analysis, their disclosure in connection with an integral Christian worldview. Articles by Prof. Tareev’s works do not give a completely definite and accurate – even, of course, general – idea of ​​the subject of asceticism and other closely related subjects” 114 . But the whole point is that Mr. Zarin is looking in the wrong place, and he does it intentionally and consciously, that is, maliciously” 115. In the above words, Prof. M. M. Tareeva actually reproaches me that I do not consider books in which Prof. MM. Tareev systematically treats the ascetic issue, and I select for analysis, and seemingly maliciously, books that have no direct relation to the issue of asceticism. At the same time, in order to clarify the nature of his writings on the question of the degree of their relationship to the question of asceticism, prof. M. M. Tareev refers to what he is told in “the preface to this or that volume of his collected works. But I have already said that if this complete collection of works, of which a significant part was published after my dissertation was prepared, if it had been published before the publication of my work, then, undoubtedly, my review of the system of Prof. M. M. Tareev would have had a significantly different character. I must also confirm again that the essay by Prof. “The purpose and meaning of life” remained unknown to me in its content until very recently. True, I came across an indication of it in the second edition of the “Lecture” by Fr. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, which he definitely stated in Art. 386 in “Addenda et corrigenda” to the 1st book, but, unfortunately, this edition itself by Fr. I acquired a protopresbyter and had the opportunity to read it when my work was already being published simultaneously in two printing houses. I read it shortly before the paragraph on the worldview of Prof. was to be published. M. M. Tareeva. Back on page 168 I quote the essay of Fr. I. L. Yanyshev only for the first edition, and already on page 202 the quotation assumes my familiarity with the second edition. There was no reason for me, knowing the work of prof. M. M. Tareev, to hide it, because I was trying not to miss anything valuable related to my subject: bibliographic completeness was also highly valued by my “official reviewer,” on whose instructions I introduced the critical review itself. My venerable and highly respected “official reviewer” - undoubtedly - declared himself in science and has a thorough and detailed acquaintance with the literature of moral theology - and to feign ignorance of any work, in fact knowing it, would be at least naive on my part... Who wants to act to the obvious detriment of oneself? In addition, I must testify that the “official reviewer” knew very well that among my textbooks I also had the works of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. This can be seen from the notes in the margins of the manuscript and even, partly, from the review itself 116. If prof. M. M. Tareev admits that he read the “book” of Fr. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev only “now” and even then at my “instruction” 117, then why doesn’t he want to admit that his essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” could accidentally escape my attention?.. As for the essay “The Temptation of Christ”, its special analysis could take place in my review only in connection with the provisions revealed in the essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life”. Taken separately, the said work could only provide me with isolated valuable thoughts. His main idea is that the temptations of Christ were facts of an exclusively religious order 118. Hence, the most basic point of view of the said work is different from that in my work, in the very nature and method of my “ethical-theological research.” For example, one of the fundamental theses of Prof. M. M. Tareeva says: “the fight against carnal temptations for the growth of a person’s religious and moral character is not significant in the sense of a positive determination of character and is only accidental, pedagogical, as a means for exercising the will. Moral purity in relation to some passions can be achieved without fighting them and should be achieved in relation to all passions” 119. And here is a parallel thesis of my essay: “according to the general meaning of the patristic ascetic worldview, if in the current state of a person his indicated destiny is not properly fulfilled, then the only specific reason in this case is precisely the “passions” that impart a false, perverse direction to all his life activity, depriving him of the natural ability to communicate with God... “The commandments were given by the Lord as medicine to cleanse from passions and sins”... From here, with indestructible logical consistency, follows the ascetic rule and ascetic requirement - “to struggle against every passion until a person reaches the goal of piety” 120. Thus, the most basic points of view of Prof. M. M. Tareeva in his above-mentioned work and mine are different, although not opposite: the perspective, the very point of view, is different. Prof. MM. Tareev looks at the ascetic question from an objective-metaphysical point of view, while I look at it from a subjective-psychological point of view. If I were to consider the said essay by Prof. M. M. Tareeva in his “review”, then, of course, first of all he would note this fundamental difference. There is no inconvenience in considering the said work by Prof. I would not have met M. M. Tareev. Of course, I would have to note - and I do this now willingly - the fact that none of the Russian theologians, as far as I know, have such a definite and clearly expressed view of the relationship between religious and moral aspects, in the sense of precisely the fundamental and actual priority of the first, as in Prof. M. M. Tareeva. But then the scientific interest of the research of prof. M. M. Tareeva focuses almost exclusively on the first point, only occasionally and in passing touching on the second. “The temptations of man in the proper sense, especially the temptations of humanity, are religious temptations” 121. “Religious temptation, insofar as it is caused by the contradiction between the given limitations of his life of infinity and the unconditionality of his ideal and has as its content the proper relationship of the human to the divine, is inevitably a divine-human temptation: that is, arising in addition to the action of sinful lust in a person, it presupposes either the god-like human or the divine-human nature of the tempted one, comprehending a person on the path of his religious union with God." 122. "Only through struggle a person masters life’s contradictions and through victory over them gains positive peace” 123. In the proper and precise sense, the temptations of Christ the God-Man were divine-human, exclusively religious. 124 – My essay also reveals the idea that religious temptation and religious fall preceded moral temptation and moral fall 125, but then the center of gravity, according to my very main task, is transferred precisely to the second moment. In any case, I must testify to the fact that the named essay only “marginally” touches on my topic: it does not speak at all about ἄσκησις 'e, although, along the way, there are apt thoughts in it. Why, knowing this work, I did not specifically and definitely stipulate in the index that I was familiar with its first edition - there were completely different reasons for this, and not at all those pointed out by Prof. M. M. Tareev (the desire to come to “smug conclusions” or, even worse, to hide the fact of using it as a benefit). In the first edition, I was embarrassed by the inconvenience of the very title of the work, which, obviously, was later realized by the author himself, why he did not keep it in either the second or third edition... Therefore, when printing the list of manuals, I initially intended to stipulate that I also had the first edition on hand, but then I missed doing this too. And this omission is not at all intentional, much less malicious, but accidental: given the enormity of my work, which made itself felt even when printing the essay, this can easily be explained by simple forgetfulness. For example, I did not indicate in the list of benefits the book (master's thesis) by prof. prot. P. Ya. Svetlova, “The meaning of the cross in the work of Christ. Kyiv, 1893" 126. Since I studied this book while writing my candidate’s essay, and then when processing it for my master’s thesis, I no longer had it at hand, nor did I have it in my library, it accidentally did not end up in the list of aids, which I can only regret. Wouldn't Prof. tell me? M. M. Tareev, what is here – “a cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver?” But, in this case, why am I quoting this work on page 26, without indicating the place and year of publication? Precisely because I intended to place this essay in the list of manuals, but accidentally omitted it... Yes, this is an omission, an oversight... no more, no less... In any case, the essay of Prof. M. M. Tareeva is still listed as a manual for me, just in the wrong edition. Some authors have a way of citing quotes without indicating either the names of the works or the publications from which these quotes were taken... Try to check them - this will turn out to be very difficult in many cases. Another essay by Prof. M. M. Tareev’s “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” really concerns asceticism from the moral and psychological side. As I already said, when writing and publishing the essay I was not at all familiar with him, and in this only in this respect I can accept the reproach of Prof. M. M. Tareev, resolutely denying the validity of his explanation of this fact. There is no doubt that, speaking about some identical questions and on the basis of some general manuals, I express some similar thoughts. But in order to be able to see how close and significant this similarity is, I consider myself obliged to indicate further the main, fundamental provisions of the said essay, since it relates to the issues raised in my essay. At the same time, I will at least partially fill the gap I accidentally made in the “review” of the literature. – “Man by nature has two main aspirations: firstly, the desire for personal happiness and external perfection and, secondly, the desire for the heavenly, for union with the Divine, the desire to manifest divine content in one’s life” 127. As inherent in our very nature, the desire for improvement is good, but what is not so is “man’s desire for personal possession” of “perfection” 128. “The first and main sin of people was their desire to be like gods, knowing good and evil, that is, the desire for personal possession of divine perfection. This desire is evil, because it is a person’s desire to take the place of God, to personally be the center of being, to be self-satisfied” 129. Such a desire, with which the “desire” for personal “happiness” is closely related, “gives rise to passions” 130. In other words, “the desire for personal moral perfection is the desire to personally possess moral absolute perfection, the desire to achieve it on one’s own, the desire for moral complacency, self-gratification, self-righteousness” 131. On the contrary, “the essential fruit that is brought” by Christian “moral development is the mood of patience and humility” 132. According to Christian teaching, “perfection is given to a person in external humiliation” 133. “Only the glory of God can be the true goal of human life, and this goal must be understood “in the sense of the manifestation of the glory of God in the humiliation of human life” 134. “Man was created for life on this earth and therefore he must live in the fullness of his nature, created by God” 135. When “the will of God is fulfilled by people” on earth, under the normal conditions of their existence, then this achieves the onset of the “reign of God within us”, this is “spiritual life” 136. Such a life is impossible without self-denial 137. The “destination of man” was “fulfilled” by the Lord Jesus Christ, who went through the path of voluntary self-abasement 138. “For the life of each of us to have meaning, it must be included in the life of Christ” 139. “In the area of ​​consciousness, the birth of spiritual life begins with repentance and faith” 140. “Repentance”, “as the beginning of spiritual life, is a complete change in a person’s thoughts or feelings of inner mood, so that a person becomes different” 141. “Prayer, fasting and foolishness for Christ’s sake” serve as “nourishment and strengthening” of spiritual life” 142. “Prayer is the mental communication of a person with God” 143. Communion with God has different degrees, but, in any case, in order to be valid and true, it must first be mental, and even only in this limitation” 144. “To affirm and manifest divine glory precisely in the conditions of natural limitation and suffering of life - such is the calling of man” 145. “In this truth that the divine is accessible to man not as a predicate of the unconditional, which denies earthly limitations, but as an internal spiritual good, patient bearing of the conditions of earthly life is also included” 146. “But just as in the life of Christ the fullness of divine good was revealed in the freedom of universal human development; so in Christians the spirit of Christ must be revealed in all the fullness of natural forces and historical development" 147. If a Christian’s own individual “freely rational life consists in his feat of struggle against religious temptations” 148, then the “development of church Christian life” 149 can be expediently directed only with the obligatory collective implementation of the “church feat” 150. “The meaning of this feat is the complete development of the natural-human principle with the fullness of the divine life given through Christ, and the establishment of a free relationship between the human and the divine, the natural with the grace-filled, the worldly with the spiritual, that relationship in which the human is imbued with the divine, while preserving the independence of the latter, the natural acts together with the grace-filled and the worldly is spiritualized” 151 . “The conventionality of natural-social life does not eliminate the possibility of its religious illumination, the possibility of combining absolute content with it: the bearer of this absolute content can be a Christian spiritual person” 152. “We place our hopes on the free combination of Christian internal absoluteness with natural-social conventions” 153. So. arr., the task and feat of the church, collective is reduced in conclusion to the task and feat of the personal, individual. “Christianity is the beginning of spiritual personal life; it is completely powerless as a code of social life” 154. That is why there must be a “degeneration of the symbolic-ascetic illumination of life into a free combination of the religious spirit and earthly life with its joys and sorrows, earthly forces and natural-historical laws - the degeneration of the church’s attitude to natural-historical life, inevitably symbolic-ascetic by the very concept of the Church, into a personal-religious attitude” 155. I have presented all the somewhat significant thoughts related to the question of “asceticism” and contained in the writings of Prof. I completely accidentally omitted. M, M. Tareeva. Here, indeed, a definite and correct, although only general, concept of the meaning and basic accessories of Christian asceticism is given - and I can only regret that this presentation was not included in my “review”. To deliberately evade this presentation, as Prof. for some reason suggests. M. M. Tareev, there were no motives for me. If there are some similar thoughts in my essay, then this is quite natural, since the same teaching is presented, and some of the sources are from me and Prof. M. M. Tareev were common. If I knew the said work, I would readily offer an analysis of it and note its merits. At the same time, I will not hide, I would also point out some provisions that cannot but cause my bewilderment. Of these theses, I will point out the following as an example: “Personal love for the Son of Man must be understood in the likeness of sensual falling in love” 156. In confirmation of this idea, Prof. M. M. Tareev cites an excerpt from the teacher. Macarius of Egypt. But prof. M. M. Tareev believes that this is exactly how he understands love for Christ and general Christian teaching. “Christian love is a spiritual gift, possessing all the power of passion, containing within itself all the rapture of mystical beauty. This is the only way to understand spiritual love on the solid foundation of Christian primary sources and church history” 157. In my essay about the nature of Christian love for God it says this: “if an analogy is needed to clarify the essence and characteristics of a Christian’s love for God, then it can be represented much more by the love of children for their father than, for example, the love that arises between persons of different sexes and differs, for the most part, especially in its initial phase, by an affective, passionate character” 158. I am sure that my understanding in this case is closer to the Gospel teaching than the thesis of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. As for some representatives of patristic literature, who sometimes have thoughts reminiscent of the views of Prof. M. M. Tareev on the indicated subject, then these thoughts are explained in my opinion by the influence of the philosophy of Plato 159; Here, in my opinion, the features of Plato’s teaching about ἔρωσ ’е 160 are precisely reflected. In any case, at this point one should distinguish between the shades of the evangelical teaching about Christian love, on the one hand, and the patristic teaching, represented by some of its representatives, on the other 161. And this is especially true since in the article “Spirit and Flesh” the issue is examined specifically from the “evangelical” point of view. It seems to me that this statement by Prof. M. M. Tareev is not in harmony with his own worldview, with the very characteristic provisions of his system. In fact, if one can notice in the understanding of Prof. M. M. Tareev’s “spiritual”, “divine” life has a bias, then this bias is towards spiritualism. “The similarity of sensual falling in love” in such a system for determining the psychological character and moral properties of the state of Christian “love for God through Christ” is somewhat unexpected. Such a definition of the nature of a person’s state of “love” for God is not in harmony with the characteristic that is given further in relation to true Christian love, which has other people as its object. In this sense, “spiritual love acts directly against natural partiality and hatred” 162 ; one would expect that spiritual love for Christ and for God in Christ would be characterized precisely in direct opposition to “sensual falling in love.” I would not have accepted Prof. without some reservations and considerations. M. M. Tareeva about prayer. Prayer, according to the general meaning of patristic teaching, is more than “mental communication with God.” True, it cannot fill the entire Christian life, but it is its most characteristic and important, most essential and especially necessary accessory. In prayer, that “unity” is actually realized, that very close and direct communication of a person with God, which constitutes the essence, a necessary condition and an obligatory requirement of the mood of a person’s “love” for God 163. Prayer serves as the primary expression of a Christian's actual personal communication with God as Savior and Sanctifier 164 . Moreover, not just any ability of a Christian, but his entire personality, all his basic abilities participate in this highest act of direct and real communication with God 165. Prayer cannot replace and displace labor, practical activity, but it is its necessary dynamic moment, its soul, its sanctification, that which gives activity the highest meaning, real significance and absolutely religious value. As for the position that Christ possessed and demonstrated “the fullness of natural human life,” it would need more detailed disclosure if we have in mind the ascetic area itself. In fact, in the history of asceticism it was deliberately and constantly pointed out that Christ was born of a Virgin, that He Himself was completely alien to any kind of marriage; that He did not have where to lay his head, etc. And the fundamental completeness of the natural life of a Christian is actually reduced by the author himself to a complete renunciation of external goods, to the removal of earthly attachments, etc. “He who has comprehended the good of eternal life loses the taste for external goods” 166. “Eternal life necessarily and essentially requires self-denial even to death and, at the very least, asceticism, that is, renunciation of the external blessings of life” 167. “The Gospel looks at wealth as an obstacle to the preaching of the kingdom of God, and at poverty as a condition for its success” 168 . “Spiritual love presupposes hatred of “our own” 169. “To be a Christian” “means to love to death, to hate oneself, to hate father, mother, wife, children” 170. “Married life cannot flourish on the gospel basis, because the gospel requires the husband to “leave his wife and hate her,” and married life requires carnal love, carnal passion” 171 . According to the gospel, as a result of inner abundance and God’s calling, the boundaries of the family are torn apart, the living spring of universal love flows over the edges of the family, one’s own worldly goods are neglected for the sake of the inner good” 172 . “For the sake of Christ, one must sacrifice not only lies, but also the very truth of natural love, the very good of national and family life; one must sacrifice love for one’s own, not because it is false, but because for the sake of Christ one must sacrifice every earthly good, everything dear” 173 . Apparently, asceticism in this sense for the sake of eternal life is an essential requirement of the gospel. However, in other places it is emphatically stated that asceticism was useful and historically necessary, but only temporary. “Symbolism and asceticism have done their job, cleansed the world of pagan filth, prepared from nature a pure instrument of divine purposes - and they must recognize their role as finished” 174. In any case, if I had read the essay by prof. M. M. Tareeva: “The purpose and meaning of life,” then I would have a direct reason to touch on these theses of his both during the analysis and in the systematic part of my work. A plan and a fairly detailed presentation of the concept of asceticism was developed by me back in the 1898–1899 academic year. The subject of my candidate's essay was a topic, moreover, chosen by me myself, out of an inner desire to understand this question, first of all for myself: “The Teaching of Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers on asceticism.” In April 1899, I presented an essay of eight chapters, and the first four chapters, not only in the main content, but even in the title and plan itself, were quite consistent with the four chapters of the later master's thesis. All the main theses of this latter were already contained in the candidate’s essay; The most prominent representatives of patristic ascetic writing were studied already at that time - in large quantities. This is what Prof. testified. A. A. Bronzov about my scholarship report in the spring of 1900 “G. Zarin came to the aid of his studies regarding the preparation of his candidate's work, conducted by him in the year preceding his scholarship. The first two of the three tasks above those outlined directly coincided with those pursued by Mr. Zarin in his candidate’s essay, which elucidated the Christian teaching about asceticism in connection with the entire moral teaching of Christianity. To a degree quite sufficient for Mr. Zarin’s dissertation to be recognized as a solid candidate’s work, the question chosen by our author was clarified while he, the author, was among the students of the academy. From here, Mr. Zarin, already a scholarship holder, could only continue what he had done before and work in an area that was already familiar to him to a large extent. Thanks to intensive 2-year studies on the above issue, illuminating the latter with the word of God and patristic writing, Mr. Sarin managed to achieve valuable results: the material that was subject to his study was studied by him in a completely sufficient volume and to the proper extent, thanks to which he understood the matter, undoubtedly, correctly. Only Mr. Zarin’s great diligence could make it possible for him to study the vast patristic material to the desired extent, and the patristic works were usually read to him in their entirety, and not in fragments. He did not ignore the creations of a single one, one might say, St. Father or Teacher of the Christian Church, who had any significant significance in relation to the issues considered by him" 175. When I wrote my candidate's essay and studied at the Academy as a professor's fellow, there was only the essay of Prof. M. M. Tareeva: “The Temptation of the God-Man.” M. 1892. Consequently, neither as a basis for developing the principle side of the solution to the issues that were subject to my consideration, nor as a guide in the selection of patristic material, the system of prof. MM. Tareev, brought to a completed form only very recently, both due to this circumstance and on the merits of the matter, I could not have accepted. By 1904, the essay was prepared, at the end of that year everything was rewritten (and partly printed) and presented to the Academy Council as a master's thesis. Those works by Prof. M. M. Tareev, who were known to me when writing the dissertation, indeed, in one way or another, helped me to highlight in more relief some, moreover, secondary aspects of the issue that were in contact with my main subject, which I was neither physically able to study completely independently, nor was I even obliged to do so, due to the undoubted law and the indisputable principle of division of labor. I have these works marked as manuals, and “The Temptation of Jesus Christ” must actually be understood in both editions. It is only in pointing out this fact that Prof.’s criticism is fair. M. M. Tareeva. What has already been said explains the reason for Prof.’s displeasure. M. M. Tareev to the fact that some of the theses that I put forward against him “are available” to him “himself” 176. This, for example, is a thesis about the importance of asceticism as a means and way to acquire and ensure true freedom 177. Prof. M. M. Tareev says, and rightly so, that he has a similar thesis in his already analyzed essay: “The Purpose and Meaning of Life,” where, by the way, the meaning of fasting is recognized and accepted in this very sense and scope. But I discussed his other article “Flesh and Spirit”, and my objection was caused by the essence of the matter, the formulation of the question in this article. That the last article lies in a completely non-ascetic sphere, I could not assume at that time, without the author’s explanation in the general collection of his works, but the title of the article and its very content, referring to the “defenders of the holy flesh”, who always deliberately raised the issue of “asceticism”, gave reason and grounds to discuss it from an ascetic point of view. Prof. MM. Tareev does not want to admit the possibility that I was not familiar with his essay: “The Purpose and Meaning of Life”; he certainly wants to insist that I am only “pretending” to not know this work, and therefore he makes the following conclusion: “in this regard, Mr. Sarin’s reviewer techniques turn out to be very strange” 178. The “strangeness” is only in the reluctance to admit what really happened, in the desire to impose on me at any cost the guilt that I do not know about myself. This technique, consistently cited by Prof. M. M. Tareev, testifies to the degree of his impartiality, not to mention his goodwill towards me. It’s one thing to point out a gap, but quite another to see a “cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver of covering up tracks,” a seemingly “plagiaristic” attitude towards the works of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. But we will have to return to this point later. Reproaching me for “maliciously” passing over the treatise “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” in silence when reviewing his works, Prof. M. M. Tareev is perplexed as to why I am attracting his dissertation: “Philosophy of Gospel History.” Why am I analyzing chapter XI of this work, which treats the resurrection of Christ? – The answer does not present any difficulties for me. One of the main and characteristic theses of my essay is the position that eternal life is “the life not only of the soul, but also of the body” (Makariy E.). The human body, along with the soul, was redeemed and saved. Spirituality is not the same as incorporeality (Irenaeus L.). “The salvation of the flesh,” its “participation in incorruption” is based on the fact that the flesh “feeds on the body and blood of the Lord.” Christian teaching clearly speaks of the salvation of the body and its glorification in the future life. Man, both soul and body, will rest with the Lord in the kingdom (Makariy E.). Having received the properties of the glorified state, having been transformed into a new, most perfect form of being, the bodies will not lose their main property - materiality (Methodius P.). So, Christ saved not only the soul, but also the body - “the whole man,” as the church hymn puts it. In the same way, the entire material world will change into a better form, into a more perfect form, but will not perish 179. In general, I affirm that, according to the undoubted teaching of “patristic theology,” spiritual bodies even in a glorified state will be material, while Prof. M. M. Tareev insists precisely on the fundamental “immateriality of the spiritual body” 180. Since I consider this thesis to be quite important and since one of the tasks of my critical review was to present “a scientific and theological analysis of those issues and points of view on the subject of my work that do not fully or only partially correspond to my point of view” 181, then I subjected the views of Prof. M. M. Tareev on the properties of the resurrected body of Christ, with which our “body of glory” will be “in accordance” 182. Here, by the way, I said that we can only speak in principle about the materiality of bodies in a glorified state, and not about their form or specific state, since our information even about the present state of matter is too primitive and insufficient. Science is only trying to pave the right paths and methods of research here, and we cannot even imagine what conclusions it can come to now... Therefore, when the Gospel says that Christ appeared to the disciples as a “closed door,” etc., this is incomprehensible to us only from the point of view of our insufficient and primitive ideas about materiality 183 184 . “In recent times, Thomson’s research has finally been united into one common scientific whole. Maxwell, Crookes, Loodge, Graham and others concerning the structure of matter and its properties. These data on the structure of matter promise to shed bright light on the question of the structure of nervous matter; but even now, these studies are revealing much about the subtlest, previously unknown, properties of the material world and depicting matter in such a subtle and - may the comparison be forgiven us - sublime form, which was previously impossible to imagine; This applies in particular to those aggregates of matter that are the substrate of life. But also in relation to inorganic matter, extremely remarkable facts have become known - especially on the question of the forms of matter and the movement of material particles. The latest research on the composition of the material world shows that, independent of atoms, there exist other, much smaller than atoms, particles of matter, moreover, a substance more subtle than ordinary matter. We are talking about electrons, i.e. the smallest particles of electricity (electricity itself, according to these studies, is a substance, and not a force, as previously thought). Particles of each of the named matters... moving with extraordinary speed... the speed of electrons approaches the speed of light. Substances moving with such extreme speed also have extraordinary energy: “if a gram of water, says Lodge, were to impart a similar speed, its energy would be sufficient to throw up the entire English fleet but the height of Ben Nevis” (the highest mountain in England) 185. Let us now turn to the theological justification for my point of view. As is known, two points of Christian teaching seemed especially absurd to pagan philosophers in the first centuries of the existence of Christianity - the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God and the future bodily resurrection of people 186 . “When they heard (the words of the Apostle Paul) about the resurrection of the dead, some (of the philosophers) mocked, while others said: We will listen to you about this at another time” 187. Christian apologists had to resolve objections that were made on these points from the point of view - mainly - of the concept of matter as the source of evil, and the concept of the body as the source of everything evil and bad in man. For the philosophers of that time, especially for the Neoplatonists, the very birth of man in the flesh was a consequence of the fall of man, a punishment for sins. Hence, philosophers set the ideal of moral aspirations as complete liberation from the shackles of matter, merging with the incorporeal, purely spiritual essence. It is clear from this that Christian aspirations - to be resurrected again in one’s body, for eternal life - seemed to them the height of madness. The hope for the resurrection of bodies, according to Celsus, is a matter worthy of worms. For “what human soul could wish to return to the rottenness of the body?” 188. How persistent and frequent these objections were can be seen from the fact that they were decisively addressed by all apologists, and some of them even devoted special works to this issue 189 . In view of these circumstances, it was easy for Christian apologists to take the point of view of spiritualism, to find out that nothing material would be preserved in the resurrected bodies - and yet this did not happen. Apologists especially emphasized the unity of the human being despite the duality of its component parts. The soul, by its nature, is immortal 190, but it is not to it alone that the advantage of immortality belongs - the body must also take part in it 191. Man is a single being made up of soul and body, and the Creator has indicated a specific purpose for existence and life specifically for man. Since the highest goal of human existence and life lies in the other world, then in the other life a person must exist as a single being, in the inextricable communion of soul and body. The body, which fell into decay in death, will rise again and unite with the soul. Thus, the resurrection, according to apologists, is required by human nature itself in connection with its eternal purpose 193. The bliss of eternal life is the ultimate goal not of the soul, but of man 194. Just as souls are not born from souls, but people are born from people 195, so eternal life in God belongs not only to the soul, but precisely to man as such, since soul and body do not live separately from each other, but both are inextricably – organically united in one human life 196. It is man who does good and evil, and not just the soul; virtue and vice belong to him, and not to the soul alone, separately from the body and on its own ( ἑαυτὴν ὀύσης 197 ). It is man who is given the law, which he must follow if he wants to fulfill his eternal destiny; therefore, he must also receive reward or punishment not only according to one, but also according to another component of his nature - according to his bodily side. And since reward and punishment in their entirety can be realized only in the afterlife, the dead and disintegrated body must rise again and unite with the soul in order for the promises of God to be fulfilled 199. So, the resurrection of bodies is required, according to Christian apologists, not only by the final judgment, but also by the essence of human nature itself, by the eternal law of Divine Truth 200. The resurrection of bodies is associated with St. Irenaeus L. also with the very essence of the Eucharist. “How do the heretics say that the flesh is subject to decay and does not inherit life when it is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord?” Let them either change their minds or stop bringing the above. Our teaching is in agreement with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, in turn, confirms our teaching. We bring to Him what is His, consistently proclaiming the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For just as bread from the earth, after calling God over it, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things - earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection" 201. According to the teachings of Bl. Augustine, the souls of the righteous until the general resurrection cannot enjoy the full degree of bliss in the contemplation of God: this is prevented by the unsatisfied desire for union with their own bodies, which is natural and ineradicable in them 202. This dissatisfaction will disappear only when, at the end of time, bodies rise from their graves. The truth of the general resurrection of the body is inaccessible to our natural knowledge; we recognize it only from divine revelation, for it belongs to the supernatural order 203. Sinners with their body and soul will fall under that second death, which consists of eternal damnation 204 - and their lot will always be the deepest misfortune 205. On the contrary, the righteous with enlightened and spiritualized bodies 206, which, however, despite their transformation, do not lose their inherent nature (naturam et substantiam carnis) 207, will enter into eternal glory and unceasing bliss 208. With the resurrection of bodies, the world will be transformed, renewed and come to an enlightened state 209. But the teaching of St. is especially clear and definite. John Chrysostom. Explaining the words of St. Apostle Paul: hedgehog seeshi, not the body to come seeshi (1 Cor. 15:37, the saint says: “Here it is said about the image of the resurrection, that is, what the body that will be resurrected will be like - whether it is the same as before, or better and more excellent. The Apostle ... proves that it will be much better πολλῷ βέλτον. Heretics But, not understanding anything of this, they object and say: another body dies and another body will rise. But what kind of resurrection is this? After all, the rebellion refers to what has fallen... It is not another being that is sown, but another that grows, but the same thing (grows) in the best form. Where did He take the other? This is from the Virgin, and where does this come from? Do you see what absurdities this opinion leads to? Why did He also show the nail wounds? not an ear, because it is the same and not the same: the same because it is of the same being with (the seed); not the same because it is better; the creature remained the same, but greater splendor appeared, and he rose in a new form εὐπρεπε ί ας γινομένης, καὶ καινοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνισταμένου 210. Bearing in mind such a clear patristic teaching of almost all representatives of patristic literature (even Origen in this case refrains from making extreme statements) 211, according to what is stated by historians of dogmatic theology without distinction of religion 212 - I had every right and reason to note the “inaccuracy” in the reasoning of Prof. M. M. Tareeva about “the complete immateriality of the spiritual body, since it is recognized as “undoubted”, “that it will not have anything material in itself,” since “the spiritual body is a limitation of conditional existence alien to materiality” 213. This, of course, does not mean at all that I ascribed to myself some kind of “privilege” of expressing “exactly” Orthodox teaching. Perhaps I also have mistakes in this regard. I will not complain at all if criticism thoroughly points them out. It is known that inaccuracies and even incorrectness in the expression of Orthodox teaching are sometimes noted among our most outstanding theologians, whose works received special significance among us - and there is nothing surprising here: errare humanum est. Only those who do nothing make no mistakes... Even outstanding church fathers had “private opinions” on some issues... Who doesn’t know all this; but, on the other hand, no one can take away the right to note these facts, to express one’s judgment and opinion... “Judge” does not necessarily mean “condemn.” But, it turns out, don’t you dare express your opinion! Prof. M. M. Tareev was apparently very offended by this objection; but he himself says that he was offended for something else, namely that I pointed out the “inaccuracy” of his expression of Orthodox teaching on this point. Here is prof. M. M. Tareev saw nothing more or less than... a denunciation to the “spheres”... “He,” my critic says about me, “does not miss an opportunity to strengthen his reputation in the eyes of the “spheres” with a nod to the suspicion of my Orthodoxy... The exact expression of Orthodoxy is (the professor sneers) the privilege of such persons as Mr. Zarin” 214. Next, Prof. M. M. Tareev directly says that I “inform” on his imaginary “non-Orthodoxy” 215 ... I must say that of all the offensive and passionate things that Prof. had to say about my essay and my moral personality. M. M. Tareev, this is the most unfair, groundless, harsh and endlessly offensive... However, here too I will try to be objective and dispassionate... First of all, in order to understand some special sensitivity of the author to this point and to reconcile - if possible - morally with the completely undeserved insult inflicted on me, I must take into account the personal circumstances of my critic. The “long-term persecution of religious thought” that he talks about 216 once affected him personally, in part... Prof. himself. speaks about entire years of his serious illness and the condensed blows of fate, about his difficult personal circumstances 217. All this, of course, softens the impression of an undeserved insult, but you also have to spare others... And it’s not easy for others... You can’t be guided by the principle that “if it was unpleasant for me, then let it be hard for others too.” – Turning to the essence of the matter, first of all I must decisively declare that I should choose the essay of Prof. M. M. Tareev as a means to “strengthen one’s reputation in the eyes” of some “spheres” did not even occur to me: there was no need, no reason, no thought itself, there was no such thing. Just as, for example, there was no, just as there was no thought of going to live in Australia... I wrote what I thought, as I understood the matter... I could have been wrong, but I did not have any goals extraneous to the matter, even less shameful and more acceptable... For my criticism of some points of the system, Rev. Feofan, for highlighting the issue of “evangelical” advice”, for recognizing the dependence of the patristic teaching - on some sides - on the philosophical, etc., during the debate I was subjected to criticism and even some condemnation from my second official opponent... And I could have foreseen this, but still I wrote and published what I thought. True, my opponent turned out to be a noble man. It was only a question of a more or less correct understanding of the matter, and did not concern the assessment of a moral personality... And I could not foresee that I would see second thoughts... If there are mistakes, look at them as a natural tribute to insufficient experience in the first literary work, and do not denigrate the person like that. And in this case, nothing like what is attributed to me by Prof. M. M. Tareev, in fact, I have absolutely no idea. Having an indisputable criterion in patristic theology, I tried to express myself very carefully in this regard. First of all, I make a reservation that the argumentation and way of expression of Prof. M. M. Tareev is largely explained by the “extremes of the view he examines” of the defenders of “holy flesh”, “holy voluptuousness” - “considering carnal passionate sensuality and voluptuousness to be an essential, most important attribute of ideal human nature” 218. About his general attitude towards the views of Prof. I say this to M. M. Tareev: “disagreeing with the representatives of the prof. M. M. Tareev’s view, in fact, on this point we do not completely agree, however, with him, considering it necessary to highlight the essence of Orthodox teaching from a slightly different angle 219. "Prof. M. M. Tareev tends to completely deny the body, the material element of human nature, the opportunity and ability to achieve “deification”, communication with God in any way” 220. If I, again very carefully, say that some of the author’s expressions “can” “give rise to significant misunderstandings and, at least in part, to fair criticism” 221 - then this is a fact, and not just my personal impression. Such misunderstandings began to be expressed in the press as soon as the interpretation of Chapter XI of the “Philosophy of Evangelical History” appeared in the form of a separate article. The official reviewer of this dissertation gave exactly the same impression in this regard. “Talk about the sacrament of bread and wine,” he writes, “if not preceded by special remarks, can confuse many (7, 191, 197). The same must be said about the following provisions of the author: “the Christian resurrection” (§ 65), the spirituality of the resurrection (§ 57), miracles of beneficence (107, etc.)” 222. The reviewer points to the note of Rev. Lavrsky, as proof that such embarrassment already exists. Prof. M. M. Tareev himself recently stated a similar fact and, moreover, on the part of V. V. Rozanov 223. I, who had not read a single note about the XI chapter of Prof. MM. Tareev, I had a similar impression, and it was reflected in my review. It must be said that initially my entire paragraph of review of the theological views of Prof. was limited to this note. M. M. Tareeva 224. Then, having become acquainted with his articles: “Spirit and Flesh,” I presented a feasible analysis of them. Things progressed historically and naturally. But prof. M. M. Tareev wants to present everything in a wrong way: he sees everywhere “a cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver.” If I personally had no reason, no motivation, no desire to “nod” to some “spheres” about the “suspiciousness” of Orthodoxy by Prof. M. M. Tareev, then objectively my judgments, I am sure, no one has used, will not use and could not use... For this - simply - there could not be the slightest reason, there is no corresponding material... Who, in fact, would have thought of looking for a source for accusing Prof. M. M. Tareeva in my work on “asceticism”? And what kind of authority am I for the “spheres”? Yes, finally, my review talks about the inaccuracy “in the expression” of Orthodox teaching only on some points... It is said completely correctly and generally... Only something else can paint such phantasmagoric pictures from a frightened imagination... But I, you must agree, have nothing to do with it. I just turned up at this hour. I cannot help but recall a very typical case here. More recently, Prof. M. M. Tareev, analyzing the worldview of V. V. Rozanov, called him “the most convinced pagan” 225. In my article published in the “Church Bulletin - “Rozanov on Death and Resurrection,” I, by the way, referred to this characterization... Soon I had to hear from several respectable and very knowledgeable persons that such a characterization should not have been given to V.V. Rozanov and - especially - it should not have been shaded, because just at that time some people in the corresponding higher institution allegedly had the idea of excommunicating Rozanov from the church for his pagan worldview... They were afraid that that this characteristic may also be brought into play. This would, of course, be unpleasant... Is it possible that in this case, Prof. M. M. Tareeva and I had the idea to “convey” Rozanov, to “nod” at his paganism to the “spheres”? Meanwhile, prof. M. M. Tareev said very decisively: “Rozanov consistently and from the bottom of his heart hates the evangelical spirit” 226. All this shows that using such techniques in order to cast a shadow on the work under review is inconvenient and incorrect... It would be better not to resort to such really “easy” victories and cheap effects at all... With such a general hostile attitude towards me and my work, Prof. M. M. Tareev - naturally - sees “obstinacy” everywhere and in the “particulars” of my critical review, and, wanting at all costs to read between the lines, he sometimes reads something completely different from what is directly listed in me. So, moving on to the analysis of his article: “Spirit and Flesh,” I, in the form of a simple passing remark, literally for the purpose of moving from one section to another, say that “the analysis of one fact of the resurrection of Christ, taken in isolation, is insufficient,” etc. In this completely innocent remark, Prof. MM. Tareev managed to discern a whole abyss of vices: here there is “complacency” and “pedantry” - and all this because in these words I seem to be “reading “instructions” to him.” Since my words have a more direct and completely simple meaning, alien to ulterior goals, then only if I wanted to disagree with literally nothing that I have, and if I tried to misrepresent everything, could this misunderstanding arise. In my presentation there is not even a reason for my critic to show sensitivity and irritation. Further, I directly say: “a more general, broader and fundamental coverage of the question of the meaning, content and meaning of Christian asceticism by Prof. M. M. Tareev offers in his study: “Spirit and Flesh” 227. My earlier remark, therefore, only explains that, although I bring into consideration the XI chapter of the work: “Philosophy of Evangelical History,” knowing that I can extract from it only some strictly limited data to clarify my question, that’s why I turn to another work of the professor. That's all I wanted to say - no more, no less. The professor himself was not even meant in this case: especially since, of course, no one wanted to read “instructions” to him. How, indeed, can obvious facts be distorted!.. All this is so petty that it is truly difficult and unpleasant to go into the explanation of this misunderstanding. If this incident is significant, it is only to characterize Prof.’s attitude towards me and my work. M. M. Tareeva. This is, in general, the meaning of Prof.’s expression. M. M. Tareev and regarding the second “particularity”. Here is the appropriate point of criticism. "G. Zarin assures that “Prof. M. M. Tareev narrows the scope of the concept “asceticism” too much when he says that the natural attitude of Christianity does not inevitably become ascetic and does not create an escape from the world.” First of all, Mr. Sarin misrepresents this passage. “I have,” the critic explains, “the following is written: “Christianity is in the absoluteness of goodness, in the combination of ethics with faith, in spiritual believing love... The natural attitude of a Christian does not, for this reason alone, inevitably become ascetic”... So what? According to Mr. Zarin, is this alone why Christianity is ascetic in the sense of escaping from the world? G. Zarin gets the opportunity to develop his watery arguments on the topic that asceticism is not exhausted by hermitage, that religiosity is not necessarily abstract - primarily because he deprives the place under review of contextual meaning. Secondly, because he deliberately forgets my systematic solution to the ascetic question. I refer to the entire content of the essay: “The purpose and meaning of life”... Well, what’s the point of objecting to me that I understand asceticism too narrowly?!” 228. – About how “deliberately” I could “forget” op. prof. M. M. Tareeva “The purpose and meaning of life,” I already had to say. I didn’t even think of distorting the place under review. The words “based on this alone” have absolutely nothing to do with it in this case: I cited the passage I needed only by thought, and not literally. In this case, I only noted that asceticism is taken in too narrow a sense, when its most characteristic feature is considered to be “flight from the world,” when “real love for living people” is opposed to “abstract contemplative religiosity.” This is the opposite of Prof. M. M. Tareeva undoubtedly exists, and in this case it was only important for me to note. In the “conclusion” of my “review” I point out that “in the concept of “asceticism” there are two meanings, two meanings - a more general, broad one and a narrower, special one,” along with other scientists, and prof. M. M. Tareev 229. Here I meant exactly this place. If I said that prof. M. M. Tareev sometimes “narrows too much the scope of the concept of “asceticism,” but I do not give up my statement even now, meaning, for example, that he presents the “ideal of Byzantine holiness” exclusively with an “abstract-ascetic” character 230. In connection with this, we find in him the following categorical statement: “the one-sided culture of the spirit, which Christianity hitherto was, and which replaced the divine spirit (=the power of life) with spiritual incorporeality, brought the bitter fruits of false asceticism” 231. I consider such statements to be unnecessarily exaggerated. From an ideological, general, philosophical point of view, such characteristics may not cause confusion and are sufficient, but from the point of view of historical, factual reality, they turn out to be too straightforward. The third - and last - remark of Prof. M. M. Tareeva regarding the “particulars” of my “analysis”, despite its brevity, needs a detailed explanation. “He,” the critic says about me, “quotes my words: “The Gospel cannot be preached to children, because this would mean instilling in them hatred of their father and mother, and this would be complete absurdity,” and adds on his own: “the same absurdity as it would be to instill in children to cut off their right hand, pluck out their right eye, etc. But such absurdities, i.e., instilling a literal understanding of the Gospel words, forgetting all the rules for understanding the sacred text, should not be instilled in adults either” 232. This is the place of Prof. M. M Tareev explains in a note as follows: “i.e. That is, the Christian problem becomes a torment in my heart, and Mr. Zarin calls the very torment of my heart, my very problem, absurdity.” The whole remark ends like this: “Mr. Zarin loves to teach. But believe me, Mr. Zarin, the religious problem is broader than the narrow area of ​​exegetical rules.” For such an attitude towards his “problem” Prof. M. M. Tareev calls me - along with Fr. I. L. Yanyshev and prof. prot. P. E. Svetlov - standing “at a low level of religious criticism.” I completely agree that calling “absurdity” any sincere and honest search for truth, especially when combined with “heartache,” is extremely incorrect, indelicate, and even downright rude. But I didn’t want this, and I’m not capable of doing this due to my character and mood. If I have been given at least a reason for such an accusation, if it could only seem that this is really the case with me, then for this, for the most careless way of expression, I am ready to offer a sincere apology: it is truly inconvenient what Prof. is accusing me of. M. M. Tareev in this case. But did Prof. not tendentiously misinterpret? M. M. Tareev and this place, didn’t he give it a different, unfavorable light for me? After all, this has happened more than once, as we have seen. All words must be taken in their contextual connection. At the beginning of the department from which the incriminated place was borrowed, it says: “Prof. M. M. Tareev had in mind the views of Messrs. Rozanov and Merezhkovsky, and therefore is expressed - noticeably - in relation to their terminology. But this is also where, perhaps, some significant inaccuracies in his interpretation originate 233. The above words are given precisely as an example of such inaccuracy in expression - and I didn’t want to say anything more with them. I only found the argumentation in this case to be somewhat unsuccessful. The gospel cannot be preached to children simply because they are children, because they cannot yet perceive anything with their minds. They cannot even understand the word “hate,” and if they understood it, then, when applied to father and mother, to brothers and sisters, the requirement to “hate,” of course, would seem completely absurd.” But this is not all and not even the most characteristic. Children cannot hate anyone at all, but it was precisely for this quality, by the way, that Christ recognized children as primarily worthy of the “Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14). Moreover, Christ says that in order to acquire congeniality, the principles and demands of the “Kingdom of Heaven” need to undergo a process of “conversion” (ἐὰν μὴ στραφῆτε) as a result of which there should be a return to the mood of childish “self-deprecation” (ταπειν ώ σει ἑαυτὸν ὡ ς τὸ παιδ ί ον )... (Matthew 18:3–4). “Hatred”, which the Gospel speaks of, has only an ascetic, negative meaning: this state is important in the process of “conversion to Christ and can take place until following Christ, love for Him impart positive qualities to a person, regenerate him completely, and “θυμὸς” and “ὀργ ή” and “μῖσος “will receive a special, specifically Christian direction and appointment... When prof. MM. Tareev says that the Gospel, by the way, preaches “hatred” towards parents, brothers and sisters in the very case when “for a Christian it is necessary to choose between renunciation of Christ and family ties” 234, at that very moment of his following Christ, when a person must experience “knowledge of the vanity of earthly life and the fleetingness of its blessings”, moreover, it is necessary to “repel from the earth” 235 - then he himself completely correctly defines the ascetic moment, the ascetic character, the ascetic meaning of the state of “hatred”. In this sense, Prof. M. M. Tareev rightly says that “for the gospel,” asceticism, understood in the sense of “renunciation” of the external (including family) blessings of life, “acquires an ethical appearance only” “as a negative condition for spiritual birth” 236. This “hatred” is included in the scope of the complex state of Christian “repentance” (ματάνοια), Christian “conversion” (ἐπιστροφ ή), and receives its meaning precisely and only in it. And children cannot be preached to “hatred” precisely because they cannot be preached to “repentance.” Meanwhile, in this case, Prof. M. M. Tareev takes the Gospel demand for “hatred” in its separateness and isolation, and it takes on a seemingly positive and independent meaning. Wanting to emphasize this circumstance, I added an indication of completely similar requirements of the Gospel - to cut off the right hand, pluck out the right eye, etc., using the expression of Prof. himself. M. M. Tareeva. My words “such absurdities, i.e., instilling a literal understanding of the Gospel words, forgetting all the rules necessary for understanding not only the sacred text, but also any literary work in general, - i.e., idiocy of language, tributary, allegorical way of expression, etc., should not be instilled not only in children, but also in adults,” these words of mine did not relate to the “problem” of Prof. M. M. Tareev, and even more so to his “heartache”. I just wanted to show the insufficiency, in my opinion, of his argumentation in this particular case. I understood that no one - and he himself - would preach “hatred” towards parents and brothers - in the direct and immediate meaning of this word - to preach not only to children, but also to adults... I am perplexed why these words of Prof. M. M. Tareev attributed it to his “problem”. Here, too, I can only admit one thing: that this was done solely for the purpose of highlighting my imaginary critical incorrectness. “For me,” says Prof. M. M. Tareev, the Christian problem is posed in the torment of my heart, and Mr. Zarin calls the very torment of my heart, my very problem, absurdity.” But is it really the problem of Prof. M. M. Tareeva comes down to preaching hatred towards parents, brothers, to an invitation to cut off the right hand, pluck out the right eye, etc.? I could never allow this, but now, having studied the “system” of prof. M. M. Tareeva, I can document that “exegetical rules” are not rejected by him when applied, in particular, to this question of the meaning, scope and significance of the Gospel “hatred”. When prof. MM. Tareev only speaks in general, without much explanation, about this “hatred”; his understanding, indeed, sounds in the sense of an unconditional and, as it were, even literal demand. But this is not yet a “problem”... The “problem” begins where the issue is discussed specifically, in connection with the author’s integral worldview. And here we see a very cautious and moderate explanation in relation to this issue - when applied to the practice of life, it is even much more moderate than the accepted understanding of this aspect of the Gospel requirement 237. In this case, the starting point from prof. M. M. Tareev is based on the proposition that “the gospel does not know two kinds of natural life, it knows only one natural life, which is formed by marriage and kinship unions - and it recognizes this life as an indisputable and natural good” 238 . Thus, married life - in itself - is not only not denied by the gospel, but also, as a natural form of life, irreplaceable by anything else parallel, is not even affected. And this, especially since “chastity in the gospel is understood absolutely, so that the right to a celibate life is taken away by the slightest movement of lust and remains only for freaks - and in the sense of obligatory celibacy, it is better to get married than to get inflamed” 239. Thus, according to the professor, the general, ordinary, natural, even necessary, with some exceptions, way of life is marriage. In what sense does “the gospel command the renunciation of this good”? 240. The only thing is in the sense of “leaving family life, in the sense of sacrificing it for the kingdom of God” 241. And this in fact should be carried out precisely and only then “when married life is incompatible with the requirements of the gospel, when it becomes an obstacle on the path to eternal life, that is, when either Christ calls a person to some feat that cannot be accomplished within the narrow confines of family life, or a degraded family begins to vulgarize a person. And in no case does the gospel provide grounds for a celibate life based on general motives of soul salvation” 242. “When God calls a family man to some God’s work, and he blesses his family, entrusts it to God and good people, and he himself goes to heroic deeds, torture and death and lays down his soul for God’s truth, for love for people, then only he will prove himself a Christian. If this call does not yet exist, then a Christian family is no different and should not be different from a good pagan family. A family man is a Christian only in the sense that he carries within himself this ability to respond to the call of God, but this difference from a materialistic-minded person in no case can be seen and appreciated from the outside” 243. In this case, the internal guarantee of true Christianity is reconciled with “family egoism” if it does not go beyond certain limits 244. So, the “hatred” of the Gospel, according to the professor, not only does not lead to celibacy, but also leads to leaving the family only in certain, generally speaking, rare, exceptional cases. It does not exclude family as a form of life, and does not in the least diminish or weaken family joys and family affections. “Carrying” “pure evangelical Christianity” “only in the soul” 245 in ordinary conditions of life, a Christian “sanctifies his whole life with the divine spirit” 246. It “sanctifies” both “social relations and physiological connections” 247. “Different elements - natural physiology, human society and the divine spirit - precisely because they are heterogeneous, combine harmoniously according to the law of complete mutual freedom and incomprehensible internal relationships” 248. In fact, “marriage” “gives life to a person” - gives life to a child, “saves” his wife and makes him “alive” 249. – In all this, it is not the particulars that are important for us, but only the observation that the “religious problem” will help to do without exegetical techniques, and that the understanding of the Gospel “hatred” can in no case be literal. And this - and only this, without the desire to offend anyone - is what I said. On this point, I would only like to note that there is no substantiated data for a fundamental opposition between the Gospel and the Patristic teachings on the issue of marriage and celibacy. I can state this on the basis of a sufficient study of the patristic writings on this issue, as far as it falls within my special area. The most authoritative and famous St. The Fathers of the Church oppose not marriage and celibacy, but marriage and virginity. By the latter, we mean a holistic spiritual mood, which is based on complete self-devotion to Christ and His kingdom. Celibacy is only a negative condition, an ascetic means for maintaining and nurturing such a mood, chosen - preferably before marriage - only for psychological reasons, in relation to the individual characteristics and circumstances of each 250. The marital state represents an obstacle to the complete following of Christ, to the acquisition of eternal life, not “from the point of view of physical impurity,” but due to its connection with material concerns, with the natural, selfishness and narrowness of the family circle 251. “This is your sister in Christ, so let your union with her be holy, sanctify this naturally sweet union with the thought of a child”: “so it will be, according to Prof. M. M. Tareeva, future prophets speak" 252. But this, of course, in thought, and not verbally, was what some Fathers of the Church said 253. “Raising a family” “through a holy person - the absolute Christian value of a wife and child” 254 - this is precisely the patristic thought, the patristic covenant. If prof. MM. Tareev, saying that “from an ascetic point of view, it is considered the most difficult to reconcile the filth of male-female union with Christianity” 255, means the church-historical point of view, in its difference from the “evangelical point of view”, this is in fact not entirely true: the main feature of the patristic views on marriage does not lie at all in the indicated point - I can document this. But the most important bewilderment arises from the other side. It seems to me that, according to the views of Prof. M. M. Tareeva, if they are carried out sequentially, the gospel, without fundamentally affecting the natural essence of married life, actually makes marriage, as a form of life, completely impossible. “The family, according to the Gospel teaching, can become an obstacle to eternal (absolutely divine) life on the part of family egoism, the most obvious form of which can be called family property. To understand the full difficulty of this clash, one must appreciate, on the one hand, the entire height of the absolute gospel ideal and, on the other, the entire depth of family egoism. Leave father and mother, wife and children, give away all your property”: this is the gospel requirement” 256. “To be good (Matt. 19:16–17 par.) means to live according to God, according to absolute standards, that is... to give away all your property” 257. At the same time, family selfishness is not only “deep, but also inevitable, insurmountable.” “The entire family culture 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, in it it is completely resolved, and as soon as it has crossed to another slope - the slope of the Christian spirit, then the separation of the family necessarily begins" 258. From this it is concluded that “the application of the gospel directly to the forms of worldly life,” in particular, “to the structure of the family,” is impossible and should not take place. “Pure evangelical Christianity can only be carried in the soul,” 259 without applying it directly to forms of life, in particular, to family life. “An exclusively Christian point of view on life is inevitably an ascetic point of view” 260. But Christianity does not and should not embrace the whole of life. “If a complete life is in the rhythm of ebb and flow, then pure Christianity is one ebb, it is only a moment in the totality of life.” “It’s not that Christianity lies only in “torture and death”, only in the separation of the family, but they clearly express the characteristic aspiration of Christianity” 261. “According to the gospel, the only religious use of wealth is its complete distribution, the only salvation of the rich man is to become poor. Wealth serves the gospel by disappearing, melting away, and therefore wealth for the gospel is “mammon of unrighteousness.” With wealth a person can make friends for himself, as the “unfaithful steward” did; but the steward made friends for himself by his disloyalty to the interests of the estate to which he was assigned; in the same way, a truly rich man can earn Christian salvation for himself by betraying his wealth - to the end, to its complete distribution, to poverty” (Luke 16:9) 262. It is indisputable that “the gospel discusses wealth and poverty in their sole relation to eternal life, to personal-religious absoluteness” 263. But the very essence of the latter is such that it requires the unconditional fulfillment of this gospel call. “There is nothing more contrary to the meaning of the Gospel sermon than to consider the absolute Christian commandments as optional advice or higher commandments, presupposing lower commandments, accessible to the majority and gradually leading to the highest degrees of perfection. No, the absolute commandments are the only commandments of the gospel; they do not stand at the top of the Christian ladder, but Christianity ends and begins with them” 264. Therefore, there are no loopholes for any compromises or concessions. This is how the greatest ascetics truly understood this Gospel commandment. St. Basil V., for example, says about a rich young man: “it is clear that you are far from this commandment, and have falsely testified about yourself that you loved your neighbor as yourself. For the commandment of the Lord completely exposes you that there is no true love in you (τὴς ἀληθινῆς ἀγάπης). Where did you get such property? Caring for the needy is wasteful of wealth. He who loves his neighbor as himself has nothing in excess of his neighbor. περισσότερον κέκτηται τοῦ πλησίον ). But you find yourself having great wealth. Isn’t it clear from this that you prefer using it for yourself (οἰκε ί αν ἀπ ό λαυσιν) to easing the lot of many? Therefore, the more wealth you have, the less love you have” 265. Here St. The Father undoubtedly stands at the height of the Gospel absoluteness and looks at the possession of property from the point of view of the Gospel love for one's neighbor, which is included in the commandment of love for God, it contains it, it necessarily and inseparably complements it, completely sharing its absoluteness. This is where the question actually arises: how, from the point of view of this absolute commandment, is any actual possession of property justified, without which it is completely impossible, as Prof. himself says. M. M. Tareev, family life? The great ascetics fulfilled this commandment in all precision and did this precisely to implement the fundamental gospel commandment of love for one’s neighbors. Therefore, family life was impossible for them. The latter seemed, moreover, in itself to be too narrow a circle, as if taking away love from other people and involuntarily confining it within its own narrow boundaries. Now this problem is solved differently: “Evangelical Christianity can only be carried in the soul,” but there remains the full possibility of family life with its natural selfishness. In my opinion, the patristic teaching understood the Gospel teaching more directly and more definitely. Here, it is still unclear to me whether a true Christian, who carries within himself the desire for eternal life, can own property, lead a family life, etc. True, “life reconciles everything within itself, it is multifaceted, it gives everything human a place within itself” 266. But the point is that the “spirit of gospel absoluteness” is a spirit “opposite to everything human” 267, and not just a “heterogeneous” principle in comparison with “natural physiology” and “human society” 268. Prof. was especially indignant. M. M. Tareeva gives my brief remark that in the definition of asceticism - taken in a general and broad sense - he follows Fr. I. L. Yanyshev 269. I did not say that the professor “borrows” or “takes” this definition from Fr. protopresbyter, but only said that he “follows” him. Here I mean the following definition by Prof. M. M. Tareeva. Religious and moral activity “is joined by the relationship of the human spirit to the body, with its needs and passions, pleasures and sufferings: the self-preservation of the spirit presupposes its freedom in relation to the body - moderation, courage, etc. But these mental-physical, or ascetic, virtues do not have independent spiritual value, and acquire such only in religious or ethical (altruistic) light” 270. These words seemed to me a very successful extract of the entire relevant department from the system of Fr. I. L. Yanysheva 271. U o. protopresbyter, when discussing the meaning of “ascetic virtues”, the basis is primarily based on “strengthening freedom” as a force of self-determination in managing one’s psychophysical organism 272 - “the power of the human spirit over one’s body and over all mental states aroused by bodily needs” 273. “The virtues of man, created in him by his power of self-determination” in the indicated direction, “can be called ascetic in the broad sense of the word” 274. In particular, the “ascetic virtues” relate to “the life of the body, its health and duration,” that is, to hygiene, aesthetics and aesthetic education,” as well as to “industry” 275. Natural science and aesthetic education, combined with the practical ability to apply them to the possession and use of the world - along with hard work, abstinence, courage and self-respect - are further ranked among the “ascetic virtues” 276. When I read the above words of Prof. MM. Tareev, as well as the following: “asceticism does not provide a positive religious and ethical benefit, but only serves as its negative condition, being in this meaning on a par with hygiene, aesthetics, and culture in general” 277 - then this page vividly reminded me of the indicated passages from the book of Fr. I. L. Yanysheva. This is what gave me the reason to write that “in this case, the professor should Fr. I. L. Yanyshev,” and I primarily understood the terminology and general meaning. That's what I had in the manuscript. Reading the second edition of lectures by Fr. protopresbyter, regarding this passage, I came across a remark from him, firstly, that “such a name (i.e., ascetic) for these virtues has now been adopted by prof. Tareev” 278, and, secondly, regarding the virtue of “self-respect”, that the thought of prof. M. M. Tareev “completely coincides with his – I. L. Ya. – concepts” 279 . Without assuming that Prof. M. M. Tareev, had never even read the works of Fr. I. L. Yanyshev, as he testifies in this bibliographic essay 280, I referred to this note by Fr. protopresbyter and pointed out the “dependence” in this case of his definition on the system of Fr. I. L. Yanysheva. Perhaps I used an inaccurate, “careless” word, but there was no malicious intent here. Meanwhile, Prof. M. M. Tareev reacted to this remark, made in passing and in a note, with extreme irritation. He states that “this is the first time that an accusation has been thrown at him depending on the views of others,” 281 that this is “an attack on his author’s name,” that this is on my part nothing more, no less than a desire to “finish off” him by “stating his literary lack of independence.” He proves that his “thought” does not coincide “with the concepts of Fr. Yanyshev" 282 that "Fr. Yanyshev stands on the point of view of Platonic ethics,” and he “in this work is Aristotelian,” 283 which he does not even know what to call – “arrogance” or “ignorance” the very assumption of “coincidence” “in the indication of these (i.e., ascetic) virtues,” etc. Since Fr. prot. I. L. Yanyshev, then strong words - obviously - refer to him; however, perhaps – to both of us together... Me, in particular, Prof. M. M. Tareev also reproaches that “accusing the literary dependence of the authors under review is one of my favorite techniques” 284 . Meanwhile, all the observations of Prof. M. M. Tareeva on this point is limited to only two completely similar examples. I say that “Gaulle’s works gave impetus to the development by our Orthodox theologians of questions that either directly relate to clarifying the essence and characteristics of “asceticism” or are closely related to it. We primarily mean the journal articles of Prof. I. V. Popov and the master's thesis of prof. S. I. Smirnova" 285. If I say that some remarkable piece of writing has given impetus, i.e. a reason to develop some questions; that any research “in its design and general formulation of the question” is “indebted” to the “influence” of some outstanding work; if such indications are stated only twice throughout the essay, then is there any reason to consider “accusing the literary dependence of the authors under review” as my “favorite technique?” Moreover, both the authors themselves say that Gaulle’s book had significance for them 286. No one, and prof. In particular, I did not want to “accuse” M. M. Tareev of anything... If the professor claims that he did not even read the book by Fr. I. L. Yanysheva, then I have nothing against this and do not intend to argue at all. In works “similar in topic”, indeed, there may be coincidences regardless of the use of common sources, but simply due to the fact that people dealing with the same subject have not only differences - in thinking, in the method of expression, etc., but also similarities. The terminology in one science or another has already been more or less firmly established. This especially needs to be said about our theology. Approving this position as applied to himself, Prof. M. M. Tareev treats me with extraordinary severity and pickiness in this regard. He does not hide, however, that the main motive for this attitude is his desire to repay me in general for criticizing his works, mainly for my pointing out the coincidence in his definition of the concept of “asceticism” in the broad sense with Fr. I. L. Yanyshev. According to the critic, “Mr. Zarin, who claims that I do not have a definite and precise, even general, idea about asceticism and other subjects closely related to it, that I do not have an exact expression of Orthodox teaching and that I am not independent in the little that I have that is good, in fact, I acquire in me precise and definite Orthodox ideas about asceticism, which are used in the form and extent of widespread plagiarism. And the preliminary efforts of Mr. Zarina’s attempt to assure good-natured readers (and his not entirely good-natured official reviewer) that I have no precise Orthodox, self-expressed ideas about asceticism and related subjects is a cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver to cover up his tracks 287 . It turns out that Mr. Zarin, pretending that he is only familiar with the Philosophy of Gospel History and the article Spirit and Flesh and that he has no idea about the works included in the Christian worldview (i.e., The Purpose and Meaning of Life and the Temptation of Christ), is closely familiar with these works in which asceticism is put “in connection with the integral Christian worldview.” And it is curious in the list of “works remotely related to the question of asceticism” appended to the end of the first book, Mr. Zarin mentions my books The Humiliation of Christ and the Temptations of Christ, but calls the last book in the second edition (1900), which already persistently inspires the idea that the first edition of the Temptations of Christ, as well as the Purpose and meaning of life, do not even have a remote relationship to his research and that he may not have seen these books” 288. To prove the opposite, Prof. M. M. Tareev cites “facts” that he “draws” from my “second book” 289. He cites six excerpts from my work, accompanied by parallel text from his own writings, in order to show that I sometimes borrow from him “literally” “more or less significant parts” of his writings 290 . What is the nature and content of the extracts cited by the professor? The third excerpt is more significant than others in terms of volume, where I convey the idea that the full weight of the temptation of “passion” is experienced not by sinful people who easily and without struggle succumb to the “seduction” of evil, but by people who have set themselves the goal of fighting temptations 291 . The same idea is indeed contained in Prof. MM. Tareev in the second edition of “The Temptations of Christ”. What are we talking about in this case? About my borrowing of a thought or a way of revealing and arguing it? That I could not come to this conclusion on my own, having studied many ascetic writings where this idea appears in relief, Prof. himself will hardly deny this. M. M. Tareev 292 . Not only that. For me, this idea is connected with martyrdom - with the idea that I consistently and persistently - historically and fundamentally - place as the basis of Christian asceticism 293. In this case, I see only one manifestation of this idea. I gave an analysis of the ascetic teaching about the “passions” back in my candidate’s dissertation, and also in the second chapter, when I could not yet read the second edition of the professor’s said work, since it did not exist then, and yet this position, although in a more concise form, was definitely expressed by me in it at the beginning of the second chapter. – Christian ascetics experienced the struggle with “passions” more and more deeply than others at all moments. The fact that they experienced it mainly only in the form of a struggle with “thoughts”, with the “attacks” of passion, does not mean that they experienced the struggle with passions only slightly. On the contrary, having set as their goal the fight against evil even in its most subtle, spiritual form, they armed themselves against it with all determination. The entire will of the ascetic, as a result of a long ascetic process of struggle, resisted evil, and the latter, being forced out of the area of ​​the deeper and more intimate, personal spheres of life - feelings and self-conscious will - found access only mainly in the area of ​​​​"thoughts" - in the sphere, so to speak, the most objective, least amenable to the direct influence of the human will. Here impressions often burst involuntarily into the area of ​​personal life, and the difficulty of struggling with these impressions and with the associative work of the imagination developing - sometimes against the will - from them determined the most characteristic moment of ascetic struggle - suffering, grief from passion, martyrdom from the very “attack” of the “thought”. If the entire will of an ascetic is mobilized to fight passion, if in the depths of his soul he experiences not sympathy for passion, but aversion to it, then “fighting” passion is nothing more than the action of a demonic, hostile force. This is the conclusion that the ascetics drew from here. From the fact that the ascetics resisted passions with all their willpower, that they experienced the struggle with their “attacks” in the most subtle form, which is inaccessible to most people, without special efforts, submitting to the almost completely present, empirical demands of their nature - from this very circumstance I deduced the importance of an ascetic analysis of passions in various respects. It is possible that the final formulation of my position was influenced by the corresponding passage in “The Temptations of Christ” by Prof. M. M. Tareeva, I undoubtedly studied this work and which appears in my list of works that have “one or another, but in any case a more distant relation to the issue we are studying” 294. More distant, obviously, in comparison with the works discussed in detail or listed in the “review” itself. But prof. M. M. Tareev comments on this remark of mine in his own way: “... in the list of “works that are distantly related to the question of asceticism” attached to the end of the first book.” But it is characteristic that the professor encloses his comment in quotation marks and emphasizes the word “remote.” I couldn’t analyze an essay that was related to all the issues raised in my dissertation. I had in mind the central, main question of my dissertation, the question of “asceticism” in the proper sense. If I have a mistake or shortcoming, then prof. MM. Tareev is not content with those who note it - no, he tries by all means to exaggerate it and comment on it in the most inconvenient sense for me. In this case, an impartial critic - at most - could say that I do not specifically note the fact that I used the book of Prof. M. M. Tareeva, however, is actually shown among my manuals. Of the remaining five excerpts, two are related to Op. prof. M. M. Tareev “The Temptation of Christ” in the first edition, and three for his doctoral dissertation: “Philosophy of Gospel History.” These excerpts, which in volume do not exceed the usual 3-4 printed lines, and in general cannot make up even one page of my essay, indeed, closely resemble the parallel passages they cited from the indicated works of Prof. M. M. Tareev, and this similarity or borrowing, indeed, should have been noted by me. But from the fact that there is a mistake or defect here, it is too hasty and completely wrong to conclude about “widespread plagiarism” and it is too cruel and unfair to talk about the “maliciousness” of the author. And first of all, this coincidence is not literal to the point of precision. Prof. M. M. Tareev, of course, clearly sees this circumstance, but, citing the incriminated passages, he destroys it, omitting the differences encountered - quotes and so on. 295, abbreviating the cited passages from my work at will 296. As for the content of the excerpts cited, they contain thoughts that are too well known in theology. These are thoughts that God is the basis and support of both the physical existence of man and his spiritual life, moral nature; that the love of Christ was not only a phenomenon of the highest moral order, but also had a religious and objective meaning, being therefore the content and basis of Christian “gnosis”; that Christ laid the foundation for the true spiritual, divine life of people; that man appeared on earth not as the last being only in time, but also as the ultimate goal of all creation that preceded him; that God is not only the First Cause of everything, but also the Archetype of man’s spiritual nature, and therefore human autonomy in relation to God is essentially completely impossible. This exhausts all the thoughts cited by Prof. M. M. Tareev place. As for the expression of these thoughts, it may involuntarily coincide, especially if we keep in mind that prof. MM. Tareev, as he himself says, “the religious worldview” is “presented” “within the framework of traditional concepts”, that in all his works related to my “topic”, he “solves” “the question of the purpose and meaning of life, the Christian worldview not in his own words, but in the words of church tradition” 297. On the other hand, these thoughts can be expressed verbally in completely different ways, in a variety of ways. Hardly even Prof. M. M. Tareev doubts that I was able to do this. Consequently, here, before making decisive judgments, it would be more correct to look for more natural explanations. And first of all, Prof. M. M. Tareev, if he were at all fair and impartial, would have to state that, in fact, I actually find exact citations of both others and him, in particular, made in those cases when I find it necessary to cite some passage without change, even if it occupies only 2-3 lines 298. Therefore, this is not a matter of any fundamental intention, but of simple accident. It is possible that these short expressions stuck in my mind while reading, especially since I read the book that interests me more than once; It is possible that, while making notes while reading, I forgot to accompany some of them with the appropriate indications of where exactly they were taken from, and then, in the enormous mass of material, I could mistake them for my own sketches: a completely random coincidence is also possible, in the absence of direct literary dependence, etc. In any case, I could not deliberately not quote some borrowed passages. And this is especially true since I had no significant need for it. All these expressions can either be stated completely differently, or omitted without any damage to the train of thought in my dissertation. Prof. himself M. M. Tareev makes a reservation that he “is not surprised” that he encounters – and often – coincidence with the positions expressed by him in the works of other authors, “since,” he explains, “his works are not the subject of an external discussion of theological facts, but the disclosure of a pure theological idea. Hence, the temptation naturally arises for one or the other to express the thesis taken from me on his own; pass it off as your own. After all, if some research proves that such and such a church historical event took place in such and such a year, or that such and such an ancient work belongs to such and such a church father, then one cannot casually pass off this or that thesis to someone as one’s own, because here a reference to the entire argumentation of the scientific research is necessary. But any of my theses... Why shouldn’t someone pass it off as their own” 299? This reasoning of the professor also needs to be supplemented. If different authors, dealing with one even purely historical question, sometimes come to completely identical conclusions, 300 then even more so people working in the field of pure theological ideas can express identical positions even independently of each other. On the other hand, every correct position of a fundamental nature, once expressed, becomes the general property of people, enters into their consciousness as common property, and this should not be opposed, but promoted, one should not be upset by this, but rejoice... This is the key to progress 301. In this respect, theological systematic science is a thankless field. I often had to, having expressed this or that position, then encounter it in another author - in a work with which I became acquainted - undoubtedly - for the first time... I think that Prof. himself had to observe this. M. M. Tareev. To a certain extent, he himself agrees with this in this bibliographical essay. The critic is indignant at “those cases” when his “name is either deliberately obscured or even pronounced with obvious disapproval” 302, and yet theologians who treat him in this way “draw from his own wells.” In this regard, the professor is especially complaining about me. “With one hand they throw dirt at you, and with the other they scoop up plenty from you - they denounce your unorthodoxy, and express their Orthodoxy in your own words!..” That my name is prof. M. M. Tareev is not deliberately obscured, much less pronounced with obvious disapproval, that I did not at all intend to throw dirt at him and did not do this - I have already said enough about all this before. Here I will note that I willingly noted the undoubted merits of the professor for theology, where I found them. For example, I write the following: “in our theological literature, the idea of ​​​​the possibility and necessity of realizing the unconditional purpose of a Christian only in the conditions of created limited existence is revealed with particular detail and certainty in the writings of Prof. M. M. Tareeva" 303. If I wrote about the significance of the works of prof. M. M. Tareev, now that they have been significantly supplemented and brought into the system, would indicate his other merits for theology. And in this case, prof. M. M. Tareev remains true to his general nature of criticism towards me. As a strong man, having the opportunity to point out some defects in my dissertation, he takes advantage of this circumstance and, with malicious joy, rushes to use the effect it produces in order to endlessly exaggerate the shortcomings of my essay. “If I were to write out now all the parts of my works taken from me by Mr. Zarin, I would have to fill out several dozen pages” 304 ... I am still surprised how prof. M. M. Tareev did not say: “several hundred pages”... It’s a hyperbole, it’s a hyperbole... However, I strongly protest against this statement by Prof. M. M. Tareeva. Having read carefully – and more than once – the collected works of the professor and re-read my book, I can firmly state that there is nothing like this in reality. Two or three similar expressions, several closely coinciding provisions of Prof. M. M. Tareev, perhaps, will indicate more, but no more. Since the professor declares that “Mr. Zarin borrows more from the Temptations of the God-Man than from my other books,” 305 then anyone can check whether my work is very similar to the dissertation of Prof. M. M. Tareeva: “Temptations of the God-Man.” If my essay depended on the system of prof. M. M. Tareev in the sense in which he presents it, then, of course, the coincidence would be observed precisely in relation to his work, which deals with asceticism in one way or another specifically. Meanwhile, this is absolutely not the case. The critic himself - undoubtedly - would like to point out such a coincidence and - undoubtedly - looked for it, but - obviously - did not find it, and could not find it. The similarity here does not go further (to use the critic’s expression) “certain provisions that essentially boil down to dogmatic formulas, which are inevitable for every representative of the Christian-ethical worldview” 306. On the other hand, reading Volume II of “Fundamentals of Christianity,” which includes the professor’s writings, which either appeared for the first time or, in any case, after my essay, I find here many provisions expressed in thought already in my essay - about eternal life, about “rewards,” about “the truth of God,” etc. Should I really cry out that this was borrowed from me, etc.? I and everyone must remember that post hoc is not always propter hoc. But prof. M. M. Tareev is dissatisfied with this too. He continues: “I will say more than that. In addition to literally borrowing more or less significant parts from me, Mr. Zarin depends on my writings in the sense of solving the fundamental issues of his book. He reveals almost all the main points of the fundamental side of the matter in the sense of my theological system... In all his discussions about creation, the Fall, salvation, eternal life, Christian love, humility - I cannot help but recognize my views. I don’t know of almost a single page of a fundamental nature that would not be reminiscent of my books. For example, in Zarin, page 23: “no level of religious and moral perfection achieved by a person, no matter how high, can and should not be considered final, supreme, sufficient, so that one could stop at it.” Temptations of the God-Man page 24: “The true life of man has no limit when it could stop.” In Sarin's page 221: “man recognizes his opposition to God and, instead of self-denial, wants to realize his unconditional dignity precisely in his created, limited, empirical presence.” I have page 5 (and previous ones), ending with the words: I wished to establish divine dignity in my limited exclusivity. In Zarin, page 28: the sin of human self-assertion placed the Divine in an external relationship with man... 222: God now appeared to him not as a loving Father, but enviously guarding his advantages... I have 38 and 39: the removal of God as a loving Father... the external attitude of God towards him... envious of him... Etc., etc. " 307. Here is prof. M. M. Tareev cites, of course, the most characteristic thing in which he sees similarities between my dissertation and his writings. The reader can judge for himself in what points and how far this similarity extends. It concerns positions in theology that are more or less established, or clear based on primary sources. My work supposedly consisted mainly in the fact that, having “made extracts” from his “works on many dozens of pages,” I looked for “numerous patristic quotations” for almost every excerpt. For the fact that I “thereby irrefutably prove the closeness of these excerpts to the patristic teaching,” Prof. even - however, only for this alone - he “may be personally grateful to me” 308. I have already said - and documented, with testimony, confirmed - that all the main provisions of my work were established and almost all the main material from primary sources was obtained in the academic years 1898-1899 and 1899-1900, when from the works of prof. M. M. Tareev there was only the first edition of his dissertation: “The Temptation of the God-Man.” Meanwhile, my entire system was given in my candidate’s essay, with the inclusion of chapters on “marriage and celibacy,” on the Christian attitude to property and renunciation of property in monasticism, on Christian humility and renunciation of one’s will in monasticism, on contemplative-solitary and socially active forms of Christian life 309 . “Looking for” quotations for a given position, no matter where it is taken from, especially for excerpts, is an extremely difficult and even downright impossible thing. And it is even more difficult to find “numerous patristic quotations” for excerpts that fill “many dozens of pages.” This is work so uninteresting and meaningless, with enormous difficulty, that hardly anyone would undertake its implementation. Try to find quotes only from the Bible for a well-known position - and then it will turn out to be difficult. Books by Prof. M. M. Tareev appeared gradually, and so, having made extracts from one book, I begin to look for “numerous” patristic quotations. I finish this work and another book appears; the same process of “searching” begins. This is the absolutely incredible presentation of the matter that criticism comes down to. Prof. himself M. M. Tareev probably realizes in the depths of his soul that this could not have happened, that this is downright incredible... Finally, there was also an objective observer of my work, of its gradual progress, who read the candidate’s essay in 1899, the scholarship report in 1900, which indicated the results I obtained in the form of theses, a handwritten master’s essay in 1904... The process of creating my dissertation was organic, not mechanical... In this case, the matter seems simpler. After all, I am not presenting my personal view (that is, not something that was invented by me), but I am objectively revealing the Orthodox teaching, on the basis of certain primary sources. Therefore - naturally - I understand and present it in some points similar to other scientists who worked in the same field and on the basis of the same primary sources. Moreover, about salvation, eternal life, etc. Prof. M. M. Tareev speaks more or less specifically only in the second volume of his works, which included articles that appeared after my work 310. The critic betrays himself when, wanting to say something unpleasant for me on this point, he says that every thesis I make is diluted with “lakes of fresh water,” my speech is drawn out, etc., so that as a result, the colors of a certain worldview are erased and “everything leans towards stereotyped truths.” If we translate this characteristic into objective language, then it will precisely mean that in this case we may be talking about the similarity of my essay with the “theses” and “worldview” of Prof. M. M. Tareev only insofar as, as he himself says, “in theological ethics there are some provisions that are inevitable for every representative of the Christian-fatherly worldview” 311. On all of the above points, we had a presentation of Orthodox teaching in the dissertation of Archbishop. Sergius: “Orthodox teaching about salvation”, in any case not to any extent independent of the works of prof. M. M. Tareeva. But he essentially has the same fundamental views on these issues as me and prof. M. M. Tareeva. Is it even possible to pose the question the way the critic does? But - it turns out - I am obliged, according to Prof. M. M. Tareeva, both by clarifying the general, fundamental side of the work, and by developing specific provisions of the dissertation, not only to prof. M. M. Tareev: “Mr. Zarin, says the critic, takes a lot from so many manuals. If necessary, I can easily prove it” 312. I'm not even talking about the fact that from the point of view of prof. It is inconsistent for M. M. Tareev to talk about my dependence on “very many” benefits, since he previously so diligently proved that I “reveal all the main points of the fundamental side of the matter” in the sense of his system. Consequently, “very many manuals” also reveal their main points in the spirit of Prof.’s system. M. M. Tareeva? After all, otherwise I could not take “much” from them. How then does each of my pages resemble the professor’s system? Where is the room for the influence of other “very many benefits”? Or do I take from them so skillfully that the fundamental side of the matter remains – consistently and invariably – faithful to the system of Prof. M. M. Tareeva? The fact of the matter is that my critic has to, in contradiction to himself, admit in conclusion that the influence of his system on my dissertation is not at all significant and not great, since this influence is shared with the influence of “very many manuals.” “Prove” Prof. M. M. Tareev is, of course, given as much and as much as he wants, but I don’t understand why he should break into an open door. Yes, I wrote the essay based on my acquaintance with extensive literature, Russian and Western. As for Russian theological literature, in particular, I began to follow it and study it back in the seminary, and I don’t leave it now... Everything that seemed to me the most valuable and important for my question, I really tried to study and use... But this is usually considered an advantage of the essay, prof. M. M. Tareev threatens to prove the presence of this quality in the work. Accidental omission of a quotation is possible in such a huge work, and therefore, except for a biased tendency, nothing could incline the critic to make threats. Having examined in detail, for example, seven pages from my “review” concerning his own system, Prof. M. M. Tareev makes the following conclusion: “so, to the first of the questions posed about Mr. Zarin’s attitude towards benefits, I answer: he treated the benefits with unusual care, but was extremely dishonest” 313. Prof. M. M. Tareev denies the scientific significance behind the first book dedicated to the “review” of manuals. After all that has been said, one can see that the main reason and the main subjective basis for such a decisive review lies in nothing other than his extreme dissatisfaction with my analysis of some of his works. That this analysis cannot be considered a model for my review of manuals, that it could not satisfy all the requirements for theological criticism, due to circumstances in some respects even beyond my control - I have already spoken about all this in detail and in detail. What is in the assessment of prof. MM. Tareev, my work is decisively dominated by a subjective point of view - in this confidence, among other things, I am confirmed by the fact that I have several printed reviews of Western European scientists - both Catholics and Protestants - who especially, even preferably before the second book, note the importance of the first - critical - part of my work. As for the latest reviews, I will point out, firstly, to the note of Prof. Fr. Laun in No. 11 of the magazine: “Theologische Revue” of July 17, 1908, column. 323–333. Here my first book is called “a very valuable work, testifying to great reading and a thorough assessment of the Eastern and Western literature to be discussed (Eine sehr schätzenwerte, von grosser Belesenheit und grundlicher Beurteilung der einschlägigen morgen und abendländischen Literatur zeugende, umfassend angelegte Arbeit...).” Maybe Prof. M. M. Tareev will object to this that a Western scientist is not competent to evaluate my criticism regarding the works of Russian authors. Let's admit it; but Laun also speaks with praise of those departments of criticism that specifically examine the works of Western scientists related to my subject. Laun notes, for example, some successful points made in my criticism of Zöckler’s capital work. If I really had such techniques that would testify to the “wild orgy” of “complacency”, “pedantic arrogance and boundless pride” that Prof. M. M. Tareev notes in my departments that consider the works of, for example, Harnack and Holl, I don’t think that Western scientists would not pay attention to this and would not note it. Likewise, if, for example, Palmieri, along with other merits of my work, notes that I correctly highlight the features of the Orthodox teaching on asceticism in comparison with the Catholic one, then I have every reason to believe that, at least in this point, the Western scientist is more competent than the Russian critic and that, therefore, my first - critical - part is not devoid of elements of positive significance, according to the testimony of impartial people related to my writing with objective composure 314 . And from this side, therefore, the objectivity and impartiality of my strict and “unmerciful” judge is subject to strong fundamental doubt. Since the main motive for criticizing Prof. M. M. Tareev had a desire to “get even” with me, to take revenge on me perhaps stronger and more sarcasticly, then this personal motive decisively and clearly prevails in the bibliographical article of the professor: it not only specifically and brightly colors its entire content, all its argumentation and conclusions, but is also revealed in the very quantitative predominance of the polemical element over the strictly critical one. The “principal side” of my “research” 315 is discussed very briefly and, as it were, in passing. True, the judgments and conclusions of this department of criticism are no less decisive and harsh, often to the point of cruelty, which is absolutely not caused or justified by anything other than the desire to personally humiliate the author of the research being reviewed; but here we see even less than in the previous section, evidence and illustrations for the judgments of criticism expressed in a very categorical form. The theses of criticism in this section boil down to the following statements: 1) my work does not stand “at the height of the biblical-scientific point of view on asceticism”; 2) it “does not relate scientifically and critically to the church-historical ascetic worldview and therefore represents a supposed “unification of different church-historical principles”, “a mechanical reduction of heterogeneous material under one rubric”: 3) it “resolutely lacks an intuitive, personal-creative principle.” We will arrange our answer according to this plan. I. Prof. M. M. Tareev claims that I have no idea about the biblical point of view on the issue of asceticism, about biblical teaching, in its unique form, in its specific features. For me, in the words of the critic, it is “the data of Revelation - consistently and persistently - that is presented in patristic and ascetic understanding and illumination.” Throughout my extensive “experience of systematically revealing the question” of the ascetic, I seem to be roughly trampling on the principles of biblical theology, and never once rise to the heights of this science. “This,” says the critic, “is primarily from the formal side: we do not find here the very thought of a unique form, of the historical appearance of the Gospel teaching. On the content side, on the particular issue of asceticism, the evangelical point of view, by the way, does not recognize asceticism as a special kind of religious and moral life, and does not recognize the path of celibacy and freedom from family ties as more suitable for achieving the kingdom of God. And when Mr. Zarin bases his system on the idea that “Orthodoxy considers asceticism a general Christian duty, carried out in various forms,” and monasticism is considered the form of religious and moral life most suitable for the implementation of asceticism” 317, then he stands on a point of view that is not evangelical. His “ascetic principled worldview” is not an evangelical worldview” 318. – Let us first examine the arguments that Prof. gives. M. M. Tareev as proof of his position. Mr. Zarin, he says, does not have “the very thought of a unique form, of the historical appearance of the Gospel teaching.” But what reason did I have to speak explicitly and deliberately “about the peculiar form, about the historical appearance of the Gospel teaching”? Prof. M. M. Tareev sets the direct and definite task of some of his works to reproduce and understand the Gospel teaching precisely in its specific features and characteristic, distinctive features. At the same time, sometimes - by the very nature of the task he set - it was important for him to delimit as sharply as possible, to highlight as clearly as possible precisely the features, distinctive properties of the Gospel teaching not only in relation to church-historical, patristic teaching, but also to the nature of the apostolic writings 319. He not only distinguishes, but directly and decisively “opposes” “church-historical conventions to the unconditionality of the Gospel” 320. For him, “the very establishment of the Gospel truth is important, in its removal from the conventional church-historical vestment” 321. Therefore, we have the right to expect that everything that is most significant and important has been clarified from him on this issue. In the “preface” to the essay “The Christian Problem and Russian Religious Thought,” for example, the question of the historical appearance of the gospel is specifically addressed. This latter is depicted here in the following terms. “Christianity was revealed to the world as an absolute spiritual religion. The historical form of his gospel revelation is given in the form of an antithesis to Judaistic nationalism." “Now the last shackles that tied man to the earth and prevented him from ascending to heaven were thrown off.” “Man renounced everything that was his own, rose above everything human”... The main and most characteristic gospel idea is the idea of ​​absolutely divine perfection” 322. It is this “gospel idea that is the pure divine element, discovered in the human soul and purified from all impurities.” However, “this absoluteness of the Gospel “content” is expressed in words in which “everything is relative.” Namely, the gospel words “convey absolute religious content in relation to the national-legalistic limitations of the Jewish religion 323. The Gospel looks like this: it was forbidden to kill, but you don’t even need to be angry, it was forbidden to commit adultery, but you don’t even need to look at a woman with lust, a divorce was filed, but you don’t even need to get a divorce,” etc. 324. “In the gospel, Christianity did not have support for a long existence, did not have juices and colors for this, did not have shadows and movement.” “Christianity could only take juices and colors, shadows and regularity of movements from the world - it had to be embodied in the world, put on its forms in order to acquire peace. This is what we see in historical church reality.” “Apostolic-Church teaching” “represents” nothing more than “the revelation of the Gospel content in terms of pagan philosophy. Even in the Gospel - in those parts of it that are written on behalf of the apostolic authors, we already see this pagan vestment.” We see especially many “traces of pagan philosophy” “in the writings of the Apostle of Languages” 325. In general, “with the first word of the apostolic sermon, in the face of the pagan world, a line was laid between the Gospel of Christ, with its absolute content, and the apostolic writings, imperceptibly moving on to the writings of the apostolic and patristic men - with content already consciously conditional, adapted to a historical perspective - a line was laid between the fundamental Gospel and the church-historical current.” Therefore, there is no reason to combine the apostolic writings with the Gospel into one holy book, for “only the Gospel has an ahistorical absolute character; writing and apostolic activity, with all the height of apostolic authority, already have a church-historical character, dating them back to the patristic period” 326. In particular, the same thing is observed on the issue of asceticism. “We find the beginning of church asceticism already in the apostolic writings - already here the spirit of gospel absoluteness, opposed to everything human, becomes a moral-ascetic spirit, the spirit of love and self-control (Gal. 5:22, 23; 2 Tim. 1:7), already here the gospel flesh, denoting everything human, becomes immoral flesh (Gal. 5:19), already here life according to the spirit is opposed to the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 6:16) and love for the Father requires hatred of the world (1 John 2:15),” etc. 327 Here are the most characteristic thoughts of Prof. himself. M. M. Tareev on the issue of the historical appearance of the Gospel and this is his own main point of view on the difference between the Gospel and the apostolic and - partly - patristic writings in the teaching of asceticism. Naturally, he expected me to express approximately the same views. For my part, on this occasion I must state: what I needed to reveal on this point in my essay, I did - in accordance, of course, with my basic views - since this was required by my principled point of view on the subject, as far as it corresponded to my plan and the essence of the matter. As for, in particular, the absolute nature of spiritual perfection, I definitely indicated it as a specific moment of the Gospel revelation, although it is shaded primarily not from the side of formal unconditionality, but from the side of real content - absolute divine love 328. That church teaching, beginning – in part – with the apostolic writings, is in its external form a revelation of the Gospel content in terms of the philosophy of that time, while there can be no talk of any relation to this philosophy of the Gospel teaching, the actual teaching of Christ, either in ideas or in terminology, - this is assumed and specifically justified by me, starting from the very term ἄσκησις 329. But I would not agree to so decisively and fundamentally distinguish, even contrast, the Gospel with the apostolic writings to such an extent as to deny “sufficient grounds” even for combining them into one book. That the apostolic writings differ fundamentally from the Gospel by the consciously conventional nature of their content is difficult, even impossible, to justify with concrete evidence. In this regard, one can observe a gradation even between the apostolic writings, and a particularly sharp difference is noted, as is known, in relation to the so-called “pastoral” epistles 330. But let's look at specific examples. It is known that among the internal signs of the authenticity of the 1st Epistle of John the Theologian is “its close relationship with the fourth Gospel in relation to general views, concepts, development of thoughts and way of expression. The similarities between both writings are so obvious that almost all researchers, with the exception of the Tübingen people, recognize them as quite sufficient to consider their origin from the same writer as undoubted... The following position is decisively stated as indisputable: the origin of the epistle from the Apostle John stands and falls along with the authenticity of the Gospel of John... Such a close relationship between the epistle and the Gospel is deeply imprinted on both the internal and external sides of both scriptures. The same spirit permeates them: both have the same character, not only in the range of ideas and dogmatic views, but even in the general style and in individual expressions” 331 // 332. And Prof. himself. M. M. Tareev often notes the very important significance of the apostolic writings in the sense of their essential significance for understanding the most basic points of the Gospel teaching, with which they - to the point of adequate identity - turn out to be similar in spirit and in the meaning of their teaching, and the Gospel teaching is expressed in them even more clearly and more definitely. “Christ did not please Himself” (Rom. 15:3): this is the historical characteristic of the New Testament Teacher, given by the Apostle of the Gentiles and completely consistent with the Gospel image” 333. In one of the speeches of the Apostle Paul, the words of “the Lord Jesus” are recalled, which “He Himself” said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35)” 334. “The Apostle of Christ remains completely faithful to his Teacher when he writes that everyone who loves is born of God and loves God” 335 and many more. etc. III. But here, to help myself and for the final defeat of me, Prof. M. M. Tareev puts forward the last and most important argument, as if there is a “decisive absence” in my work of “an intuitive, personal-creative principle” 336. On this occasion, the critic considers it necessary to express the well-known and undisputed thesis that no worldview, even one historically experienced, can be presented without a subjective basis, and only in the subjective elements of the worldview, in the unity of the author’s personality, is the final basis for the possible unification of historical material 337 given. In this regard, the critic finds that, firstly, I ignore the personal moment, since it is reflected in the worldview of individual representatives of the Christian-ascetic worldview, where “the most valuable is the living, intimate, individual,” and secondly, I myself do not reveal personal creativity, I do not give “a single stroke of my personal worldview” 338. How is this statement proven? For this purpose, first of all, my opinion is drawn upon, according to which “the very essence of the theological teaching of the Orthodox Church is not at all such that for its accurate disclosure it necessarily requires a mathematical completeness of studying all the exponents and representatives of the Orthodox worldview - St. Fathers and Teachers of the Church. The general meaning of Orthodox teaching is sufficiently clear from an accurate study of the writings of only the most outstanding saints. Fathers of the Church." This is my opinion Prof. M. M. Tareev hastens to comment like this: “for Mr. For Zarina, the whole question is in the number of patristic works studied, and the ideal is the mathematical accuracy of the study (= 5000 pages,” the critic wants to joke). The personal basis of the system is not even mentioned” 339. In this argument, the logic of the critic is amazing, his undisguised desire to present my work not in the real thing, but in a caricatured form beyond recognition. I precisely say that “the essence of the theological teaching of the Orthodox Church is not at all such that for its accurate disclosure it requires a mathematical completeness of study of all exponents and representatives of the Orthodox worldview,” etc.; and the opinion is categorically attributed to me that for me “the whole question is in the number of studied patristic works, and the ideal is the mathematical accuracy of the study”... Moreover, the incriminated place is taken out of the context of the speech. Indeed, I am ready in principle to recognize as desirable and “ideal” such a state of science, “in which the ascetic views of individual, most prominent and characteristic representatives of ascetic writing would first be understood and revealed, and only after that, as a result, as a conclusion from all previous studies, a scientific, systematic presentation of Orthodox teaching would be proposed.” T. That is, in these words it is recognized as desirable and, to one degree or another, necessary for systematic theology, that a scientific-critical study of individual monuments of the worldview of individual representatives of ascetic writing should precede experiments in the systematic disclosure of Orthodox teaching. What is important here is not only that the belonging of a famous monument or a well-known group of works to one or another ascetic writer is firmly established, so that the relationship of his works to the writings of the saints is clarified. Fathers who preceded him in time and followed him, so that the original language and text of his works and so on are established, but also that the personal elements of the worldview of this or that writer are shaded, in connection with the circumstances of his life and the historical characteristics of his era. All this should be more or less clear to the student of systematic theology. Not only that. The scientific construction of systematic theology is impossible until work in the field of historical-critical research achieves certain positive results and acquires a certain minimum, which is absolutely necessary for the scientific construction of a system of Orthodox theology. At present, there is no doubt that such a minimum exists, and from this side I considered the possibility of completing the task I had undertaken to be assured 340. But, on the other hand, I could not help but admit that in the historical-critical area related to my work, not everything has yet been examined: the history of ethical Christian development and the monographic characteristics of its representatives at the present time still leave much to be desired, both in terms of completeness and in quality 341. Having studied the Orthodox Christian worldview represented by almost all of the most prominent representatives of patriotic writing, I still must say that a detailed study of some other Christian writers would be far from useless for my purpose. Some provisions, already quite clearly and definitely expressed by me, could be formulated even more definite and more decisively, and not indifferent shades could be noted, which are important not only as a characteristic of the individual aspects of the worldview of this or that writer, but also as objective data for clarifying this or that fundamental position. It was from this side that objections could be made to me, and I indeed heard them - in one form or another - even at the beginning and during the continuation of my work. This explains my words quoted by Prof. M. M. Tareev. I needed to highlight precisely the objective basis of the system, while the subjective one - to the required extent and in the proper form - was naturally implied by itself. Promote it deliberately and specifically, as required by Prof. M. M. Tareev and how he himself does it in his system was decidedly inconvenient for me. The critic himself, in his “Philosophy of Gospel History,” considers “inner experience” to be the starting point in understanding the life of Jesus Christ (p. 27). On this occasion, the official reviewer made the remark: “but how then will the understanding of the person of Christ by any sectarian or erring person differ from the proper correct understanding?” 342. In view of all this, I had sufficient grounds to put forward a predominantly objective basis. And, despite this, during the debate I still had to listen to the reproach for the lack of objectivity in some points... Moreover, I could not use not only these, but also similar phrases: “we deepen the understanding of the gospel and clarify the promise in it” 343. I look at my work more modestly. In my speech before defending my dissertation, I said that I “cannot talk about the discovery of any hitherto unknown truths or even about a completely new point of view,” although this does not exclude the possibility that my work may serve to one degree or another to “deepen the consciousness in the comprehension of truth” and “expand the horizon of theological thought.” The personal element, personal creativity, in those respects and to the extent that it was required by the essence of the task I had taken upon myself, should have taken place in my work and in fact did. In addition, I am reproached that, in my opinion, “in the matter of the system, Christian ethics follows the same path as dogmatics.” Here, of course, is the following passage from my “preface”: “a presentation in a system of the main and most characteristic data of Divine Revelation,” St. Scriptures and St. Tradition, as the highest truth for thought and the highest norm for life, in relation to the modern stage of development of Christian humanity and as a result of its previous development, constitutes the task and responsibility of systematic theology, which is, as it were, the culmination of theology (apologetics, dogmatics and ethics)” 344. Here, obviously, I am expressing only a generic, so to speak, feature of theological ethics, which not only does not exclude, but rather presupposes their specific difference. In this case, I express the generally accepted point of view on the homogeneity of these theological disciplines. I mean not only Catholic ethics 345, but also Protestant ones. It is remarkable that the internal organic kinship and close connection of dogma and ethics are especially emphasized by those theologians who deliberately put forward precisely the personal, individual, intimate moment in Christianity 346. By definition, for example, prof. M.D. Muretova, “the system of Orthodox theology” should be understood as a “theological discipline”, which “like dogmatics” has as its task only the collection, systematization and clarification of 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” 347. According to M.E. Posnova, in “the small family of Christian theological sciences, in the development of a religious worldview, a Christian understanding of life, the first place, undoubtedly, should belong to systematic - dogmatic and moral - theologies, which are sisters to each other, or better yet, twins; areas that can hardly be demarcated" 348. Finally, in the words of my critic himself, which has a particularly significant meaning in the present case, “our theology is divided, in the old way, into dogmatic and moral, and is exhausted by this division. These two parts of theology cannot contain in themselves the spirit of the New Testament word of God, the New Testament truth, because the latter in them is torn into two halves, while in the Word of God they are united into one organic whole 349. From a church-historical point of view, this division of Christian faith and life is fully justified. Meanwhile, the Gospel, first of all, does not teach faith and life separately, does not have a religious-gnostic task, does not give us theoretical knowledge of the other world; it comes from the experience of divine experience, it teaches about the divine life as it is revealed in human experience, it teaches us to live the divine life, to create truth, ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν "350. Now I am reproached for bringing dogmatics and ethics together, when I say this immediately only to declare that my work, in “its subject and main content, belongs to the field of theological ethics, although in some of its parts, some of its questions and aspects it comes into contact with the field of dogmatic, apologetic and pastoral theology.” If it is true that “every dogma describes from one definite point of view all of Christianity, as a religion of redemption 351, then in my work, where the Orthodox teaching about “salvation” is the basis of the system, there should undoubtedly be a connection between ethics and dogmatics. I actually didn’t even mean to talk about methods in this case, but spoke exclusively about the content of the research. I just wanted to give an answer (positive) to the question that is often explicitly posed in theological science, especially Western: “Does a special Christian morality follow from the Christian faith in God? And is it possible to fix it in its (main) direction and details” 352? This relationship between dogmatics and ethics is based on the fact that in Christianity in general the religious and moral aspects are so closely connected that at the highest level they even merge in complete unity. Meanwhile, in this regard, I am not only reproached, but also, with the unnecessary harshness characteristic of a critic, it is stated that on this issue in my book he finds “such an abyss of insurmountable naivety that hides only under a thick layer of complacency.” Let the critic disagree with the view that is accepted in all - as far as I know - theological science; even if the view expressed by him himself is more correct, but why scold? What does “naivety”, “complacency”, and even with decorative epithets have to do with it?.. Since with me ethics and dogmatics come closer 353, then according to the method adopted by the critic, he needs to indicate the difference, and this difference is, indeed, indicated further - and it is stated in advance that this difference is “big”. “It is already known from the Catechism that Christian dogmatic teaching is enclosed by the Church in precise formulas that serve as a reliable framework in the construction of Christian Church teaching. Even in works of a church-historical-dogmatic nature, these formulas serve as the beginning that unites church-historical material. Ethics is a different matter. It is true that in theological ethics there are some provisions that essentially boil down to dogmatic formulas - which are inevitable for every representative of the Christian ethical worldview. However, what is most important in this area goes beyond dogmatic formulas and generalities, as it relates to intimate experiences and personal thought. If in the dogmatic field what is valuable coincides with the general, with what is recognized everywhere, always, by everyone, then in the field of the Christian-ethical worldview the most valuable is the living, intimate, individual. Therefore, theological knowledge here has special features. Here, the disorderly chaos of the historically experienced can be defeated, firstly, by finding the highest moment in the historical flow and, secondly, by personal truth, intimate experience, and, obviously, there must be complete correspondence and mutual dependence between the historically highest moment and intimate experience. The happiest experience of Christian thought should be called one in which the personal experience of the author leads to the recognition of the highest historical value of the gospel word, which, however, does not always happen, since personal sympathies can tilt the heart and refine knowledge towards the church-historical (symbolic-ascetic) worldview, of some period of it, of some representative of it. And from an evangelical-personal point of view, a positive assessment of the church-historical worldview is possible, although historical and personal criticism is inevitable here, so that there will be an indication in the church-historical of the most important and permanent, raising it to the heights of the gospel and liberating it from historically conditional one-sidedness. But it is directly necessary to declare impossible the mechanical systematization of what has been experienced and rethought over many centuries under various changing conditions, and has always resulted in individually rounded forms of worldview that require a comprehensive and attentive attitude. The history of Christian ethical development and a monographic description of its representatives are appropriate here. Mechanical systematization is possible only at a low level of general, colorless theses. And only personal illumination can raise the systematizer above this level” 354. So, according to the critic, the difference between ethics and dogmatics in relation to “the general” and the “individual” is radical and significant: “in the dogmatic field, what is valuable coincides with the general - with what is recognized everywhere, always, by everyone”: “in the field of the Christian-ethical worldview, the most valuable is the living, intimate, individual.” This is hardly an accurate representation of the matter. In both cases we see an exaggeration, thanks to which alone it was possible to draw a decisive opposition in this regard between what is ethically and dogmatically valuable. The basis for determining what the recognition of the most valuable in dogmatic terms is based on is, obviously, the classic saying of Vincent, Abba of the Lirinsky Monastery: “by all means one must adhere to what was believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), everything (quod ab omnibus creditum est).” However, they rightly point out that this definition suffers from excessive formalism and is actually an a priori generalization that does not stand up to verification from the point of view of historical facts. In every dogma there is a synthesis of the objectively divine and the subjectively human, the eternal and the historical. Dogma is divinely revealed truth, but of these truths, only those have dogmatic significance that were defined by the church at a certain historical moment, when a historical living need arose and matured to formulate this or that revealed truth more precisely, giving it a verbal expression that is perhaps definite and perhaps adequate. In the historical implementation of the dogmatic activity of the Ecumenical Councils, a special tension in social and individual psychology was revealed in the matter of comprehending the truths of revelation (“it pleases the Holy Spirit and us” 355). The importance of individual Church Fathers in the matter of precise dogmatic understanding of certain truths of Christian revelation is known 356 . And in the matter of comprehending the truths of faith, in relation to its depth and possible perfection, the most important historical significance often belongs not to the more general, but to the less general and less accepted 357. And here the criterion of objective value is not quantitative (in the formal sense), but qualitative. And in recognizing a dogma as truth, the final basis for the individual lies in the sphere of internal experience, since he participates in the life and consciousness of the church. “Show me your man and I will show you my God” 358. In this case, the meaning and definition of Sacred Tradition are the same for both church doctrine and church moral teaching. By Sacred Tradition, in a general or broad sense, one should understand “that consciousness of the church that lives in it, as in the body of Christ, from the time of Christ and the Apostles, which binds into a single whole and permeates with a single spirit the teaching, worship, government of the Church, and which becomes the property of each member of the church, according to his spiritual age” 359. And one of the main tasks of dogmatic theology is to bring one or another dogma closer to the moral self-consciousness of modern Christian humanity, to show the vitality of Christian truth. From these aspects it is explained why some respectable theologians recommend using liturgical books 360 as a source when presenting and revealing dogmas - as the material in which the highest and deepest ethical and psychological experience - in the mind and heart of believers - of the truths of revelation is most fully and clearly reflected. The statement of Prof. requires even more significant reservations. M. M. Tareeva that “in theological ethics” “for every representative of the Christian-ethical worldview” the “most important” “goes beyond dogmatic formulas and general provisions, since it relates to intimate experiences and personal thought,” so that “in the field of the Christian-ethical worldview, the most valuable is the living, intimate, individual.” Undoubtedly, “the history of Christian ethical development and the monographic characteristics of its representatives” are important. The requirement for a “comprehensively attentive attitude” “to the individually rounded forms of worldview” of one or another individual representative of the church-historical worldview is also fair. All these circumstances - undoubtedly - must be taken into account in works on systematic theological ethics. Here, arbitrary understanding and interpretation are unacceptable, regardless of the general spirit and meaning of the worldview of this or that individual representative of patristic writing, without connection with his personality and era, and the involvement of certain particular points of his worldview that are not in harmony with the main meaning and direction of his system is intolerable. However, if we look not from a historical, but from a normative point of view, then “personal” and “individual” have meaning only insofar as it is either “the highest moment in the experience and comprehension of this or that idea, or at least one of its most typical phases, characteristic moments. An “intimate” moment is objectively important only insofar as it illuminates with its brightness, strength, and depth and because it helps to establish the laws that govern one or another aspect of a person’s life and creativity. In this sense, what could be more individual and at the same time more universally human than a genius? Artistic types marked with the stamp of genius seem to lose even the flavor of their time and place and acquire a universal human character. “Intimate” in the proper sense, a purely individual moment, actually not even transferable, cannot be expressed either in a word or any other symbol 361. What constitutes the true basis of personal individuality is fully accessible only to one’s own introspection and self-knowledge” (Cf. 1 Cor. 2:11). Hence, a person often remains incomprehensible in his deepest individuality even by the people closest to him - and often these latter understand him completely wrongly, even less correctly than other people simply familiar to him. If even in the field of artistic creativity the most valuable thing only in especially happy - very rare - comparatively - cases coincides with the “individual” moment, then all the more this should be said regarding the so-called normative sciences, to which ethics belongs. Normative sciences consider their subject in relation to its ultimate goal, assessing the merits of ideas and actions from the point of view of a known ideal criterion. In this respect, “normative” sciences differ significantly even from “explanatory” sciences. For example, psychology describes, classifies, formulates laws, and goes no further. All facts, as such, deserve, from her point of view, equal attention. But even here, individual experiences acquire value only insofar as they - positively or negatively - contribute to the clarification and establishment of psychological laws, provide materials or establish a point of view for understanding the course of mental life, its basic constituent elements, and their relationships. In this case, an analogy can be found in the relationship between the sciences of “theory of literature” and “history of literature.” Even in the history of literature, there is a place only - in one respect or another - that is objectively valuable from the field of verbal creativity. As for the “theory of literature,” the laws of verbal creativity and the normative requirements for one or another type of verbal work must be clarified. For this purpose, the most valuable and characteristic examples are used, representing the peak to which human genius or talent has reached in its verbal and artistic creativity. But these examples are important only insofar as they express a universal human acquisition and find approval in the aesthetic norm inherent to man. In any case, the generally accepted thesis that “a scientific position can only be one that has the right to a universal reliable concept or law” has full application in relation to theological ethics. Now, if I compared dogmatic science with Christian life, then I would reveal ignorance and misunderstanding of the matter, but to put dogmatics and theological ethics side by side in certain respects, I not only had the right, but also had the duty. As for, in particular, the ethical-ascetic area, there are often significant and basically more similarities than differences, even in the systems of representatives of patristic writing, who sharply diverged from each other on dogmatic issues. According to the authoritative words of the famous researcher of Christian asceticism Otto Zöckler, “between the Cappadocian fathers and their contemporaries, the founders of the Antiochian school, Diodorus and his closest followers, there is a noticeable contrast in the method of expounding Scripture, and the corresponding difference in the field of dogmatic teaching depended on this. But in relation to the ethical-ascetic area, the champions of the orthodoxy of the Alexandrian school, who adhered to the speculative-mystical direction, and the critical-rational predecessors of Nestorianism, are found in fraternal unanimity (in brüdelicher Eintracht)” 363. In relation to ethics, this position - in another case - is admitted by the critic himself when he says that when assessing the “church-historical worldview” there must be “an indication of the most important and constant in the church-historical one, raising it to the heights of the Gospel and liberating it from historically conventional one-sidedness.” In the fair words of the Protestant scientist, “to know what St. Isaiah believed in, what St. Ap. Paul, etc. – is very important for our own lives. But the last, main question for us is not: “what did these men believe in before,” but: “what should we believe in and by what right? What should we hope for? What should we do? 364. This principle must be applied with even greater rigor to the area of ​​“intimate experiences and private thought.” Here there is even less guarantee that “personal truth”, “intimate experience” will represent the “highest moment” in the entire “historical stream”. Therefore, verification on the solid basis of historical Christian experience is required here. The critic himself comes to recognize this need for volens-nolens. Even in the fourth volume, where, as the author himself explains, “the personal critical element comes forward, the anticipation of the future 365,” Prof. M. M. Tareev considers it necessary - at least occasionally - to justify and strengthen his “personal experience” “on the solid foundation of Christian primary sources and church history”, resorting to the authority of “Christian experience” 366. But if I do this - and not sporadically and accidentally, but consistently and systematically, on the basis of an enormous and critical study of the relevant monuments - then it is for this that the professor expresses the sharpest censure to me and completely devalues ​​my work. If prof. MM. Tareev claims that in theological ethics “the most important thing goes beyond the boundaries of dogmatic formulas and general provisions,” then I can only express my extreme bewilderment as to what this has to do with my dissertation. For me, each thesis is revealed on the basis of ethical and psychological data, Christian experience, in the person of its most characteristic typical and high representatives, so there can be no talk of abstraction, generality, or the formal nature of the theses. As for my personal experience, of course, it had to take place to one degree or another, determining the very possibility of penetration into this area, for which at least a small congeniality of the truth being studied is necessary - but could I bring it to the fore, in view of such authorities as, for example, Bishop Theophan - I’m not even talking about the high representatives of patristic literature... I would never dare to assert that my “intimate experience” is in “complete correspondence and mutual dependence” in relation to the “highest moment” “in the historical stream”, that mainly my “personal experience leads to the recognition of the highest historical value behind the Gospel word”, etc. Raising himself to the heights of prophetic insight, prophetic foresight of the future, 367 the critic denies me the most modest participation in Christian experience, in Christian life. But no reasoning can be made on such grounds. The critic’s assertion that my experience of the system represents a “mechanical systematization” of “various qualitative principles” is unfounded; it is not only not proven, but cannot be proven... The main point of view remains unchanged throughout the entire essay, carried out with unwavering consistency; the plan follows from the properties of the object itself and reveals it according to the requirements of the essence of the matter; Views and facts that have declared themselves in the history of asceticism and are not in harmony with the main point of view find their fundamental and historical explanation. I have already demonstrated complete independence and initiative in the very choice of sources and aids. In this case, the critic himself testifies that most of the manuals that were at my fingertips “stand at the height of religious creativity, religious and philosophical thought.” But this circumstance presupposes a strict critical choice and normative assessment. It was no coincidence that this happened. As for the sources and the material extracted from them, the most characteristic things are extracted from the patristic writings, representing the “highest moment” in the development of one or another theological idea. If a critic reproaches me for not giving “a single touch of my personal worldview,” then this was not required by the very essence of my topic: “Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching.” On the other hand, why can’t the Orthodox teaching that I reveal be – in essence – also my personal conviction? If you want, you can find a “mechanical conglomerate” everywhere. It is known, for example, that negative New Testament criticism resorts to the usual technique when assessing the writings of the Apostle Paul, declaring “the internal disharmony of the apostolic doctrine, where elements of different quality are (as if) mechanically united” 368. “A decisive disregard for the personal beginning of theological systematization” Prof. M. M. Tareeva sees in me that in the experience of my system he observes “an uncontrollable desire to say everything about everything, to unite all patristic thoughts, all principles, all types” 369. – What does “connect” mean in this case? Place it side by side, without any internal relation to the main idea? That is, therefore, if I, for example, are talking about “Divine truth,” then passages from the patristic works are cited, on the one hand, affirming, and on the other, denying the legal nature of God’s truth? When I treat the relationship of grace to a person’s own strengths, then without any evaluation I put next to it passages that, on the one hand, speak of the internally inseparable nature of their relationship, and on the other, refuting this position? etc. After all, this is how any reader unfamiliar with my work will understand the critic’s words. But do I have anything like that? My official reviewer at the debate stated that one of the advantages of my work is the consistency of the main point of view, consistently carried out from beginning to end, in all particular provisions, in all the smallest details. If they talk about the same subject differently, to the point of opposites, then you need to figure it out... In the experience of my system, prof. M. M. Tareev observes “an uncontrollable desire to say everything about everything, to unite all patristic thoughts, all principles, all types.” Such a statement by the critic in itself arouses bewilderment; What does it mean to “say everything about everything”? The essay treats strictly defined subjects, according to a specific plan and in strict accordance with the main idea, the disclosure and justification of which all particular theses serve. I really tried to say “everything” that was most essential, “about everything” that could serve to clarify the subject. For this purpose, I tried to attract “all patristic thoughts” that most definitely and characteristically express one or another Orthodox truth that I interpreted, so that the attitude towards the disclosure of one or another idea of ​​the main types and main directions of patristic writing would be visible. According to the critic himself, I, in the end, did not succeed in creating a “mechanical conglomerate of everything about everything.” But I allegedly avoided this only due to the fact that “involuntarily” I resorted to “the only” way out “remaining” to me - to plagiarism, “taking all the important parts from someone else’s hands.” But even this would not have saved the work from its “wild appearance” if what was taken from the hands of others - and, as the critic says, much was taken from many manuals - had not passed through the unity of the author’s personality, the author’s worldview. And what does it mean – in relation to my subject – to “take from someone else’s hands”? I present the Orthodox teaching on asceticism. If I use manuals in one way or another, then I do so insofar as I see in this or that theologian the most definite, clear and accurate expression of Orthodox teaching, and not his own personal, individual worldview. This last point was not essential for my purpose. My goal was to present the theological and scientific revealed Orthodox Church teaching, and I had to ensure that in my presentation the most characteristic and typical in this teaching found its expression. I sought, so to speak, to summarize what has already been done by theological thought until recently, so that my work would not stand below the results already achieved. What is important here is how much I was able to take advantage of the most valuable, the most characteristic, the most typical of what theological thought offers until very recently. In this case, theological and critical assessment and strict choice must assert itself. The work required here is enormous, but in return it offers completely reliable and sufficient material in order to understand the Orthodox Christian teaching on this issue, in order to understand this teaching in its original principles, driving motives, main directions, dominant types and essential provisions. In conclusion, Prof. M. M. Tareev pronounces his judgment on the “swampy small forest of theological journalism,” where he finds “a whole host of buffoonish scribblers, making faces in front of the market public,” on “militant theological scholasticism - in two forms: in the form of impersonal church-historical archaeology and in the form of scholastic taxonomy.” “Theological science wants to be the kingdom of external learning and does not want to give room for religious thought”; “theological scholarship turns away from religious philosophy.” “We have seen,” says the critic, “how Mr. Zarin does not stand on ceremony with her, and we can easily see that he is no exception in this regard. Theological science - both church-historical and systematic - looks at religious philosophy, at religious thought - disdainfully" 370. Now it turns out that I have a disdainful attitude towards the religious philosophy of Prof. MM. Tareev, while earlier it was diligently pointed out that I am closely “familiar” with it, use it “widely” and even, having taken the main theses from it, “diligently look for” “numerous patristic quotations” for them. How can these two situations be reconciled with each other? Any one of these two theses is, in any case, incorrect, and perhaps both are incorrect. The whole trouble is that my critic set the task of his review not as an objective study of the truth, but as “subjective creativity” for the sake of the desire to “destroy” my dissertation at all costs, to annoy me personally as much as possible. And so - according to the characteristic characteristic of the Russian person - my critic, wanting to “annoy”, “over-salted” it too much - and the result was something heavy, sharp, painful, offensive to me personally, but non-destructive for my dissertation: for real criticism we need a different method of calm discussion, not guided by a feeling of personal cruel hostility... The critic reproaches me for the fact that I “didn’t look into anyone’s soul,” didn’t listen to the beating of a living soul in anyone, didn’t notice personal aspirations and aspirations. I must testify that his “peering” into my soul is accompanied by a presentation of its entire structure in a completely distorted form. He sees only something bad in me, some amazing accumulation of all sorts of bad qualities, both intellectual and moral. I have cunning, narcissism, pedantry, black ingratitude, etc., etc. The critic did not indicate literally a single not only good, but even neutral quality in both the essay and its author... In order to decisively judge a person in this way, you need to know him personally 371... It never occurred to the critic: “Am I mistaken, am I not exaggerating too much?” He does not even add anywhere the usual and natural expression in the mouth of any impartial critic: “in my opinion,” etc. - he judges everything categorically, recognizing his judgments and conclusions as final, categorical and indisputable. That other points of view are possible, the application of other criteria is not even mentioned 372. The critic himself admits that his judgment of my work is “strict”; in fact, he is not so much strict as tendentious and embittered. The critic himself will probably agree that, if desired, one can “destroy” everything... The critic claims that such criticism as his is necessary for the flourishing of theological science. I highly doubt it. The young author, who has taken on the study of one of the most difficult issues of theological ethics, which, undoubtedly, is the question of “asceticism,” even according to the recognition of Protestant scientists 373, should be supported in his sincere aspirations for scientific work, and not try at all costs to deny any good qualities in him... And here the desire is obvious - with intimidation, threats, harsh attacks and bilious mockery of the personality of the author under review to discourage him from working in this area... If in this sense the critic achieves victory, then this is hardly an honorable victory. I don’t allow the idea that the critic himself would be morally satisfied with it... In general, this case is a vivid illustration of that mutual, essentially terrible, attitude of people, which, unfortunately, completely reigns in our morals and which is amazingly aptly characterized in the following. in the words of prof. S.S. Glagoleva: “people are much more cruel than animals, and usually the more civilized a person is, the more refined his cruelty. True, we do not have lashes and whips, but the wounds from lashes and whips will heal. And in cultural countries of both hemispheres, torture consisting of personal disgrace is widely practiced. Your religious, political, scientific opponent or just an enemy will not set fire to your house or lie in wait around the corner with a knife in his hands. No, he will try to disgrace you in print. He will claim about you that you are a stupid, unscrupulous person and will make more or less clear hints that you have committed a number of crimes” 374. It is even more bitter and difficult that such relationships are cultivated, manifested and dominate in our theological world in all their indiscretion... In order to avoid misunderstandings, I consider it necessary to state that from now on I will respond to criticism only if it is based on a principled and not a personal point of view, and if it is conducted in a calm and restrained tone, presupposing respect and a correct attitude towards a person - even if the opponent had the most unfriendly feelings towards him and, at least this opponent stood significantly higher than the author under review in terms of his official position, talents and fame. May, pp. 149–150; June, pp. 305–339. See, for example, pp. 317, 334, etc. Wed. review of Harnack’s church-historical works from prof. A. P. Lebedeva “Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th (M., 1898), pp. 437 et seq., esp. p. 445: “Harnak expounded the teaching of I. Christ, without taking the Gospel into his hands, but the teaching of the early Christian times, without taking into account Paul’s Epistles.” Page 462: “The views of this scientists in this case, as in others, are distinguished by tendentiousness." Page 489: “whoever gets acquainted with Harnack’s “Manual” can say to himself with complete justice: now we know how we should not work” and many others. For example, the works of bishop. Feofana, pp. 4 et seq. works by Solovyov and others. Wed, for example, pp. 21 et seq., 41, 145, 277, etc. Page 14, 25, 41, 46, 199, etc. Page 290. Wed. pp. 321–322, 333. For example, regarding the presentation by F. F. Gusev of the so-called fact. "narrowness of consciousness." The Christian problem and Russian religious thought (Sergiev Posad, 1907), p. 18 – Fundamentals of Christianity (Sergiev Posad, 1908). vol. IV, p. 134. Cf. pp. 67–243. Foundations of Christianity, vol. III, pp. 398–399. For various manifestations of active love among ascetic contemplatives, see also † Ernst Lucius. Die anfänge des Heiligenkult in der christlichen Kirche (Tübingen, 1904), SS. 372–376. E.g. pp. 108 et seq., 177–178, 286–287, etc. Page 195, 205, 214. etc. Compare, for example, page 359 about the post. Page 124, 295–296, 235 et seq. etc. In this section - in addition to what has been said - the ascetic meaning of ταπεινοφροσύνη should be further emphasized. Thus, Tertullian in his work De jejunio uses this concept three times (pp. 12, 13, 16) to designate external pious deprivations, and mainly for him it means fasting. Wed. Epistle of Clement (53, 2; 55, 6); Erm, Sim. V, 3, 7. Vis. III, 10, 6. See Lahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2 Aufl. I, 339; Goltz, Das Gebet in der älltesten Christenheit. 1901, SS. 164, 172. Karl Thieme, Die christliche Demut. Eine historische Untersuchung zur theologischen Ethik. Erste Hälfte (Gieszen, 1906), S. 16 ff. Wed. article “Fasting” by I. F. F. Farquhar in the Revue internationale de Théologie. 1908, Juillet – Septembre (No. 63), p. 532 next – Cp. 2 Coloss. II, 18. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 107, note. Basic christ., vol. III, p. 137. See, for example, Christ. problem, p. 237 = Fundamentals of archives, vol. IV, p. 413. The purpose and meaning of life M. 1902, p. 133. Wed. e.g. pp. 61, 110–111, etc. The Christian problem and Russian religious thought, p. 239. – Fundamentals of Christianity, IV, p. 415. Cf. Living souls. “Theologian.” Vestn." 1906, April, pp. 717–718. Christian freedom. Basic christ., vol. IV, preface, pp. 5–6, etc. Wed. also Main. Christ vol. II, p. 270. Preface to volume 1, page 6. In September 1900, I entered the service and, having 24 Russian language lessons a week, had to completely stop scientific studies for some time. Asceticism according to the Orthodox Christian tradition. uch. 1, p. 202. Cf. Fundamentals of Christ. IV, 135. Compare, for example, about the fast of Matt. 9:14–15. Mk. 2:18. OK. 5:33. Wed. Fundamentals of Christ. II, p. 229. Mf. 16:21: τοῦτο τὸ γένος οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται . εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχ ῇ καὶ νηστεί ᾳ. Fundamentals of Christ. IV, pp. 134–135. T. II, p. 213. Cf. Purpose and meaning of life, p. 89 = Main. Christ III, pp. 93–94, 95. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 6. Philosophers of Evangelical History, p. 249. (This place is not retained in the Fundamentals of Christianity). Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 6. Wed. Christ. Reading, 1907, July, p. 147. See, for example, Temptations of the God-Man, p. 6, note: “we consider His temptations as religious temptations.” Temptations of the God-Man, page 5. II, pp. 214–216. Wed. pp. 302–306. Page 8. Italics by the author himself. In 1907 (in Kiev) the second “improved” edition of this work was published. Purpose and meaning of life. M. 1902, p. 1 = Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 9. Religion and morality. T. IV, p. 94. Spirit and flesh. Theologian Vestn. 1905, March, p. 451 = Main. hr. IV, p. 174. See also Fr. S. Lobachevsky "Saint Anthony the Great (his life, writings and moral and ascetic teaching). Odessa. 1906, pp. 12–13: "in Egypt, at the time of the coming of Christ the Savior into the world, one might say, all the wisdom of the pagan world was concentrated. Alexandria was the center in which the beliefs of all the then known peoples of antiquity converged, and were united in one common speculative contemplation in which the idealism of the Greeks was mixed with the eastern mysticism of the Egyptians. The ideas of Neoplatonism were so widespread here that they became the property of even uneducated people; they, one might say, were current ideas with which the Egyptian became completely akin.” It is important to clarify this fact with accuracy for apologetic purposes. The mystical-religious trend in Islam, known under the name “Sufism,” is characterized precisely by “an erotic shade of adoration, especially in a state of “ecstasy.” See K. Kazansky, Mysticism in Islam (Samarkand, 1906), pp. 56 et seq. Spirit and flesh. Basic hr. IV, p. 100. Page 105. Wed. pp. 125, 141. Journals of meetings of the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the 1899–1900 academic year (extracted). St. Petersburg, 1902, p. 325. Journal of the Council meeting June 5, 1900. Life and Teachings of Christ, p. 251, note. In addition, I also had in mind that clear thesis for a theologian that the truth of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body is inextricably linked with the promise: “what a man sows, that he will also reap.” In this area, dogmatic eschatology comes into close contact with the ethical task. According to R. Richard, the question of whether the body of Christ the Savior was material or immaterial may be of interest from the point of view of historical criticism, exegesis, morality, metaphysics, physiology and - no doubt - some other sciences (Le corps du Christ apre %`s sa résurrection. Essai métaphysique. Montauban, 1900, p. 7). Moreover, one can historically confirm the close connection of the doctrine of the resurrection directly with the ascetic region. According to the observation of A. Harnack, “resurrection” and “ascetic abstinence” were “the most outstanding points of the new (Christian) gospel.” Acta Theclae characterize the sermon of St. Paul as the doctrine of abstinence and resurrection (περὶ ἐγκρατείας καὶ ἀναστάσεως p. I. 5. Vita Polycarpi, 14). These concepts are mutually complementary. (Ἐγκράτεια) are, of course, the ethical condition of the “resurrection of the flesh” (A. Harnack. Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Zw. Auflage. I Bud. Lpz. 1906, S. 79. Cp. SS. 82–83. 84). But what is especially important for us in this case is prof. M. M. Tareev in one of his latest works establishes a close connection between the issue under consideration and asceticism. According to him, “if we are waiting for the resurrection of the flesh, glorified in Christ, then the whole task of our life is to prepare our flesh for the resurrection, and we can prepare it only by fasting, prayer and vigil, that is, by “while still in the flesh living the life of the disembodied.” This is the actual principle of one-sided asceticism” (Christian Problem, p. 230 = Basic Christ. Vol. IV, p. 406). At the same time, I must make a reservation that I cannot accept all these provisions in all their severity. In fact, was, for example, the spiritualist Origen, who did not accept the “resurrection of the flesh” in the literal sense, less ascetic in theory and practice than church thinkers? Harnack even considers him the first ideological monk. (Cf. Chr. Ernst Luthard. Gesehichte cler christlichen Ethik. Erste Hälfte. Lpz. 1888, SS. 125–126. Bomemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenes. 1885. Otto Zöckler, Die Tugendlehre des Christentums geschichtlich dargestellt. I'm not even talking about the various numerous heresies, in the systems of which the denial or ignorance of the “resurrection of the flesh” was combined with the strictest asceticism - in principle and in fact even stricter than church asceticism. (Cf. A. Narpask, Lib. cit., SS. 127–128, 133 (about Marcion), SS. 133–134 (about the Manichaeans, etc.). Cf. also Zöckler, Die Tugendlehre des Christentums. Gütersloh, 1904. S. 184. In general - as I said in “review” - the question of the resurrection of the body, although it has a connection with “asceticism”, has no fundamental significance for this latter. It should be noted that even before the resurrection, the body of Christ possessed special properties of spirituality and the ability to change its appearance. Wed. Mf. 14:25–29; Mk. 6:48; Luke 9:29; In. 6:19. Mf. 17:2; Luke 9:29. On this basis, R. Richardt believes that the body of Jesus Christ after the resurrection, as before His death, was subject to the general conditions of existence of ordinary human organisms, and nevertheless was capable of undergoing changes in its internal organization and in its relations to the outside world. Le corps du Christ apre %` s sa re %` surrection. Essai metaphysique. Montauban, 1900. p. 32. This is the main thesis of his dissertation. Prof. I. A. Sikorsky. General psychology with physiognomy in an illustrated presentation. Kyiv, 1904. p. 5. Wed. Questions of Neuropsychological Medicine for 1903, vol. VIII, etc. Wed. prof. A. Rigi, Electrical nature of matter. "Messenger of Knowledge". 1908 No. 9, p. 1098: “the new hypothesis regarding the structure of bodies, which is currently striving to take a dominant place in science, could with some justification be called the hypothesis of the electrical nature of matter. The idea of ​​such a hypothesis several years ago would have been considered absurd, but now it is greeted favorably by everyone and promises to become one of the fruitful scientific propositions.” Wed., e.g., Dr. Max Pohlenz, Die griechische Philosophie im Dienste der christlichen Auferstehunglehre in "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie" 1904, II, SS. 241–242. Johannes Lehmann, Die Auferstehungslehre des Athenagoras (Lpz., 1890), SS. 8–9. Acts Apostle 17:32. Wed. Art. 31:19. The Apostle Paul “preached precisely the “physical” resurrection of the dead.” “There will one day come a physical transformation of human nature, that is, a personal resurrection, and not a figurative or spiritual one.” Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, The Gospel of St. Apostle Paul. Book I (St. Petersburg, 1905), pp. 534, 538, 624, 625, 640. Contra Cels. IV, 3, 5, 62, 65; V. 14 N. Lebedev, The Work of Origen against Celsus (Moscow, 1878), p. 214. A. Vishnyakov, Emperor Julian the Apostate and the literary polemics with him by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Simbirsk, 1908), pp. 55–50, 87. J. Lehmann, Die Auferstehungslehre des Athenagoras (Lpz., 1890), SS. 7–8. Epist. ad Diognet. With. VI. Iycmun, Apol. I, p. 18. Tatian, Contr. Graec., p. XXV. Let us note (in addition to pp. 225–226 of my second book) that in ante-Nicene times the trichotomous view of the composition of human nature was dominant, undoubtedly predominant. It is precisely these views that we find in Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus and the Alexandrians. Dichotomism among church writers of this era occurs in the form of relatively rare exceptions, for example, in Athenagoras. Gnostics derived from trichotomous views the conclusion that there are three classes of people: iliks, psychics and pneumatics. Apparently, this circumstance provided an advantage to the dichotomous view. At least Tertullian decisively takes the side of dichotomism (Cf. Adv. Hermog. 11 and De anim. p. 10). The abuse of the trichotomous concept, committed in the Christological field by Apollinaris of Laodicea, who stood on the point of view of idealistic dualism and posited a substantial difference between soul and spirit, was the reason that by the end of the 4th century, Greek church writers decisively leaned towards dichotomism. At the same time, some of the Greek church writers even have a polemical attitude towards trichotomism. See, for example. B l. Theodoret, an abbreviated exposition of Divine dogmas, XI. Creation, part VI (Moscow, 1859), pp. 46–47: “Divine Scripture does not divide man into three, but says that this living being consists of soul and body.” In the West, dichotomism, one might say, has finally prevailed. Wed. J. Lehmann, Die Auferstehungs Lehre des Athenagoras. Inaugural Dissertation. Leipzig. 1890, S. 39. Cp. Dr. F. Lauchert, Die Lehre Heil. Athanasius. Strassburg. 1894, SS. 77–78, etc. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, S. 589. – I note by the way that I take the opportunity in this article to note some other additions to my dissertation. Athenagoras, De resurr. mort. With. XV. – It is believed that Athenagoras, for apologetic purposes, took advantage of the anthropological teachings of the Peripatetics, who especially emphasized the close, inextricable connection between soul and body, insisting that man is a single complex being, τὸ συναμφότερον (Philoponus 44, 26; 50,17; 154, 29 etc.), - which is the special term of the named philosophical school that Athenagoras also uses. Wed. Max Pohlenz, Quoted. art., S, 244 ff. Ibid. With. XXI: κ ἂ ν μὴ μόνου τοῦ σώματος , ἀνθρώπου δέ θῶμεν ε ἷ ναι τὰ πάθη, λέγοντες ὀρθῶς, διὰ τὸ μίαν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ε ἷ ναι τὴν τούτο ζωήν. Ibid., p. XXIII. Wed. Iriney L. Adv. haer. lib. V. c. 5. Tertullian, De resurr. carn. With. XIV. Wed. With. XV, XXXIV, p. VIII: non possunt separari in mercedo, quas opera conjugit. Apol. adv. gent. c. XLVIII. De Gen. ad 1itt. lib. XII, c. 35. Cp. Retr. I. 14. Cp. De Trin. J. XIII, c. 9. De civ. Dei. lib. XIX, c. 28. De civ. Dei, lib. XXII, p. 30. Ibid., lib., XX, p. 14, 16. Creations in Russian translation T. X, book. 1 (SPB. 1904), pp. 424–425. Migne gr. t. LXI, col. 356–357. Cp. Bl. Theodoret, Creation. Part I. (Moscow, 1859), p. 73, cf. page 67. Contr. Cels. lib. IV, no. 57; lib. V.n. 18.22; lib. VII, no. 32; Select, in Ps. 1 ad. vers. 5; De principle. lib. II. With. 10, n. 3, etc. – Origen joins the formula “resurrection of the flesh” only because it was contained in the teaching of the church; but he is based on 1 Cor. 15 - explains it in such a way that the corpus spirituale will be resurrected, in which no properties of the sensory will take place, there will be no members and sensory functions, and which, like angels and stars, will shine in the sunlight. Wed. Περὶ ἀρχῶν II, 10, 1–3. Origen also wrote a special essay “On the Resurrection,” but it has not reached us, since it soon began to be considered heretical. What a difficulty the church teaching about the resurrection of the flesh presented for him is shown by Contr. Cels. V, 14–24. Wed. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, S. 601. Referring to the teachings of philosophers, Origen believed that matter is qualityless and can take on all the properties that the Creator gives it. Lib. cit., S. 597. See, for example, E. Sylvester. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). T. V (Kyiv, 1891), pp. 340 next: Dr. Ferdinand Kallenbusch, Verbreitung und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols (Leipzig 1900), SS. (644–647: Joseph Schwvane, Dosmengeschiche. Zweiter Band: Patristische Zeit, Zweite Auflage (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895), SS. 594–600; Dr. Alexander von Oettingen, Lutherische Dogmatik. Zw. Bnd, zw. Thl. (München, 1902), S. 703 ff. According to the latter, future bodies must be understood in the sense of “real corporeality, in contrast to the gnostic-docetic or mystical dreamy-spiritualistic view, in which, in essence, the hope of resurrection evaporates. Wanting to emphasize the idea that here we are not talking about an ethereal or spiritualistic apparent corporeality, the ancient church even professes resurrectio carnis in its symbol. 709. Cp. Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol. Erster Band (Leipzig, 1894), SS. 64, 80. Cp. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, SS. 140–141, 296, 397–398: wird die. Auferstehung des Fleisches als Specificum der christlichen Hoffnung betont (reason among the apologists). On this issue, the apologists are quite in agreement with each other. S. 460. Cf. also SS. 528, 546, 605. On the contrary, the Gnostics rejected the resurrection of the flesh S. 223. The doctrine of the incarnation and the resurrection of the flesh served as a borderline one. line between church dogmatics and neoplatonism. S. 735. Cf. A.A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils (in connection with the philosophical teachings of that time). T. I (Sergiev Posad, 1906), p. 196, note. 4th. Wed. also Harnak, Lib. cit Bnd. II. SS. 65–66, anm. 3; 143, 162, 164–165, 173. Life and teachings of Christ. Part 1, pp. 250–251. Basic christ., vol. III, p. 6. Minutes of the Moscow Council meeting. Spirit. Academician June 4, 1904 God. Vestn. 1905, March, p. 175. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 404 See review by prof. A. A. Bronzov about my handwritten essay, presented to the Academy Council in April 1905 in the minutes of the Council. 22 Dec 1906 in “Christ. Thu." 1907, July. p. 135, paragraph II. See also in “Main. Chronicle", vol. IV, p. 405. Christ. problem., pp. 69=245. Christ. problem., p. 241=Fundamentals of Christ. IV. page 417. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 272. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 259. Sn. page 262. I'm not even talking about the fact that the “cutting off of seductive organs” is explained – in accordance with exegetical requirements – as “the removal of earthly attachments.” Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 254. Fundamentals of Christ. vol. II, p. 270. Page 271. Wed. vol. IV, pp. 420–421. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV. p. 411. In principle, of course, this is true, but, firstly, there is little reconciliation with those parts of the works of prof. M. M. Tareev, where “hatred” for the family is understood in a direct and precise sense, and, secondly, the understanding of the matter contained in the above excerpt does not express anything specifically Christian - unless, of course, you mean that the soul is Christian by nature. In this case, all the heroes of the ancient world, who selflessly sacrificed their lives for the good of people, acted in the gospel before the gospel. The same moral heroism occurs, although not very often, throughout the history of mankind, until recently. One of these characteristic cases occurred relatively recently, in America. Last August (1908) the Colorado River flooded. The telephone lady was warned in the dead of midnight that a flood was approaching the village of Folzom and its surroundings, that the water was coming, washing away everything in its path. The girl did not even think about her salvation; She began one by one to inform the villagers by telephone about the imminent and terrible danger. Thus, she managed to save forty families before she herself died in the stormy waves. On this occasion, Mr. Stolypin in “New Time” (No. 11656) writes: “when we read that a robber stabbed an old woman to take half of her money, we are horrified by the limits of human fall, but the limits of human perfection are as great, as incomprehensible, as the boundless abyss of his fall. Precisely, the fact that some unforeseen accident, like a flood, reveals heroes of the spirit among the simplest, most unpretentious inhabitants, content with a modest and unknown lot, the fulfillment of a small and unnoticed duty, it is precisely this circumstance that indicates that great hearts are not at all uncommon, that they show their greatness and holiness in the little things of everyday life, but let the tragedy of life come: it does not take them by surprise will catch. This is a great consolation, because the value of such a bright, sublime, selfless structure of the soul is not at all diminished by the fact that there was no opportunity to experience it loudly and clearly. The American telephone operator had the good fortune to actually experience the delight of a great sacrifice. I say “happiness” because otherwise it is impossible to imagine the state of her spirit, this use of the last hour, the last minutes, the last seconds for the powerful cause of saving others... Forty times in a row she gave life before she lost hers, forty times she trembled with the delight of that limit of human love that merges with the Divine essence.” (“Lights of Life”). Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV. page 411. Wed.. e.g. I. Zlatoust. De poenit c. III. T. XLIX, col. 303–304. De virginitare c. V-VI. T. XLVIII, col. 537: ibid, p. LXXVII, col. 589–590; De verbis Aposltolic habtntes eumdem Spir. I. 6–7. LI, col. 277–278. Baculius V. Serino ascet. with I-II, col. 872 V-873 AC. Methodius Patar. Conviv. dec. virg. Or. XL Arete, p. I. T. XVIII, col. 208A. Isidore P. Lib. I. Ep. CCLXXXVI. T. LXXVIII, col. 349D-352A and many others. etc. Wed, for example, I. Chrysostom. Homil. XII in Epistol. ad Colos. T. LXII, col. 588–589. In. Epist. ad Hebr. With. XIII. Homil. XXXIII. n. 2. Homil. XX in Epist. ad Ephes. T. LXII, col. 447. In illud, vidi Dominum. Homil. IV. c. I. T. LVI, col 123–124. In. ps. IX. c. 4. T. LV, col 126 and many more. etc. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 418. Compare, for example, Athenagoras of Athens. T. VI, col. 965. I. Chrysostom. In. epist. ad Eplics. With. I.Hom. II. § 3. T. LXII. col. 20. Avva Dorotheos. Doctor XV, p.. 2, col. 1789–1792A. Afanasy A. Epist. ad. Amumem monachum. T. XXVI, col. 1173 VS. Augustine. Confessionum. lib. IV p. 1.n. 2. T. XXXII, col. 694. It is especially defined by Clement A. Paedagog. Lib. II, p. X, t. VIII, col. 505 A: ἡ γὰρ φύσις ὥ σπερ καὶ ταῖς τροφαῖς , ο ὕ τω δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ ν ό μον γάμοις ὅ σον οἰκεῖον καὶ χρ ή σιμον καὶ εὐπρεπὲς ἐπέτρεψεν ἡμῖν, ἐπέτρεψεν δὲ ὀρέγεσθαι παιδοποι ί ας. Ὅ σοι δὲ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν δι ώ κουσι , πτα ί ουσι περὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν Ave. christ., pp. 232=408. Christ. problem, page 233=Main. christ., vol. IV, 409. Basic Christ vol. II, p. 181, note. 1st. Author's italics. Christ. problem., pp. 234–235=410–411. Christ. problem 240=T. IV, 416. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 69. 2nd ed., pp. 184 et seq. Prof. S.I. Smirnov not only repeatedly refers to Gaulle (see, for example, pp. 40, 43, 105, 194, 212, 244, 247, 249, 271, 272, 290, 299), but he himself states that when compiling some sections he “used” Gaulle’s book as a guide (p. 40, 197). In itself, this law of moral life is undeniable; The theologian naturally comes to its recognition when analyzing even the teachings of the Ap. Pavel. See, for example, F. Simon, Psychology of the Apostle Paul, translated from the German Bishop George, pp. 58–63: “a person instinctively feels that in strong affects and lusts an alien force acts with him and makes him a weak-willed organ. The language gave expression to this unclear feeling, calling such states “states of suffering,” “passions,” passiones, παθῆματα. Gal. 5:24 ; Rome. 7:5; 2 Cor. 1:17 ... Despite the fact that a person in such a state is enslaved to an alien law for his original, own being (Rom. 6:20; 7:23), he is still considered... free (Rom. 6:20)... While there is still a spark of free will, slavery is felt as oppression. But when, in an enslaved will, one’s own strength completely fades away, then nothing else in a person opposes the convictions of an alien will, like coercion: it becomes completely identical with it... Thus, it is natural that a deceptive sense of freedom is associated with real slavery." For example, in an excerpt from page 364, he omits the quotation - John. 15 and from page 12 – Acts. 17:28. For example, in the excerpt given from page 12. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 5. See, for example, page 57, note. 43; 131, note. 2; p. 203, note. 45; p. 361, note. 29. I am aware of the fact that one theologian, who wrote his master's thesis on the topic of the Anglican priesthood, had to leave the work, having already achieved significant results, due to the appearance of a doctoral thesis by a professor of another academy. He had to take a different topic, albeit from a related area. As a shortcoming of our Russian church-historical and theological science, evidence of the lack of its vitality, serious scientists point out precisely that “a general, Russian theological and church-historical science does not yet exist. It is impossible to grasp the general direction of Russian theological science, to indicate the questions and tasks with which it is currently occupied. It is almost impossible to see that the works of one scientist reflect the influence of the works of another; on the contrary, each one seemed not to have read what his neighbor wrote.” From the bibliography articles by prof. Ternovsky "Kievsk. Eparch. Ved." 1879, No. 36, p. 6. Cited. u † prof. A. P. Lebedeva. Church historiography, p. 523. See the review of my candidate’s essay in the “Journals of meetings of the council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the 1898–1899 academic year (extracted)”, St. Petersburg, 1907, pp. 254–256. Here the main content of the dissertation is indicated and, among other things, it is said: “The Word of God and the patristic works - insofar as both relate to the issue he is studying - have been carefully thought out by the author. Having set as his task the study of the issue of asceticism on the basis of the data of the Bible and the patristic writings, the author from beginning to end remains true to his intentions and does not express a single, it seems, any significant position without first substantiating it with the help of the above-mentioned data. From here the author’s conclusions receive solid stability” (p. 255). In vain, in the collection of his works, Prof. M. M. Tareev does not note when and where exactly one or another of his works included in the collection first appeared in print. Page 324. Criticism italics. Let me quote Palmieri's review in its original form: Das weitaus bedeutendste Werk der ganzen tbeologischen Literatur aus dem Jahre 1907 ist unbestritten das von S. M. Zarin über “Die Aszese nach der christlich-orthodoxen Lehre” in zwei grossen Bänden, in denen der Verf. in gedrängter Kürze das Material verarbeitet hat, das sich in den 88 Bänden der griechischen Patrologie von Migne zerstreut findet. Der erste Band bringt eine ins einzelne gehende Geschichte der Theorien aller hervorragénden russischen Mystiker. Der Verf. bestimmt auch näher den Unterschied zwischen dem Ideal der katholischen und dem der orthodoxen Aszese. Das Werk Zarins wurde lebhast besprochen und heftig kritisiert von Professor M. Tarejew (im “Theologischen Botschafter”), indes mit Unrceht, denn Zarins Untersuchung verdient es, beachtet und vor allem auch im Ausland bekannt zu werden. Literarische Rundschau für das katholiscbe Deutschland. I November 1908 No. 11. Cp. also La Chiesa Russa le sue odierne condizioni e il suo riformisto dottrinale, Firenze, 1908, p. 644: ...le Studio dello Zarin, redatto con approfondita conoscenza delle dottrine dei Padri, e %` utilissimo perehe %` indica in quali punti gl’idcali dell’ ascetismo ortodosso si discostano da quelli del cattolicismo. At the same time, M. M. Tareev refers for details “to volume II” of “Fundamentals of Christianity” (Gospel - faith and life according to the gospel). Wed. Christ. problem, p. 16=Fundamentals of Christ. IV, p. 192. Wed. A. Harnack, Lehrbueh dtr Dogmengeschichte I, S. 244: Das ursprüngliche Christenthum ist seiner Erscheinung nach... die Schöpfung einer universalen Religion auf dem Boden der Atlichen; daher behielt dasselbe auch... die judischen Züge seines Ursprungs bei. Page 6=181. Wed. Basic christ., vol. II, p. 16. Page 16=192. Wed. Wernle, Einführung in das theologische Studium. Tübingen, 1908, S. 179. Cp. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, SS. 152–153: “faith in God the Creator and eschatological aspirations protected the church from dualism. The belief that the world is God’s and hence good remained in force... Firm faith in the omnipotence of God and hope for the renewal of the world defeated the voice of despair in relation to the visible and sensory and did not allow, out of the practical obligation of renunciation of the world and deep distrust in relation to the flesh, to draw conclusions in the sense of fundamental dualism.” “Apologists proclaim Christianity with the greatest energy “as a religion of spirit, freedom and absolute morality.” S. 414. Cf. S: 418: apologists argued that “Christianity is the implementation of absolute moral theism.” S. 462: “the ancient law is at the same time new, because it is now purely spiritual, perfect and absolute.” II, pp. 359 et seq. And in this regard, I find complete confirmation in scientific works of a biblical and theological nature that come into contact with my subject. See, for example, W. Lütgert, Die Liebe im Neuen Testament. Lpz. 1905, S. 119: perfect love is a phenomenon of the divine order. Divine love is the image of perfect love, absolute and boundless love. The divine and the human differ not in quantity or degree, but in quality. True love is something divine, something perfect. Love is complete condemnation and denial of anger. She is a complete and complete good, while hatred is a complete and complete evil. Wed. SS. 119, 231, 243, 246. II, 1 et seq. However, here too one should avoid unnecessary exaggerations that are not justified by direct facts. See, for example, Havet, Le Christianisme, IV, p. 398: “in its entirety, the New Testament retains the character of Jewish writing. Literature with a truly Hellenic character begins to appear among Christianity only in the middle of the 2nd century.” A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, agrees with him. Freiburg, Zw. Aufl. 1 Bnd. 1888, S. 53. “According to Zöckler’s categorical and completely fair statement, in the teaching about the specific content of moral perfection, as well as the state of the opposite moral evil, between the Gospel and the Apostolic Epistles, both from the formal side and in essence, there is no fundamental difference. Ethical-parenetic parts of Ap.'s messages. Paul's writings on the Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians especially clearly shows how little at all he approached - both in content and in form - to the teaching of representatives of Hellenic or Roman ethical philosophy. With a special designation of individual manifestations from the field of both virtues and vices, all New Testament writers mostly have Old Testament models. Die Tugendlehre des Christentums, SS. 4–5, 6, 9, etc. According to R. Wernle, the “thoughts” of the “early Christian era” are usually clothed in the “form of Jewish thought,” and “the inclination towards Greek philosophy has barely begun.” Einführung in das theologische Studium. Tübingen, 1908, SS. 305–306. See also S. Hoennicke, Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1908 SS. 248, 249, 254–255. To prove the “influence of Judaism on the development of religious and moral ideas of Christians,” the author analyzes the teaching of the Apostolic Men. S. 227 ff. The formulation of the final conclusions on this issue is SS. 369–370 ff., and the influence of Judaism on Christianity is categorically recognized as more noticeable, serious and significant than the influence of pagan philosophy (SS. 269–270 ff.). Wed. and at D. Paul Wernle. Einführung in das theologisehe Studium. Tübingen, 1908, S. 135. Prof. N. I. Sagarda, First Council Epistle of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Poltava, 1903, pp. 33–35. In particular, in the area I am researching, complete fundamental agreement between the New Testament writings is definitely and conclusively established by Prof. Lütgert Wed. Lib. cit., SS. 165–166 (on the agreement of the weather forecasters with the Gospel of John), SS. 232–236 (about the attitude of Apostle Paul to the Gospel on issues, in particular, about the essence of love, about its origin, etc., and it is stated that “in this regard, Apostle Paul simply continues the preaching of Jesus”; “only someone who grossly does not understand the Apostle can fail to notice the unity in this fundamental issue” in the teaching of Christ and St. Paul. S. 232; S. 237 (“the understanding of the commandment of love in 1 John is fully (durchaus) consistent with the Gospel 243, S. 255 (the teaching of Apostle James is “equally-gemeinsam ist”) with the synoptic preaching of Jesus); S. 263 (about the Apocalypse); SS. 268–275 (“Conclusion”). Not only the main thesis of my essay, but also all other essential provisions of the dissertation stand “at the height of the science of biblical theology.” For a systematic theologian, what is important, of course, is not the method and particulars of the said science, but the results it produces. The named discipline, since it falls within the scope of the area I study, deals, for example, with the analysis of various religious and ethical concepts - πίστις, ἀγάπη, δικαιοδύνη, μετάνοια, etc., tries to capture all the shades that make up a distinctive feature of the worldview of this or that writer, etc. Here, for example, it is indicated that although “Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, recognizes μετάνοια as a necessary condition for entry into the kingdom of God, there is no doubt that the named concept does not belong to those subjects to which the speeches of Jesus directly and intentionally address,” according to the image of John the Theologian (See Hermann Jacoby. Neutestamentliche Ethik. Königsberg, 1899, S. 19ff); or explores in more or less detail the extent to which the concept of πτωχὸς has a social connotation in Hebrew. Luke (Lib. cit., S. 1ff). As a result, it turns out that, although at this point Ev. Luke is a noticeable difference compared to ev. Matthew, however, it does not concern the essence of the concept, but only the point of view on the subject: “Luke’s edition is explained by the fact that he interprets the words of Jesus from the point of view of the Christian community,” its historical external position (S. 3) etc. The taxonomist-theologian, of course, needs to know all this, but for his special purposes only relatively little, the most essential and characteristic, is suitable for him. In this sense, my duties in relation to systematic theology were clearly recognized by me and, to the best of my ability, fulfilled. That my work really stands “at the height of the science of biblical theology”, I find indirect confirmation of this in the fact that, getting acquainted with the works related to the field of this particular discipline, I find in them complete confirmation of my theses. For example, I emphasize the particularly important significance of the idea of ​​“following” Christ, as a fundamental idea, containing “an ascetic moment of moral likeness to Christ, which puts forward, first of all, the element of activity, achievement, struggle” (II, p. 68–69, note. 9). Jacoby came to the same conclusion: “following Christ is the assimilation of one’s Model, since it requires readiness for heavy sacrifices, obliges one to suffer for Him, if the will of God requires it.” (Neutestamentliche Ethik. Königsberg, S. 55), etc. – Unfortunately, the size of the article does not allow me to argue my thoughts on this issue in more detail. In view of its importance and interest, I will try to return to it at some later date. Fundamentals of Christ. II, p. 167. Page 171. Wed. pp. 184, 225 and many more. etc. For example, it is still impossible to write strictly scientifically about the moral worldview before. Isaac the Sir., since questions about the time and circumstances of the life of the Venerable have not yet been finally resolved. Isaac, his works are not known in the original text, and, in general, not all of his works are known. Quote. minutes, page 174. Christ. Probl., pp. 19–195. I, XXVI. Wed. D. Paul Wernle, Einführung in das theologische Studium, Tübingen, 1908. Here, “normative theology” includes: “dogmatics, ethics and apologetics.” Wed. S. 278. See, for example, Dr. Anton Koch, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1905, S. 3: “theological morality stands in internal connection with dogma (Moraltheologie in der innigsten Verbindung mit der Dogmatik stebt”). See, for example, W. Paul Wemle, Einführung in das theologische Studium, 8. 312: “Christianity is a life conformable to Christ, which God creates in every Christian in a special way. How it is accomplished in detail is depicted by Christian dogmatics and Christian ethics.” The doctrine of faith answers the question: “What % have we received from God?” The teaching of morality is “what should we do?” The connection between the two is the doctrine of regeneration. Dogmatics represents rebirth as a gift from God, while ethics represents the basis of a new task for man. This separation of the Christian faith from the Christian cause has its practical right in view of the large volume of the whole and the impossibility of presenting both areas in any exhaustive way in one course. But we will receive the full right to such division only if we do not forget about the danger that lies in this division. In any case, primitive Christianity knows nothing about such a division... It is absolutely impossible to talk about one’s faith without, at the same time, remembering the (moral) requirements, just as one cannot talk about these latter without forgetting about the (Christian) hope. On the contrary, as soon as the teaching of faith and the teaching of morality are separated, the opinion can gain strength that the first contains the essence of Christianity, and the second is only an application, an addition (Anhang)... From here we should recognize a truly evangelical tendency, which was previously carried out by Richard Rothe (Ethik 2 1867-1871), and more recently by N. Wendt (System der christlichen Lehre Iesu, 1906–07) in a closely related, joint exposition of dogmatics and ethics. At the same time, it remains true that all truly Christian morality has its roots in the Christian faith, and this latter takes first place. And conversely, every truly Christian faith must lead to Christian morality” (Lib. cit., SS. 286–287). According to another scientist, it is recognized (ist anerkannt) that ethics, together with dogma, form a Christian system of teaching, and ethics has its closest justification in dogma. Dogmatics and ethics must present the Christian faith, on the one hand, in relation to its vital content, and on the other, in relation to its vital manifestation. Doctrine and moral teaching are inextricably linked (in einem unlöslichen Zusammenhaug). Although, thus, both of these disciplines are coordinated, since they express Christian consciousness on two different sides, however, ethics, as based on dogma and conditioned by it, is in a subordinate relationship to dogma, since Christian morality grows out of Christian religiosity. From here follows the confessional nature of ethics (Ludwig Lemme, Christliche Ethik, I Bnd., 1905, SS, 14–17. The close, inextricable connection of the truths of faith with the requirements of Christian morality and, in particular, with asceticism is actually justified and is expressed explicitly in the works of modern thinkers (albeit mostly in a negative way). According to, for example, M. Guyot, “The danger of religious morality based on the love of God is mysticism, which is more and more contrary to the spirit of our era and is therefore doomed to death.” (Irreligiousness of the future. Sociological research. Translation from French, edited by Ya. L. Saker. St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 177). “A natural complement to mysticism is asceticism. This is also one of those elements of religious morality that, in the spirit of the modern era, is doomed to extinction” (p. 187). Minutes of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy dated June 4, 1904. Pp. 187. On the question of the sources of Christian doctrine and its tasks. Christ. Reading, 1906, December, pp. 777–778. We can say even more. In the first centuries of Christianity, no division of what later became separate areas of “dogmatics” and “ethics” was observed. In the “Shepherd” of Hermas, in the 1st and 2nd epistles of Clement, as well as in Polycarp and Justin, the “dogmatic” and “ethical” are inextricably linked. (Cf. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, S. 138). This connection was not interrupted in the subsequent development of theological thought, and it is necessary to note the connection between the ascetic moment itself and dogmatic teaching. Wed. Lib. cit. II, Bnd., S. 60: “in order to know the classical form of Greek piety, which served as the strongest root for dogma, one must study ascetic literature (um die clascische Form der griechischen Frömmigkeit, welche die stärkste Wurzel des Dogmas gewesen ist, kennen zu lernen muss man die asketische Litteratur studiren) Cp. SS. 135–136. III Bnd., S. 9 ff. Basic Christ., vol. II, p. 9. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 2 Aufl. Erl. and Lpz, 1908, I, S. 11. Op. Prof. Bonnwetsch. , Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte. München, 1909, S. 2. Wernle, Einfürung in das theologische Studium, Tübingen, 1908: ...Hiesgt aus dem christlichen Gottesglauben eine besondere christliche Moral? und ist diese der Richtung nach oder im Detait zu fixieren? And according to A. Harnack, even for the history of dogma, the question of the origin and essence of Christian asceticism is of “high interest” (von hohem Interesse). Wed. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I Bnd., S. 95, ff. Wed. Wernle, Einführung in das theologische Studium, S. 316: “dogmas for the most part provide answers to problems that the New Testament itself poses and which reappear in Christian experience.” Wed. S. 317. See, for example, † prof. V.V. Bolotova “review of the work: The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea”, Christ. Readings, 1908, October, p. 1404: “the clear mind (of Basil the Great) was looking for a transparently clear formula for its provisions, a stable formula, like a mathematical axiom, powerfully rejecting even the most magnificent eloquence, if it was fed by a mixture of technical expressions. A bright understanding of the surroundings and correct observations of his contemporaries suggested to Vasily that their fears that δμοούσιον does not sufficiently protect human thought against possibilities that are far from illusory and not relegated to the realm of the irrevocably lived - Sabellian errors - constitute the main obstacle to the complete triumph of the Nicene symbol; and Basil became the chosen instrument for an accurate and clear presentation of the (anti-Sabellian) truth about the three hypostases in St. Trinity." Wed. prof. P.I. Linitsky, The connection between religious faith and science. Kharkov, 1898, pp. 9–10. Wed. prof. E. A. Budrin: “Review of the essay by Prof. V. I. Nesmelova: “Science of Man, vol. 2.” Orthodox Interlocutor., 1908, July-August, p. 162: “if we feel a lack of rational foundations in relation to any dogma, then this deficiency is compensated by the testimony of the entire being of the human spirit, which affirms the objects of faith and demands recognition of their reality”... M. E. Posnov. Quote Art., p. 785. Wed. Theologian Vestn. 1905, March, pp. 595–596, 607–608. It is impossible to “recognize a thought,” which represents a special “spiritual value,” with which a person “grows and goes to the grave,” either by his deeds, or by his works (if it was a writer), or by any other embodiment of it, because every embodiment is conditional and incomplete. Incarnate, that is, having renounced its creator, it is already in a certain sense dead, it has petrified, it lacks the main thing: its independent life; it is a statue, not a living organism. It is quite possible to recognize such a thought only when it is alive, that is, inside a person. It is necessary to trace in him, in the living, its organic growth from embryo to flowering; we must see from what innate elements it arose, how it made its way, how it gradually absorbed a person, what strengthened it and where it gave up - otherwise we will never understand it in all its complexity and in its essence. Once a thought has been embodied, only its diagram can be deduced.” How rarely the subjective and the objectively valuable correspond to each other and coincide in their results, even in the field of artistic reproduction of life’s truth, Vl perfectly depicts. Korolenko in his article: L. N. Tolstoy. “Russian Wealth” 1908. III, pp. 126 et seq.: “the artist is a mirror, but a living mirror. He perceives from the world of phenomena that which is subject to direct perception. But then, in the living depths of his imagination, the perceived impressions enter into a certain interaction and are combined into new combinations, in accordance with the general concept of the world lying in the artist’s soul. And at the end of the process, the mirror gives its reflection, its “illusion of the world,” where we receive familiar elements of reality in new, hitherto unfamiliar to us combinations. The merit of this complex reflection depends on two main factors: the mirror must be smooth, transparent and pure, so that the phenomena of the external world penetrate into its depths without being broken, distorted or dim. The process of new combinations and combinations occurring in the creative depth must correspond to those organic laws according to which phenomena are combined in life. Then - and only then - do we feel living artistic truth in the artist’s “fiction”... The reflection of a face on the surface of a samovar is, of course, not a lie: it moves and changes expression, which means it reflects a real, living face. But between these faces and the reflection we see lay the distorting properties of the convex surface. But sometimes there is still rust on this surface, or it is corroded by caverns, or is painted with random reagents that change the living color... And then, sometimes, peering into the slightly flickering reflection of a living face, we barely recognize the features familiar to us: they are stretched, disfigured, distorted; in place of the eyes there are rusty spots, instead of a living body - the color of decomposition, instead of the “illusion of a living phenomenon” - the “illusion of a ghost”. Prof. E. A. Budrin. Quote. cit., p. 161. Die Tugendlehre des Christentums. Gütersloh, 1904, S. 53. Wernle, Einfürhung in das theologische Studium, S. 282. See, for example, from many places the following; “the Christian worldview (critic’s italics) can only be as it is presented in this book.” Basic Christ vol. III, p. 7. In the fourth volume “the personal critical element comes forward, foreseeing the future,” etc. Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. Blagovest. St. ap. Paul according to his origin and essence. St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 341 Wed. for example, a review by the late prof. A. II. Lebedev about A.V. Gorsky: “in our opinion, Gorsky as a scientist, as a church historian, as a person is very little expressed in literary works - he was taller, more serious, deeper, more insightful and more attractive than what his printed works portray.” Church historiography in its main representatives from the 6th century to the 20th. M. 1898, p. 353. In this regard, the nobility of tone differs, for example, the review of Prof. M. D. Muretova about the essay by Fr. M. Fiveysky “Spiritual gifts in the primitive Christian church” (M. 1907). “Theologian.” Bulletin, 1908, July-August; meeting journals Council. Compare, for example, Wernle, Einfürung in das theologische Studium. Tübingen 1908, S. 416 “Sofort erheben sich eine Reihe schwerer Pobleme: Recht und Pflicht dre Askese hier u s. w." Wed. S. 339. Truth and Science. “Theologian.” Vestn." 1908, December, p. 511. You might be interested in: