III. Творение рода человеческого

§ 23. The composition of the doctrine of God - the Creator of man and the entire human race After creating the material world, God created man, first a husband, then a wife, from whom the entire human race originated. God created man in a special way, different from the image of His other creations, and with a nature endowed with especially high perfections and advantages. In accordance with the peculiarities of human nature, the Creator indicated to him a special high purpose. Hence, when presenting the doctrine of God - the Creator of man and the entire human race, we must reveal: the doctrine of the origin of the first man, the doctrine of the origin of the entire human race, the nature and purpose of man. § 24. Origin of man The original origin of the human race on earth is a mystery that cannot be solved by man's own efforts. Therefore, a person can have true knowledge of his original origin only from the revelation of God. In revelation, this mystery is most fully proclaimed, as well as the origin of the material world, in the sacred history of Moses (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:7, 18–24). 170 The essence and meaning of the Mosaic legend about the origin of the first people. Its historical character. – According to the legend of Moses, the creation of man was the completion of God’s creative works. Man was created on the sixth day of creation, but after the creation of all earthly creatures, after the earth was arranged and adapted for his habitation and life. The image of the creation of man is significantly different from the image of the creation of all other creatures. Whereas before everything appeared simply according to the creative word: let it be that the creation of man was preceded by the advice of God: and God said (Elohim): Let us create man (v. 26). This is a council in the Trinitarian God Himself, i.e. between the persons of the Holy Trinity, and not a council of God with the angels, “council”, one can assume (based on the use of this word in Holy Scripture sometimes in the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination. eg Acts 2:23, Eph. 1:11), not only about the creation of man, but also about his re-creation after the subsequent fall by the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). Further, previous creatures appeared as something completely different from their Creator, and although the infinite perfections of the Creator were reflected on them, not one of them received such a property as to express the very nature of God. In the person of man, according to the definition of the Creator, a godlike and godlike being was supposed to appear on earth, that is, in its very nature having some resemblance to its Creator: Let us create man in Our image and in Our likeness (v. 26). Finally, according to His advice, God creates man not like other creatures, with a single word and a single action of His omnipotence, but with some special action, namely: He Himself takes up the dust of the earth and from it forms the body of man: And the Lord God created man from the dust of the ground; then he introduces a soul into the body prepared in this way, and not just creatively - let it be, or by commanding the earth to bring forth a living soul, but He Himself breathes it in with the breath of His lips: and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). Some time after the creation of Adam, God, also according to the special definition of “council” in the Holy Trinity, and with a special creative action, created a wife, forming her body, as a sign of her unity with her husband, from his rib. The writer of everyday life tells about the creation of the wife as follows: and the Lord God (Elohim) said: It is not good for man to be alone; Let us create for him a helper suitable for him... And the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and when he fell asleep, he took one of his ribs and covered that place with flesh. And the Lord God created a wife from a rib taken from a man, and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:18, 21-22). This is the revealed history of the creation of man. Despite the sublime simplicity and brevity of the presentation, the story of the divinely enlightened historian is distinguished by the depth and breadth of its content. Comparing this story with all the ancient and new teachings about the origin of man, one cannot help but see the great superiority of the teaching contained in it compared to the fortune-telling invented by man himself about his original origin and dignity. The Bible does not relegate man to the category of animals, as we see in the materialistic teachings of ancient and modern times, but it does not equate him with God, which is what pantheism does. As created from the dust of the earth, that is, from the same material elements from which other earthly creatures are produced by creative command, man, by the bodily nature of his being and by his external life, belongs to the visible, material world, and is only the highest link in the ranks of all other earthly creatures, the crown and completion of the entire earthly creation. But by its spiritual nature, it is elevated above all earthly nature: its soul is the breath of the mouth of God, that is, although it is not in the proper sense part of the breath or being of God (it is not divinae particulum aurae, as some pagans called the soul), for the living human soul differs far from God’s life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45), and the essence of God is simple and indivisible, but it God-like, which is why man can be called, as he is called in Holy Scripture, the race of God (Acts 17:28). They pose the question: is the narrative of everyday life about the creation of man the true story of the creation of the first man? Even Christian writers who recognize the inspiration of the Bible express the idea that the story of Moses about the creation of man, especially the wife, is not history, but only an outer shell, a free invention of the sacred writer for a more visual expression of the divine, dogmatic truths contained in it, or that this story is simply a metaphor, an allegory in which there is no correspondence of what is described with reality. 171 Both one and the other view of this legend are equally arbitrary and erroneous: It would be strange to think that the book, by its general nature, is undoubtedly historical, such as the book of Genesis, begins with an allegory, with which at the same time the undoubtedly historical events presented in the book are closely connected. Obviously, just as the legend about the creation of the material world is history, so the story about the creation of man is not an allegory or fiction, but a true story. Moses himself looked at his story in the same way. This can be inferred from the very tone or character of this narrative, its simplicity and some details (especially from the quoted words of Adam on the creation of woman 2:23), and even more from the genealogical tables found in the books of Moses, according to which the genealogy of many persons can be traced from Moses to Adam. The sacred writers looked at the narrative of Moses and what followed as history. All the main ideas of this narrative are repeated in both the Old and New Testaments. So, in accordance with this legend, it is said that man was created by God (Job.10:8; 33:4), created in the image and likeness of God (Wis.2:23; James 3:9; Eph.4:24), that his body was formed from earth (Job.10:9; 33:6; Eccl.12:7; Ps.103:29; Sir.17:1-3; 1 Cor.15:47, 45), that the wife was created after the husband, from the rib of Adam (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8–9 fn. 6:16; Eph. 5:28, 31), it is mentioned that Adam is the progenitor of all mankind (1 Chr. 1:1; cf. Pres. 10:1; Acts 17:20), and in the gospel of Luke the genealogy of I. Christ Himself is traced back to Adam (3:38). I. Christ also testified to the authenticity of this story, establishing the law of the indissolubility of marriage on the story of the origin of the primordial couple (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–8). The historical significance was acquired by the narrative of Moses and the Church of Christ, as can be seen from the doctrine of the origin of man proposed by the ancient church fathers and from the interpretations of the book of Genesis. Only very few from the Alexandrian school were inclined towards the allegorical understanding, more than others - Origen. But, having historical significance, this story does not require an exclusively literal understanding. Such an understanding would introduce crude anthropomorphism into the biblical narrative and would cause many other difficulties. This narration has as its subject an event about which it is impossible to speak in precise language, without the use of images and allegory. Moreover, it is intended “not for the wise alone, but for the wise and simple together.” 172 The story of the creation of the first man must be understood in accordance with this. This is exactly how it was explained in the ancient fatherly works. 173 False teachings about the origin of man. Darwinism. – The simple and, in its simplicity, sublime teaching of revelation about the creation of man by the omnipotent will of the Creator had and still has quite a few opponents in the person of one-sided adherents of natural science of a certain direction. Some scientists contrast the positive teaching of revelation about the creation of man with fortune-telling about the “natural origin” of man, and the biblical story of the creation of husband and wife is classified as a myth, similar to the legends of pagan religions. In the Christian world, this kind of fortune-telling, reminiscent of the homogeneous fortune-telling of pagan philosophers in the form of the doctrine of the natural origin of people from the earth, like worms or grass 174, began to appear from the end of the 18th and especially in the past 19th century. Instead of the Creator, human education is assimilated by these theories to natural and unconscious forces and elements of nature. Thus, one of the last scientists in the field of natural science (Ritgen) expressed, for example. the opinion that man, like plants and animals, could have originated directly from the earth in the likeness of an organic embryo or egg, which subsequently developed, and another, more famous naturalist argued that man was formed in the maternal womb of the sea and, thrown out of the sea during the high tide in infancy, grew up on the seashore, finding here everything necessary for his development and provision (the opinion of Oken and his followers). 175 Modern natural science does not allow that man and higher organisms in general could originate directly from inorganic matter, from the earth or the sea. Therefore, opinions about the natural origin of man, such as those given, currently have no defenders. The meaning of the dominant theory of the natural origin of man has recently been the so-called. evolutionary theory or Darwinism. 176 This theory assumes that man, like all higher organisms, arose through a gradual natural degeneration or transformation of lower forms of animal life into higher ones, so that he should consider reptiles, fish, birds, quadrupeds to be his distant ancestors, and some ape-like animal to be his closest ancestor. But the original, closest to inorganic nature forms of life (monera, as Haeckel calls them), from which, by transforming the simplest forms into more complex ones, all others arose, and among them the human race, according to the prevailing opinion of the defenders of this hypothesis (Focht, Buchner, Haeckel and many others), also arose directly from inorganic nature through arbitrary generation (autogenism). They try to substantiate this doctrine with various observations of nature, scientific references and considerations. However, this theory, in reality, is just as arbitrary an assumption as all other hypotheses of this kind that deny the participation of the Creator of the world in the creation of man. Neither the arbitrary emergence of life, nor the transformation of lower forms of animal life into higher forms of life has been and is not observed in nature; existing observations directly lead to the conclusion about the impossibility of the origin of life from death (i.e., from dead matter) and the transformation of some generic forms of life into others, i.e. lead to conclusions that fundamentally destroy the doctrine of the natural origin of man from lower forms of life, more particularly from ape-like animals. The main idea of ​​this theory, concerning the actual origin of man from any breed of monkey, has no support for itself either in experimental data or in known historical data. The ancestors of the human race from the animal kingdom assumed by this theory exist exclusively in the writings of Darwinists and nowhere in nature. Thus, it is impossible to recognize any of the currently existing breeds of monkeys as the direct ancestor of man, because the difference between them in terms of the structure of their bodily nature is too great, and in terms of spiritual properties, the distance is completely impassable. To be convinced of the absence of bodily generic unity between man and ape, it is enough to pay attention to the main features in the structure of the human body and the animals closest in appearance to it from the ape breed (which Darwinists consider the narrow-nosed monkeys of the old world: chimpanzees, gorilla, orangutan and gibbon). This includes: firstly, the features in the structure of the arms and legs, which give the basis for natural history to classify a person, according to his bodily composition, into the class of two-armed animals, and breeds of monkeys into the class of four-armed animals; secondly, the straight (vertical) position of the human body and its ability to walk upright on two legs, which is a consequence of the special structure of its skeleton itself, while monkeys are climbing animals and their bodily structure is adapted specifically to life in trees, to climbing branches, etc. These are the most important features. But there are other differences between them, also not insignificant, such as: the special structure of the throat organs and the head skull in humans and monkeys, the size and more advanced development of the brain in humans (the average weight of a normal brain is up to 1300 g) than in monkeys (from 330 to 500 g), the difference in the number of vertebrae (in humans there are 12, in chimpanzees - 14), in the position of the teeth, the structure of the nails, the nudity of the human body and Ave. This also includes differences in the human body, depending on its special attitude to the so-called laws of animal economy, such as: compared with the Zhivovs, a longer burden of bearing (in the orangutan 6–7 months, and in other breeds even less), longer life expectancy (on average in humans up to 80 years, and in special cases up to 100–150 years, and in monkeys does not exceed 20–25 years), later onset of full development or maturity age (in monkeys from 3–4 years of age, this is a clear sign of their purely animal nature) and, finally, the relatively insignificant dependence of man on local and climatic conditions, while monkeys and all animals are equally unconditionally subject to their irresistible influence. It can also be noted that on the body of every person, especially on his face, lies a special characteristic imprint that clearly distinguishes and elevates man above all animals. All of the above-mentioned features are undoubtedly generic features, and not accidental ones that occurred as a result of the influence of external causes. There are, of course, some features of bodily similarity between man and monkey, as well as other animals (for example, the same structure of human digestive organs as carnivores), but such similarity is not denied by the biblical teaching about the origin and nature of man. With such significant bodily differences, the spiritual differences between human and animal nature are even greater. The superiority of human nature over animal nature in this respect is so immeasurably great that it is enough to pay attention to the very first discoveries of human life itself in order to reject any thought about the similarity of man with an ape. In human tribes at the lowest level of development, the traits of all the advantages of man are still preserved, the external expression of which is the gift of speech, community, art, the ability to constantly improve oneself and, finally, religion. In this respect there is no comparison between the most uneducated tribe and anthropoid animals. In view of such features, even the defenders of human animal origin do not dare to recognize any of the currently existing breeds of monkeys as the direct ancestor of humans. They suggest that in former times there were breeds of monkeys closer to humans than those of today, that the first people were significantly different from the present ones and came extremely close to ape-like animals. But neither one nor the other assumption has been proven. The followers of the theory of evolution have hitherto, in all their searches, failed to discover in the fossil remains the intermediate links between man and animal. True, they point to several skulls that seem to occupy a middle place between the skull of a human and a monkey, for example. Neanderthal skull, Engiz, - skulls found in Büks, and in 1894 on the island. Java, also on the so-called microcephals (small-headed people); but neither these findings, nor the existence of microcephals (for these are simply deformities or anomalies) really prove that there once existed a special race representing the transitional stage from ape to man 177 . The most impartial of the most Darwinists (led by Darwin himself) admit that the connecting links connecting man with the ape have not been found either on or in the earth, and from this it follows that in the present state of natural scientific information, the origin of man cannot be satisfactorily explained from any form of animal life, and in general cannot be explained by the action of the forces of nature alone, regardless of the action of God's creativity. Not wanting to give up the idea of ​​​​the animal origin of man, the followers of Darwinism, however, think that in the future there may be intermediate links between man and ape, that such could be discovered (as Caspary, for example, claims) on the soil of ancient continents, now flooded with waters, if searches could be made here. But with the help of such evidence, especially inappropriate in such an important issue as the origin of man, it is obviously possible to prove anything. The immutable law of nature - the law of the unity and immutability of generic forms of life destroys the hopes of Darwinism for the future. In view of the unprovenness of the Darwinists' assertions about the animal origin of man, all outstanding representatives of natural science refuse to recognize this doctrine on the basis of scientific data. Thus, when at the Munich Congress of Naturalists (in 1877) Haeckel proposed that Darwin’s teachings be introduced into the school education system and replace the outdated creed, this is what the famous prof. testified orally and in print. Virchow (d. 1902): “I feel,” he said, “it is imperative to state that until now, all the positive discoveries that we have in the field of prehistoric anthropology have moved us more and more away from the proof of the connection between man and the animal kingdom... If, without going into fortune-telling, we strictly adhere only to the fact, then we must positively admit that there is a strict dividing line between man and ape. We cannot teach, we cannot publicly expose to the knowledge of science the doctrine that man is descended from the ape or from some other animal.” 178 He made a similar statement at the meeting of the international congress of prehistoric archeology and anthropology, which was held in Moscow (1692). “They look in vain,” he said, for the missing link that would connect man with a monkey, or with some other species of animal... We have never seen a man born from a monkey, or a monkey from a man. All ape-like people are only pathological products... We are rejected along the entire line in the question of man. All research to find the continuity of upward development has failed. There is no pro-anthropos, there is no ape-man; The "missing link" remains a phantom." 179 In conclusion of the analysis of the theory of the animal origin of man, we present an expressive warning made by St. Saint Elias the Great regarding the homogeneous teachings of ancient pagan philosophy: “flee the nonsense of gloomy philosophers who are not ashamed to consider their soul and the soul of a dog to be homogeneous with each other, and to say about themselves that they were once wives, and trees, and sea fish. And although I won’t say whether they ever beat fish, I am ready to affirm with all my effort that when they wrote this, they were more senseless than fish.” 180 The verdict is strict, but stems from the very essence of such teachings, equating the image and likeness of Eternal Wisdom on earth with a dumb and irrational animal, destroying the foundations of religion and morality, proclaiming (especially Darwinism) the beginning and essence of life for all creatures, instead of the creative principle of love, the destructive in all respects beginning of the “struggle for existence.” § 25. Descent from Adam and Eve of the entire human race. God, having created husband and wife, gave them a blessing to reproduce their kind: And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). And this blessing, like the blessing of the omnipotent Creator, who calls the non-existent as existing (Rom. 4:17), did not remain inactive, like human blessings, which often remain only good wishes, without having the inner power of implementation. Adam and Eve were truly the ancestors of the entire human race. All peoples, throughout the entire globe, with all the differences in language, education, skin color, physical and spiritual talents, are descendants of a single primordial couple and therefore represent a single human race in spirit and body 181. The truth about such an origin of the entire human race and complete unity between all peoples, like the truth about God’s creation of the primordial couple, without the revelation of God would forever remain hidden from man. In the first times of human life, it was a common belief of the descendants of a single forefather, but with the origin of paganism it became almost a common belief in the pagan world that human tribes successively arose in various places on the earth's surface - almost every people considered itself the original, born from the earth (αὐτόχθονοι και γηγενείς) tribe in their country. Such fortune-telling was destroyed and the tribal barriers dividing humanity were destroyed only with the spread of the Christian Church throughout the world, which proclaimed to all peoples the true teaching about the origin of the human race. The doctrine of revelation and the church. – In revelation, the truth about the origin of all mankind from one primordial couple is clearly and decisively attested. It is proclaimed both in the old and in the new testament. The first and main evidence of the revelation of the unity of the human race is contained in the book. Genesis. Here, as if to further establish the certainty of this truth, the story about the origin of all people from one couple is repeated three times. Having depicted the mysterious advice about the creation of man, the writer of everyday life narrates about its completion: And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:27-28). The writer’s reference to the creation of one husband and one wife in connection with the indication of the only God-established method of reproduction of people - by birth - and with God’s blessing given to this, makes it clear that the primordial husband and wife are destined to be the ancestors of all humanity. To think otherwise, that is, to assume that God will create new and different ancestors, would mean to doubt the effectiveness of God’s blessing. – The writer of everyday life affirms the same truth in more detail in the narration about the very image of creation of both husband and wife (chap. 2). He points out that Adam was the first and only progenitor of all people, whom no one preceded on the created earth: before Adam there was no man to cultivate the earth (v. 5). As the reason for the creation of the wife, the writer presents the fact that on earth at that time there was no helper for man like him (v. 20), which is why the first wife was created, who is clearly called the progenitor of the entire human race: Adam called the name of his wife Eve, for she became the mother of all living (3:20). - Finally, in the genealogical table of the antediluvian patriarchs (chapter 5), the creation of one couple is again affirmed - husband and wife, and from them descendants are produced, which from Noah spread throughout the entire earth. We find confirmation of this clear legend about the initial creation of one pair of first parents both in the Old and in the New Testament. The writer himself historically affirms the original unity of the entire human race, descended from one couple, when from Noah and his sons he produces many peoples now diverse in terms of tribal characteristics, such as, for example, the descendants of Mizraim, Hus, Shem and Japheth, and, in general, about all the peoples of the earth, concluding the calculation of the tribes, he says: These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogy, among their nations. From them nations spread throughout the earth after the flood (Gen. 10:32). By the name of the islands, the language of the Jews generally meant all the remote countries separated from Judea by the sea (Is. 11:11; Zeph. 2:11), which received inhabitants from one descendant of Adam through the sons of Noah: from them the whole earth was populated (Gen. 9:19). Moses points to the same initial unity of the entire human race, describing the miracle of the confusion of languages: before the time of the pandemonium, there was one language and one dialect on the whole earth (11:1). The confusion of languages ​​was the strongest motivation for the division of tribes: from there (from Babylon) the Lord scattered them throughout the whole earth (11:9; sn. 1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38). In accordance with the narrative of Moses, the origin of all people from one Adam is depicted in the entire Old Testament. So given in the book. Chronicles: The genealogy of people is traced back to Adam, as the ancestor of all people (1 Chronicles 1–8; cf. the genealogy of I. Christ in Luke 3:23–38). Tobias, in prayer to God, confesses: You created Adam and gave him Eve as a helper and his wife as a support. From them came the human race (Tov.8:6; fn. Pres.10:1). In the New Testament one can find both repeated confirmation of the legend of Moses about the creative origin of the human race by the Lord himself (Matt. 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–7) and His Apostles (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 15:41; Eph. 5:31; 1 Tim. 2:13–14, etc.), as well as new clear evidence of the origin of all people from one forefather: from one blood, says the apostle, He brought forth the entire human race to inhabit the whole face of the earth, having appointed predetermined times and limits for their habitation (Acts 17:26). But the most important confirmation of the truth of the unity of the human race in the new testament is the teaching of original sin, which spread to all people through the bodily descent of all from one: by one man, the apostle teaches, he entered into the world, and through sin died, and so death spread to all men, in whom all sinned (Rom. 5:12). And in the teaching about the universal - for Jews and Greeks, barbarians and Scythians (Rom. 10:12) the meaning of redemption and justification, the same apostle presents the truth of the unity of the origin of all people from one sinned and condemned Adam as undoubtedly as it is certain that justification is accomplished by the grace of one Man, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15); he says: just as through one crime there is condemnation for all men, so through one righteousness there is justification for all men to live (Rom. 5:18). The Church has invariably professed and professes the truth about the origin of all people from a single primordial couple, as one of the fundamental truths of Christianity. The teaching of the church about original sin, about its universality, about Adam’s death as a consequence of sin, as well as about the need for redemption for the entire human race and the comprehensive significance of the redemptive merits of Jesus Christ, is based directly on the truth of the origin of all from one forefather and without it would not have a fulcrum. This same truth underlies the doctrine of universal love, brotherhood and equality of peoples proclaimed by the Church. 182 As clearly expressed in revelation, it was accepted without objection even by the ancient heretics. Therefore, on the part of the ancient Fathers of the Church, the teaching about this did not require special evidence and special confirmation, except for the resolution, when explaining the book of Genesis, of some perplexities, for example, about the marriage unions of Cain and the first descendants of Adam, about the construction of a city by Cain, etc. And when revealing both dogmatic and moral provisions related to this truth, it is simply affirmed by them as a generally accepted truth. False teachings on the origin of the human race. – Having established itself in the Christian world instead of the ancient pagan doctrine of “autotones,” the teaching of revelation and the church about the origin of all people from “one blood” was not subject to any doubts or objections until modern times. But in recent times, various objections have been raised against this teaching. In the 17th century the theory of the so-called appeared and still has defenders. pre-Adamism, and from the end of the 18th century. The theory of the so-called began to be established and is still supported. polygenism (πολύς - many and γένος - kind). Both of these theories equally deny the unity of the human race, although for different reasons. In order to clarify and substantiate the divinely revealed teaching about the unity of the human race and in view of its special importance in Christian doctrine, we will analyze the erroneous teachings of pre-Adamism and polygenism and together indicate the most important evidence of the unity of the human race, presented from different areas of scientific knowledge by the defenders of the so-called. monogenism (μόνος - unique and γένος - genus). The groundlessness of pre-Adamism. – The essence of the teachings of the pre-Adamists is that before Adam there was a human race, which was created on the sixth day, along with the animals. It is assumed that she appeared simultaneously throughout the entire earth and that she was not swallowed up by the flood. From her came the pagans. As for Adam and Eve, they are only the ancestors of the Jews. They were created after the seventh day and settled in the earthly paradise, from where they were expelled for disobedience; they were subjected to a divine curse, which later destroyed their descendants in the waters of the flood. Other people, pagans, also sinned by violating the natural law. The first to express this opinion was Isaac Peyrer (1594–1676), a Bordeaux Calvinist. He and his closest followers tried to prove their opinion on the basis of St. Scriptures and ancient history of various peoples. The newest supporters of this opinion (mainly from the school of American polygenists, as well as some of the Roman Catholic theologians, for example, Ab. F. d'Anviers, R. Farloger) think that the assumption of pre-Adamism is required by paleontological data. The biblical chronology about the later comparative origin of Adam, in their opinion, is irreconcilable without the assumption of pre-Adamism with the supposedly proven deeper - several thousand centuries - antiquity of man. With the recognition of pre-Adamism, the Bible and paleontology are easily reconciled, the chronology of the Bible remains inviolable, for it applies only to Adam and his descendants, but does not apply to Adam’s predecessors, traces of whose existence allegedly exist already in the Tertiary era. But neither the biblical nor other data on which the opinion of the pre-Adamists is based can be considered sufficient. There is not and cannot be any valid evidence for pre-Adamism in the Bible; the evidence presented is based on a perverse interpretation of Scripture. Thus, pre-Adamists argue that the story in Genesis 1:27 about the simultaneous origin of the first human couple is completely different from the story in Genesis. Chapter 2 about the origin of first Adam, then Eve, settled in paradise, and that the man of the first chapter is not the Adam of the second chapter. But to assume so means to violate the meaning of the sacred text and to contradict other passages of Scripture (for example, Gen. 5:1–2; Matt. 19:4–5; 1 Cor. 11:8). The narrative of the 2nd chapter not only does not contradict the first, but, on the contrary, serves as its necessary addition and explanation: the first chapter speaks generally about the creation of the first people, man and woman, and in the second this general legend is supplemented by an explanation of the very method and time of creation, first of one husband, and then of a wife 183. Pre-Adamists see another important proof of their opinions in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4th chapter), in the following instructions from the Bible: 1) Abel was engaged in shepherding, and Cain was engaged in agriculture, but a shepherd with the flock is necessary to protect the flock from thieves and robbers, and agriculture presupposes the preliminary invention of the necessary tools, the existence of certain arts, etc.; yet this seems to lead to the idea of ​​the existence of people who did not descend from Adam; 2) Cain, after committing fratricide, before his flight from the country of Eden, expressed fear that anyone who met him would kill him, which also allegedly proves the existence of people who were not children of Adam; 3) Cain had a wife and 4) built a city in the land of Nod, in which he settled. Indeed, these data lead to the conclusion that quite a few people already existed on earth at that time, but it does not follow from them that these were not the descendants of Adam. The everyday writer points out that in addition to Cain and Abel, and then Seth, Adam also gave birth to sons and daughters (5:4), and it is more correct to think that he gave birth between the birth of Cain and the death of Abel, before the birth of Seth, the comforter from God (4:25), who was born after the murder of Abel. And Seth was born on the 230th year (according to the text of LXX) of the life of Adam. If we now assign the birth of Cain to the 30th year of Adam’s life, then it will be clear that by the time of Cain’s flight (i.e., within about 200 years), the offspring of both Adam and his children and grandchildren, with the special effectiveness of God’s blessing for reproduction and the longevity of the patriarchs, could have become significantly widespread and populated not only two, but also more countries of the earth; At this time, the descendants of Adam could have discovered the initial amenities of a hostel and simple tools for cultivating the still virgin soil of the earth and for constructing buildings. From here all the perplexities of the pre-Adamists, based on the story of Cain and Abel, are resolved. Abel's herding of sheep could have been for the purpose of finding better pastures, protecting livestock from predatory animals, etc. When Cain expressed fear of being killed, obviously he feared blood feud on the part of the descendants of Adam; the imaginary pre-Adamites, as alien to any tribal kinship with the race of Adam, could not have any incentive to take revenge on the fratricide. “Who did Cain have as his wife,” asks the blessed one. Theodorite. - Obviously my sister; then it did not serve as an accusation, because no law prohibited it.” 184 Regarding the city built by Cain in the land of Nod, it should be noted that it was not a city in the real sense of the word. "City" (Heb. ir - place of refuge, protection) The Jews called any village fenced with walls 185, and Cain needed such a fence either for protection from wild animals or, more likely, from the expected attack and revenge for the blood of Abel. In the construction of such a city, as well as in its settlement, Cain could have been assisted by his own offspring, with whom he retired and which could have been quite numerous. Finally, they think to find a basis for the idea of ​​​​the origin of various tribes of the human race from various ancestors in the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 10 ch.). The tribes and peoples counted here belong only to the so-called white generation of the human race, which embraces the Semitic and Indo-Germanic tribes; about other peoples significantly different from the Caucasian race, such as the Negro and Mongolian races, Moses allegedly says nothing in the description of the tribes descended from the clan of Adam. This proves that it is different and separate from what is described in Chapter 11 of the book. Genesis is the origin of these tribes, unknown either to Moses or to the people of Israel. But firstly, the special purpose of this genealogy - depicting the state and destinies of the Church of God on earth - does not allow us to look for a complete ethnographic genealogy of peoples in it, and therefore it cannot be concluded from Moses’ silence that he did not know about their existence, or that they do not belong to the descendants of Adam. Secondly, although the record of Moses has not yet been fully clarified, it is certain that this record embraces all nations as partakers of the same salvation, and represents everyone as having descended from Adam through Noah. From the descendants of a single ancestor, neither the tribes of peoples who are black in skin color are excluded, as can be seen from the mention of the descendants of Hus (the tribes of the Ethiopians are considered the descendants of Hus - Gen. 10:6, 7; sn. Jer. 13:23; the country of Hus is Ethiopia, 1 Chron. 1:10), nor the nomadic tribes of the so-called. Mongol tribe, one of whose ancestors was, according to interpreters, Magog (Gen. 10:2; fn. Eze. 38:6; 1 Mac. 4:47). Thirdly, scientific research and traditions preserved among different peoples more and more confirm that all human tribes have one common fatherland - Central Asia, from where they settled in all parts of the world, and from this it follows that they originated from one ancestor Adam through Noah and his sons. As for the idea of ​​the pre-Adamists that in order to reconcile paleontological data with the biblical chronology of Adam’s descendants it is necessary to recognize the existence of Adam’s predecessors, it proceeds from the wrong grounds. In fact, no traces of human existence in the Tertiary era were found with the most careful searches. In general, all the differences between biblical and geological chronology, as well as monuments from the history of ancient peoples, are reconciled without denying one of the essential and fundamental dogmas of Christianity (see below). The unfoundedness of polygenism. – Polygenism is a doctrine that recognizes that there are several human species, completely different from each other and having different origins and different ancestors. In the form of an unsubstantiated and randomly expressed opinion, this doctrine first appeared among materialist philosophers of the 18th century. (in Voltaire, Rousseau, Helvetius, etc.), and then moved into natural science and received the form of a scientific theory. Most polygenists are Americans (which is not without connection with their long-standing prejudice and dislike of blacks), but there are also European defenders of this teaching, partly from among Darwinists, partly from naturalists who do not share evolutionary theory. The defenders of this doctrine base their denial of a single species of the human race on the visible differences between human tribes. They argue that these differences, e.g. in the structure of the skull and the size of the facial angle, in the color of hair and skin, in the differences in languages ​​and dialects, etc., these are specific differences, i.e. the differences are significant, initial and permanent, not subject to change from any random causes or influences, and therefore are explainable only by assuming different original ancestors. From this they conclude that as many different species are in the human race, there are as many individual ancestors of humanity 186 . It is believed that this conclusion is confirmed by data, especially from philology and geography. The arguments presented by polygenists to prove their opinions cannot be recognized as valid. This has been sufficiently clarified by representatives of the doctrine known in natural science under the name of monogenism, which, in accordance with the Bible, affirms the unity of the human species, and therefore the human race 187 . Monogenist scientists have presented both a refutation of polygenistic arguments against the unity of the human race, and positive evidence of this truth. The most obvious way different tribes differ from each other is by skin color. The most dramatic of these color differences are black and white. Polygenists see this as one of the species differences between human tribes. But in fact, this difference is not specific, but one of fickle and changeable. The skin of both white and black consists of the same parts, the same layers, arranged in the same order. In both cases, these layers represent the same constituent elements, connected in exactly the same way. Scientists explain the difference in skin color by the long stay of different tribes in different climates, the influence of air, temperature, miasma, food, etc. That is why tribes of white-faced people, moving to countries with the climatic conditions in which black-faced people live, little by little take on their color, and after several centuries they themselves become black, just as, conversely, black people, settling in areas favorable to whiteness of face and skin, little by little lose their blackness, and their descendants, from marriages with whites, become completely similar in color to the latter. Finally, the sharpest difference between the skin color of black and white peoples is smoothed out by the existence of many intermediate mixed shades in the skin color of both nations. The same should be said about the difference in hair color, which also occurs from various random reasons, and is by no means specific. Further, as a species difference, they point to features in the physique, mainly in the shape of the skull or facial angle, which from 90 or 80 degrees in some lower races goes down to 70, and in the outline of the face. But comparative anatomy, the field of which cranial science belongs, does not recognize sharp, constant and unchanging differences between the forms of skull structure among the peoples of different tribes. The so-called main racial forms of the skull (oval shape - Europeans, elliptical - Ethiopians, etc.) do not exist in reality; on the contrary, significant deviations from each other in the form of the structure of the skull are noticeable, even among individual people undoubtedly of the same tribe. This explains the difference in the classifications of peoples according to the shape of the skull among different scientists. The difference in the structure of the skull, and through that in the facial angles, among other reasons, depends mainly on the unequal development of mental abilities. This is confirmed by numerous experiments on blacks, in whom, after a long stay in an educated society, as their mental abilities develop, the structure of their head begins to change little by little - their facial angle increases. Thus, the indicated bodily features are not at all permanent and unchanging. They can and do serve as the basis for dividing the human race into races or tribes, but cannot serve as the basis for recognizing species differences between different races. Due to the fact that the difference between them is not specific, cases of transition from one race to another are possible and actually observed. As one of the foundations of their theory, polygenists also point to the multiplicity and diversity of languages ​​and dialects, which supposedly could not have been formed from the language of one person, one forefather of the human race, and that there is a correspondence between language and races, so that as many primitive languages ​​as there are primitive races. But these statements are incorrect. The very changeability and improvement of language, as well as the ease with which a person can learn to speak each language, show the possibility of the origin of all languages ​​from one original language. This is confirmed by scientific research in the field of language. These studies have proven that all known languages ​​on the globe, based on the similarity of many properties and laws, belong to one of the three main families of languages: Indo-European, Semitic or Chinese. But even the most indigenous languages, despite the external differences in the structure of words, are all mutually connected with each other by a number of similar roots and words. In view of this, one can hope, as philologists hope, that these branches of universal human speech can be traced back to one root or to one original language. Of course, none of the currently existing languages was such a purely original language, but the changes and development of languages in the direction from monosyllabism (such as the Chinese language) to strict flexism (Indo-Germanic branch of languages; the intermediate branch of languages between monosyllabic and inflectional are the so-called agglunative languages), leads to the idea that, philologically, all languages in the human race descend from one primitive monosyllabic language, each of them accepted the substance and grammatical forms to a certain extent, although it is clear that the most ancient of these languages (for example, Sanskrit and especially Hebrew) could retain the properties of the original common language in greater completeness and purity. The claim of polygenists that there is a complete correspondence of racial types with the characteristics of language is arbitrary. The characteristics of races and languages ​​do not coincide at all. The racial type sometimes embraces peoples whose language belongs to different families and tribes, sometimes it contains one tribal language common to peoples belonging to different races. As for the very formation of many languages, the Bible teaches that it began with a miraculous confusion of languages ​​(Gen. 11: 1-10); With the settlement of peoples, the difference in language under the influence of various reasons should have become even more significant. Thus, both the plurality and diversity of languages ​​does not require for its explanation the assumption of special ancestors for different types of humanity, but, on the contrary, leads to the idea of ​​a single ancestor of the human race. Evidence from the natural sciences in favor of a common origin for the entire human race. – While the teachings of pre-Adamism and polygenism, which do not agree with the Bible, are unproven, the biblical teaching about the unity of the human race and, in particular, about the origin of all people from exactly one couple, on the contrary, is confirmed by the positive data of the natural sciences. Monogenist scientists present quite a bit of evidence of this kind, borrowed from various areas of human knowledge. We will indicate the most important of them. First of all, decisive evidence of the unity of the human race can be found in the data of anatomy and physiology. These sciences certify that no matter what clan or tribe people belong to, they all have the same anatomical structure of the body: not a single extra bone, not an extra vertebra, or tooth is found in any human tribe. In relation to the most important functions of life and the laws of animal economy, there is complete similarity between all tribes: all tribes have the same average life expectancy, average pulse rate, average height of people, duration of bearing, manner of birth, growth, food consumption, ability to live unhindered throughout the globe, etc. This is the reason for the remarkable phenomenon that mixed marriages of people belonging to the most diverse tribes can produce fertile offspring. And this circumstance is new proof of the unity of the human race; in natural science it has been established and has the force of law: all living beings that combine fruitfully with each other and produce offspring similar to themselves, capable of continuing the race, belong to the same breed, no matter how great the particular differences between them. And indeed, for example, in the animal kingdom, when individuals of different species unite, even those closest to each other (horse and donkey), either there is no fruit at all, or, if there is offspring, they quickly die out. Meanwhile, in the human race, marriages between all tribes are fruitful, and hence transitions from one race to another are observed. Psychological data also indicate the unity of the human race. There are similarities between people of all races in their spiritual properties. All people, no matter what clan or tribe they belong to, equally possess all the basic spiritual abilities, such as reason, will or freedom and feeling, equally display religious, moral feelings and the gift of speech, everyone has the ability for gradual spiritual improvement. In this regard, there is a difference between people in the degree of spiritual development, but the difference in degree does not say anything against the unity of the human race. An unequal degree of spiritual development is often observed among people belonging to the same people and even to the same family. Experience shows that the difference in the degree of development of different peoples depends a lot on upbringing, customs, and in general on external conditions. Negroes, for example, who grew up under exactly the same external conditions as Europeans, often achieved the same mental development as the latter, and, conversely, Europeans who grew up among savage peoples under the same conditions as them often did not rise above them at all. As for those reviews about some savage peoples, according to which some of them are alien to all religious concepts and are even incapable of assimilating them, are morally close to animals, cannot count more than three, their language is no better than an orangutan, etc., etc., then such reviews are immoderate exaggerations, based on superficial observations or on the deliberate humiliation of these peoples for various reasons. All such evidence about savage peoples is completely refuted by Christian missionaries. Finally, one cannot help but see confirmation of the truth about the unity of the human race in the similarity of religious traditions about the initial times in the history of mankind among various peoples, separated from each other from time immemorial. These are the legends that have been preserved, although not to the same degree of clarity and similarity with the biblical legend, about the most ancient events of the world - even before the time of the dispersion of the human race: about the first couple of forefathers, their blissful paradise life - about their fall and loss of primeval bliss, about the wickedness of the descendants of the forefathers, who brought the execution of the Divine with their crimes, about the longevity of the first people and about giants the primitive world, about the global flood, about the dispersion of peoples - legends about the origin of the world and man, among some peoples even preserving the biblical order of six-day creation. The remarkable similarities of these legends with each other and with the legend of these times by the writer of everyday life indicate their common origin from one source, and through this the unity of the origin and habitat of the first people. It is quite remarkable that such similarities exist among different peoples in various fields of knowledge and social institutions, mainly those that in ancient times were associated with religion and were partly of a sacred nature. This is the case, for example. the similarity of time reckoning systems based on well-known astronomical principles, the religious veneration of the seventh day, the similarity of measures of space based on the unity of the division system, etc. Obviously, this indicates a common focus from where enlightenment spread in ancient prehistoric times. The teaching of revelation about the origin of the human race contains not only the idea of ​​the unity of the human race, but also the idea of ​​the origin of all humanity from one primordial couple. Not only polygenists, but also some monogenists doubt the possibility of both the origin of all races from one couple and the settlement of people from one place throughout the entire face of the earth. Therefore, even monogenists (for example, Waitz, Agassitz, etc.) admit that a single human species received its origin simultaneously or sequentially in several countries of the earth. But science, although it is able to prove the unity of the human race, cannot say with accuracy whether there originally existed one couple or several original couples. According to Quatrefage, “science should not touch this fact, as it stands outside observation and outside experience” 188. This can only be known from revelation, and science, for its part, does not present any insurmountable difficulty in accepting the testimony of revelation, either from the possibility of the reproduction of the human race from one couple, or from the possibility of the settlement of all people from one place. All the data available regarding human reproduction do not allow us to doubt this possibility. This can be proven even through simple mathematical calculations. Thus, according to some calculations (Andrew Wagner), after 1600 years a whole billion people could have descended from one couple, or, according to another calculation (English Fowler), after 30 generations several billion people could have descended from one original couple. But the number of all people on earth even today barely exceeds 1,000 million. And the Bible also presents actual examples of a rapid increase in population, when there is a blessing from God, such as, for example. the multiplication of Abraham's descendants during 405 years, from the birth of Isaac to the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, to at least two million (Numbers 1:1–2, 45–46), the origin of twelve nations from Ishmael (Gen.17:20), etc.... It is also possible to resolve another perplexity associated with the doctrine of the origin of all people from one couple, namely: how could a person populate not only connected, but also continents and islands separated by large spaces? The cradle of the human race, according to the Bible and all scientific data, was Central Asia. Hence, the settlement of people throughout Europe and Asia, separated only by a mountain range, of course, did not present any difficulties. In the same way, the settlement of Africa from Central Asia (through the Isthmus of Suez and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait) could have been accomplished without difficulty. What seems more difficult is how the original settlers could have entered America. But even this bewilderment can be resolved with modern geographical knowledge. Even if we do not keep in mind the likelihood of the assumption of the inseparability of America with Asia in ancient times, then there is no obstacle to admit that people could penetrate into America from Asia through the Bering Strait and the chain of the Aleutian Islands (and now there is live interaction between the tribes of northern Asia and North America in this way), or through a group of islands of the Pacific Ocean. But that the inhabitants of America are immigrants is clearly proven by the study of religious and social institutions, traditions, language, morals and customs of the American tribes. – The population of the numerous islands of Oceania, separated by large expanses of sea, should no longer seem either impossible or difficult after the examples of the settlement of America. The degree of antiquity of the human race. – Since ancient times, against the teaching of revelation about the origin of the entire human race from the biblical primordial couple, the dissimilarity in determining the time of origin of man by the Holy Scripture and time, the reckoning of the most ancient pagan peoples (especially the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Hindus and Chinese), has been argued since ancient times, and in modern times, considerations based on geological data, etc. have been added to this. prehistoric archaeology. Based on all these data, a conclusion is made about the fabulous antiquity (several tens and even hundreds of thousands of years) of the human race, many times greater than the antiquity of man according to the Bible (6-7 thousand years), from which it is further deduced that the biblical Adam, if not a mythical person, can be recognized as the ancestor of only a private tribe, and not of all humanity, and through this, obviously, the doctrine of the universality of original sin and the necessity of redemption for all. But in reality, the opinion about the fabulous antiquity of the human race has no solid basis. So, with regard to the chronology of the ancient pagan peoples, it is now recognized that the antiquity of hundreds of thousands (among the Chaldeans and Egyptians) and even millions (among the Indians and Chinese) of years, calculated in the monuments of these peoples, is based not on solid historical data, but on excessive exaggerations of the Eastern imagination. The actual historical memories of the most ancient cultural peoples are all limited to the times closest to us, the historical sagas about their country begin from the time of the Flood, and reliable historical information does not go back even to one millennium. Also arbitrary are the statements of geologists about the fabulous (up to 200–300 thousand years) antiquity of man. Geological calculations are the most questionable calculations. “All the numbers,” says the geologist Pfaff, which are borrowed from geological periods of time to determine the antiquity of the human race, are extremely unreliable; of them, those that deserve the greatest credibility do not state a greater antiquity of human existence on earth, as from 5-7 thousand years.” 189 Recently, new confirmation of the deep antiquity of man has been thought to be seen in the discovery of the so-called. pile buildings. But the closest study showed that the most ancient of them do not go back further than 1000 years BC, and most of them do not go further than the 2nd and 3rd centuries. AD, that in Ireland such buildings were in use in the Middle Ages, and in Africa and some other places they still exist. Thus, the biblical teaching about the origin of the human race and from the side of determining the antiquity of man is in agreement with more accurate scientific data. § 26. God-established method of human reproduction. Analysis of opinions about the origin of souls I. The Creator of the world, destining the first-created husband and wife to be the ancestors of the entire human race, united them in a union according to which husband and wife are one flesh (Gen. 2:24), and which no man separates (Matt. 19:6). With the establishment of the marriage union, God also established the method of reproduction of people. The writer of everyday life narrates: and God blessed them, that is, the first-created husband and wife, and God said to them: be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it (Gen. 1:28), He blessed them precisely so that from themselves they could produce others like themselves and through this multiply and fill the earth. Thus, the God-established way of reproducing people consists of marriage and the birth of others like themselves. God's blessing for reproduction was given to the first parents immediately after the creation of woman, before the fall of man. It follows that the method of propagating the human race through marriage was established not only for fallen man, but also for man before the fall. In the fallen state of man, marital relationships are not free from the tempting effect of sinful lust. In view of this, in the ancient church it was suggested that this method of reproducing people was established only for fallen humanity, but that if there had been no Fall, then the reproduction of people would have occurred in a different way, unknown to us. 190 There was even an opinion that the very sin of the first parents was that Adam knew a wife. But the first opinion was expressed as nothing more than a private opinion, and the latter was the opinion of heretics - dualists (Encratites and the like of subsequent times). Although the church fathers believed that the married life of the first parents began after the fall, they never looked at marriage itself as a sin. According to Blessed Augustine, the very blessing of God in relation to marriage was given before people sinned, precisely in order to show that the birth of children relates to the honor of marriage, and not to the punishment for sin. 191 Sensuality did not have a captivating and enslaving influence on man before the Fall (and they were both naked... and not ashamed - Gen. 2:25), and therefore the marriage union was not and could not be connected with any impurity or sin. Even in the fallen state of man, under the action of the grace of Christ, the marriage union becomes an image of the union of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:28), and man is elevated to such a state that his body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Moreover, in the primitive, innocent state of man, the marriage union, while serving the great goal of multiplying members of the kingdom of God on earth, could be pure and sinless. The method of origin of people through birth from their own kind, established by the Creator, is the only one and obvious in relation to the origin of each person according to his bodily nature. But is this also the divinely established way of the origin of people according to their spiritual nature - according to a nature that, although essentially connected with the body, is opposite to the body? II. The image of the origin of human souls is a mystery, regarding which only fortune telling or assumptions are possible. There is no direct and clear teaching about this in revelation, and the instructions it contains are not so clear as to definitely resolve the issue. Therefore, even in Christian antiquity, several opinions were expressed on the issue of the origin of souls, which are still shared today. These are: a) the opinion about the pre-existence of souls, b) the opinion about the creation of souls and c) the opinion about the birth of souls from the souls of parents. All these opinions have their advantages and disadvantages 192 . A. Opinion about the pre-existence (praeexistentia) of souls. This opinion is of ancient pagan origin. In pagan religions it was associated with the belief in the transmigration of souls. From pagan religion it passed into pagan philosophy. Among the philosophers, this was shared by Pythagoras, Plato with his followers, Philo, and others. In the Christian world, it was initially expressed by some of the Gnostics, and Origen, having learned this opinion from the philosophy of Plato, presented the experience of its agreement with the truths of the Christian doctrine (in the book “On Principles”). According to him, all souls were created by God simultaneously at the very beginning of creation and since then have existed in the invisible world as pure spirits; they would never have left their heavenly abode if the abuse of free will had not made it necessary for them to cleanse themselves from sin in this earthly life. In accordance with the degree of sinfulness, as punishment and for correction, they are sent by God from heaven to earth and are united with certain bodies at the conception of these latter and, according to their moral state, are doomed to unequally favorable external conditions in this life. Origen's opinion was shared by many of his followers (for example, Pierius Alex., St. Pamphilus, St. Methodius, Synesius, Didymus Alex., John Hierus., etc.). In modern times, a similar opinion has been repeated in philosophy and Protestant theology (Kant, Schelling, Steffenson, Jul. Muller), as well as the like by spiritualists. This opinion, placing the spirituality of the soul above any doubt, can especially attract the fact that it provides an explanation for the inequality of external states and living conditions of people noticed in the world, starting from their very birth and childhood, inequality independent of any of their personal merits (the birth of ugly or healthy and beautiful bodies, in wealth or poverty, in the states of educated peoples or among savages, etc.). However, this opinion is an arbitrary assumption; Not a single saying of St. can be cited in favor of it. Scripture, 193 but the contradictions of his teaching in Scripture can be seen. Scripture clearly teaches that sin entered the human world along with Adam's crime, and not before it. It is obviously not possible to reconcile the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls with this doctrine without great stretching. Or - this teaching assumes that the body for the soul is something accidental, such as, for example. a house for a resident or clothing, but this is not reconciled with the Christian teaching about the relationship of the soul to the body. Further, this opinion contradicts inner experience. If the soul existed in another world before its transition to this world, it would remember something from its previous state: to forget an entire life with its actions is not natural: it is also impossible to explain forgetfulness by the new conditions of its life. Meanwhile, there is no memory of the previous life in the consciousness of human souls. It is even more incomprehensible how a soul will repent throughout its entire life for sins that it does not remember or know at all. The ancient teachers of the church also raised other objections to this teaching, for example. - why the devil, who fell deeper than all people, does not suffer the fate of the latter and does not put on a body, or - why Jesus Christ, who has no sin, had to put on a body (the objection of St. Augustine) and so on. In general, this opinion was rejected by them as an opinion “absurd and not churchly” (Gregory the Theologian), as “fabulous” (Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa) and “heretical” (Blessed Augustine) 194 . The Ecumenical Church condemned this opinion as wrong at the V Ecumenical Council. The first anathematism against Origen reads: “Whoever says or thinks that the souls of humanity pre-existed, that they were formerly minds and holy powers, enjoyed the fullness of divine contemplation, and then turned to the worse and through this cooled (ἀποψυγείσας) in the love of God, which is why they are called souls (ψυχὰς) and in punishment sent to the body, let him be anathema." 195 The church teaching on the origin of souls in conciliar acts is expressed as follows: “The Church, taught by the divine scriptures, affirms that the soul is created together with the body (τὴν ψυχήν συνδημιουργηθήναι τῷ σώματι), and not that one comes before and the other after, as seemed to Origen’s extravagance” 196. b. Opinion about the creation (creatinismus) of souls. According to this opinion, souls do not exist from the beginning of the world, but are created by God out of nothing at the very time when the body is formed. The first to express this opinion with certainty was St. Irenaeus of Lyons. 197 Among the church fathers, I. Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., Blessed, spoke in favor of the same opinion. Theodoret, Lactantius, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary and others. 198 They were persuaded to accept it partly by the small thoroughness of other opinions, partly by the thought that it was more consistent with the high dignity of the soul to recognize it as a direct creation of God rather than having any earthly origin, and partly by the immateriality and indivisibility (simplicity) of the soul. The advantages of this opinion include the fact that it easily explains the qualitative diversity of souls - the dissimilarity of spiritual talents in different people, the birth in certain times of people with rare and extraordinary talents, in others - with ordinary or unexceptional ones, and so on. Souls are created as such by God according to the wise purposes of His Providence. Nevertheless, there are significant difficulties in accepting this opinion. First of all, if the idea of ​​a new creation of souls can be agreed with the testimony of the writer of everyday life (with a not strictly literal understanding of it) that after six days of creation, God rested on the seventh day from all His works, that is, from the works of creation (Gen. 2:2), then in any case this opinion introduces supernatural creation into the natural order of the world. 199 Further, this opinion makes the creative will of God dependent on the action of human passions (carnal lust) and even seems to be in some cases indulging in these passions (especially the birth of children from illegal or criminal relationships). Finally, this opinion breaks the natural connection between generations of the human race and makes the transfer of moral properties, and therefore sinful corruption, from parents to children inexplicable. In fact, if every soul is a new creation of God, then where does the evil come from in it? It is impossible to recognize God as the Creator of the hereditary sinful corruption of the soul, but the idea that the moral character of the soul would be determined by the body and the body would be the source of evil is also unacceptable. It is also unclear from the point of view of this opinion how the incarnation of the Word will not be only the adoption of one body The opinion about the direct creation of souls by God does not have clear foundations in St. Scripture. True, some sayings of Scripture are cited in support of this opinion, but they do not directly contain thoughts about the creation of souls. Thus, they point to Ecclesiastes: And the dust will return to the earth, as it was; and the spirit returned to God who gave it (12:7); but here we are not talking about the origin of the soul in every person, but in general about its origin from God, as the culprit of everything that exists in time. Other indicated sayings of Scripture have a similar meaning (Ps. 32:15; Is. 42:5; Jer. 1:5, Zech. 12:1; Acts 17:25), in which God is portrayed as generally giving breath to people or creating the spirit of man. Likewise, the reference of the defenders of this opinion to calling God the father of spirits, as opposed to the fathers of the flesh (Heb. 12:9), also cannot serve as a decisive confirmation of the opinion about the creation of souls. Despite such shortcomings of the opinion about the direct creation of souls by God, in modern times it has become in the Roman Church the basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (1854), and at the same time it itself acquired a dogmatic character and even the direct meaning of a dogma. 200 V. Opinion about the birth (generatismus, or translation - traducianismus) of souls. - This opinion assumes that souls pass (or are transferred) successively from parents to children when a body belonging to one or another soul is formed, or - just as a seed is separated from the giving birth body to form another body from itself, so a special spiritual seed is separated from the soul to form a similar soul from itself. Therefore, the first source or first matter of human souls was the soul of the first man - Adam. Tertullian was the first to express the opinion about such an origin of souls. 201 According to the testimony of Bl. Jerome, it was accepted by many both in the East and in the West. 202 Of the great theologians of the ancient church, those who were inclined to this opinion (with limitations) were: Gregory Bog., Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius V., Macarius V. 203 This opinion, one might think, is more consistent than others with the evidence of Scripture and the data of experience. Thus, the initial blessing of God regarding the reproduction of people (Gen. 1:28) is expressed in the same words as it is expressed about the reproduction of animals (Gen. 1:22). Moses speaks about the birth of Seth by Adam: and he begot a son in his own likeness, in his own image (Gen. 5:3). These words can be understood to mean that Seth is the son of Adam both in body and soul. The Savior says that that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). By flesh (σάρξ) we must understand here the whole person, as he is born from someone like him, with sensual inclinations, without a decisive disposition towards spiritual life, which is given, according to the Savior, by the Spirit of God. From this we can conclude that a person is born from parents both in body and soul. The same idea can be seen in other places of the new testament (Matthew 1:1–16, Heb.7:5 and 10), especially in the words of the apostle: From one blood He made the whole human race (Acts 17:26). – Further, this opinion is in full agreement with the church teaching about the heredity of ancestral sin. Experience confirms this opinion by the similarity of children with their parents in perfections and shortcomings, which sometimes extends very far. As objections to this opinion, the following are put forward: cases of striking dissimilarity between parents and children, the transfer of original sin to children from such parents who are cleansed from it and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as well as the fact that all personal freely acquired sins should be transferred to children if their souls came from the souls of their parents. They also find this opinion irreconcilable with the simplicity and uncomplexity of the soul (and therefore the question is also insoluble: do the souls of children come from a husband or a wife, or from both together?) and with the lack of consciousness in the soul of the ability to produce from itself a similar other soul. But these objections are not insurmountable from the point of view of this view. Thus, the dissimilarity of children with their parents occurs not only in spiritual terms, but also in physical ones; however, it does not extend beyond certain limits that show the unity of the entire human race. The distinction between the concepts of the sinful state of nature and personal sinfulness, with a correct understanding of the doctrine of the justification of man by grace, makes resolvable objections regarding the transfer of original sin from parents who have been cleansed of it. One could see in this opinion a contradiction to the simplicity of the soul if one could imagine that the soul of the parents imparts from its being a new beginning of life, which then develops in the born, but this only shows that the mysterious birth of souls from the souls of the parents should be imagined differently, in the likeness of, for example. how light comes from light, or fire from fire. The absence in the soul of consciousness of the ability to produce again a being similar to itself, in view of the decisive evidence of experience about the direct spiritual connection of parents with children, cannot serve as a strong objection to this opinion. Thus, the opinion about the birth of souls from the souls of parents is comparatively more in its favor, but it needs to be supplemented by the opinion about the creation of souls. In this completed form, one can recognize this opinion as closest to the truth and resolves the question of the origin of souls in this way. Souls do not come from nothing, but from the souls of parents and with the participation of the souls of parents. How the souls of parents can take part in the origin of the souls of children is difficult to understand, but it is impossible to deny this participation in view of the similarity of children with their parents in spiritual qualities. One might think that the procreative power given to people by the blessing of God: grow and multiply, was given to them to produce others like themselves, not only in body, but also in soul. But the action of this power can manifest itself only by the definitely free will of God; Without God's will, no childbearing is possible. Not only that, each born soul is not just a simple repetition of the genus and species (as in irrational nature) or previous personalities, it is a new, independent personality, a new form of the image of God. But natural forces alone cannot produce a new creation; here the participation of a special higher creative force is necessary. Thus, it is necessary to assume that each soul receives existence not through birth only, but also through a special action of God’s creativity, just as, for example, in the history of the six-day creation, the action of the natural forces of nature was combined and excited by the creative force. This idea of ​​the origin of souls, i.e. that souls are created by God, but not from nothing, but with the productive participation of the souls of parents, is free from the shortcomings inherent separately in both the opinion of creation and the opinion of the birth of souls, and together combines the best aspects of these opinions. But in general, with regard to the question of the origin of human souls, “one should remember,” as Rev. Ep. Sylvester concludes his review of opinions on this issue, “that the origin of souls is a mystery known to God alone, about which our reason can partly guess, but which it cannot completely unravel, because it stands above all experience and is unclearly revealed in the word of God.” 204 Note: – Regarding human souls, not only the question of their origin has always been raised, but also the question of the time of their origin. When are souls created: is it with the conception of the body or at a certain moment when the embryo develops? In revelation there is no direct answer to this question, but there are only indications that the soul is alive even in the womb of a baby (Gen. 25:22; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:44). Therefore, different opinions are expressed on this issue. There is an opinion that souls are given and united with bodies at a time when the embryo has already reached some development, namely, when it has taken on human form 205. This opinion is based primarily on the following (translated from the Hebrew text) decree of the Law of Moses: if two men fight, and they strike a woman without idleness, and her child comes forth undisguised: let it be lost in vanity. If he is depicted, let the (guilty) one give soul for soul, eye for eye... (Ex. 21:22–24). But the expressions translated (in the Slavic Bible from the LXX text) with the words: not depicted and depicted must actually be translated (as they were translated from the Hebrew text in the Russian Bible Synod. Ed.): there will be no other harm from this and there will be harm from this (primarily, apparently, to the woman in labor). Therefore, there is no support for this opinion in the authentic sacred text. It actually seems strange: it assumes the possibility of the development of the human body without the participation of the spiritual principle and completely eliminates the possibility of reasoning about the relationship of the soul of the parent to the soul of the born. Therefore, another opinion can be considered more probable, that souls are created at the moment of conception of the body. But whether we accept this or that opinion, the union of the spiritual principle with the physical in the mother’s womb will remain equally mysterious and incomprehensible to us. § 27. The composition of human nature According to the teachings of revelation and the church, man, by the composition of his nature, belongs to two worlds: in body - the visible, material world, in soul - the invisible, spiritual world. He is not only a body, but also not a pure spirit: he is the unity of body and spirit (the small world is a microcosm). The doctrine of the two-component nature of human nature is expressed in the narrative about the very image of the creation of man. The initial action of God in the creation of man was the formation of the human body from the dust of the earth, and after that the animation of it with the breath of life or the infusion into it of a soul emanating from God, so that man became a living soul, that is, he became a living being, one in consciousness, two in essence. The idea of ​​a two-part human nature, obvious to immediate consciousness, also runs through all the frank teaching about man, his purpose and final destiny. The meaning of the body in the composition of human nature. – According to frank teaching, the body, in comparison with the soul, is the lowest component of human nature. Without a soul it is dead (James 2:26), it is dust, which is what it really was before it was revived by the soul and becomes after the separation of the soul from the body (Eccl. 12:7). Nevertheless, it is an essential component of human nature, a church (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; cf. 2 Pet. 1:14) and a vessel of the soul (2 Cor. 4:7). A person can live and act in the present visible world only in the body; without a body he is not a complete man (incorporeal beings are angels, and corporeal beings, but without a god-like soul, are dumb animals). The body is intended to be an inseparable companion and collaborator of the soul in all its functions and actions, to be its ministering instrument. Scripture calls on a person to act while there is day, that is, while earthly life continues; night is coming, that is, earthly life will cease, when no one can do anything (John 9:4). As long as there is time, let us do good, speak up. Paul (Gal.6:10). A person does both good and evil in earthly life with the participation of the body, which is why at the general judgment everyone will receive good or evil according to what he did while living in the body (2 Cor. 5:10). Depending on the spirit, it can become both a vessel of sinful uncleanness and filthiness (Jude 7 and 8 vv.), and a church of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17). And in the person of Jesus Christ, the Hypostatic Word Himself deigned to unite forever with the being of the human body - so high is the dignity and significance of the human body in its service relationship to the soul. The union of the soul with the body, according to revelation, is an eternal union; the death of the body or separation from the spirit is only a temporary phenomenon, for all bodies will one day be resurrected for eternal life with the soul (John 5:25 et al.; 1 Cor. 15:20, 44) and will be glorified in the likeness of the glorified body of Christ (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), and the life of the soul without the body until the general resurrection, according to the belief of the church, is only the foreshadowing of bliss or torment. Therefore, all Christians are called to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1; cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). Such bodies are glorified by God even before the general resurrection - in miracles of the incorruption of holy relics. With this significance of the body in the composition of human nature, its very structure is consistent. In all its parts and organs, it represents an extremely wisely and purposefully constructed vessel of the soul, adapted to be an obedient instrument of the soul and, in turn, to contribute to the spiritual development and improvement of man, his reign over visible nature and its creatures, and in general the achievement of his highest and final purpose. This idea, confirmed by revelation in short sayings (eg 1 Cor. 12:12-26), is especially detailed in the ancient patristic works 206. This is the essence of the revealed teaching about the significance of the body in the composition of human nature. It is impossible not to see how it rises above both the teachings of the false spiritualism of ancient pagan teachings (for example, Buddhism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, also dualistic Gnosticism, etc.), by which the body is considered the source of evil, a prison for the soul, and above the views of ancient and modern materialism, which denies the service of the body to higher goals and does not know for it any other life than the common one with dumb animals. While condemning these teachings as false, the frank teaching contains a decisive condemnation of both the unnatural asceticism emanating from the thought of the body as an evil principle, and the unrestrained service of sensuality. And from here we can see that this teaching is of significant importance for the religious and moral life of a person. Note. In Scripture, various names are used to designate the bodily nature of man. In the Old Testament, the actual substance from which the Creator created the body is designated by the word – dust (Heb. aphar), dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; cf. Lev. 14:42, 45; Job 34:14–15; Eccl. 3:19–21, etc.). The body is also called, but only dead, lifeless (Eccl. 12:7). Therefore, in relation to a living person, this name is used only in a figurative meaning (Gen. 18:27). The living body, with its soul, with blood is denoted by the word flesh (Heb. basar, e.g. Gen. 2:23; 9:24; Lev. 17:14), which name is applied to the human body and to all creatures living and moving on earth (Gen. 6:17, 21; 7:15, 10, 21; 9:11, 16, 17), and the central organ of vital force through blood circulation is recognized in general in a living being, and especially in man, as the heart (Gen. 18:5; 1 Sam. 25:37; Is. 12:7; Ezek. 21:7, etc.). However, sometimes the word flesh is used to designate the whole person, or more precisely, the sinful moral state of people, opposite to everything spiritual, pure, holy (for example, Gen. 6:3). In the New Testament, the visible side of human nature is predominantly called σῶμα - body, but is often designated by the word σάρξ - flesh (for example, Mark 14:38: Luke 24:39; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2 John 7; Rom. 2:28; Eph. 5:30; 6:12; Col. 2:5, and many others. etc.). But usually this last word is used in a broader sense - to designate the whole person with body and soul (John 1:14; 6:51; Matt. 16:17: Acts 2:17. Rom. 8:3, etc.), to designate earthly life in general (for example, Phil. 1:22; Gal. 2:20), and especially often - and predominantly in the apostle. Paul - to designate the carnal, sinful direction of a person’s life, opposite to life but the spirit (Rom. 7:14, 18; 8:3–13; 1 Cor. 3:1–4; Eph. 2:3 and many others). The existence of the soul in man. – With the body, the visible component of human nature, the invisible, spiritual principle is miraculously connected in human nature. In Scripture this principle is called either the soul - ψυχή, anima, nephesch (Heb.), or the spirit - πνεῦμα, spiritus, ruach (Heb.). It is completely different from the body and, in general, everything material and elemental, and equally different from the life principle of animals - the living soul. The existence of such a principle in man is clearly affirmed both in the Old and especially in the New Testament. 207 In the Old Testament, this truth is especially clearly expressed in the narrative about the image of the creation of the soul. According to the image of Moses, while God created the human body and the souls of animals (Gen. 1:20, 21) from the earth, and created it with His creative will, when creating the godlike human soul, He did not borrow anything from earthly elemental principles, but instead used one of His creative breaths (Gen. 2:7). 208 By its origin and nature, the human soul, therefore, is something special, immeasurably elevating man above the entire visible world and making him akin to God. Ecclesiastes, in accordance with what the writer of everyday life says about the origin of man, expresses himself about his death: and the dust will return to the earth, which is what it was; and the spirit returned to God who gave it (12:7). These words also indicate the difference between the soul and the body in nature and conditions of existence, and the reason for it. The same truth is affirmed in numerous testimonies of the Old Testament about the immortality of the soul, which is acquired only by man, and nowhere by animals, as well as in the depiction of the resurrection of the dead under the guise of the return of the soul to the body (1 Kings 17:21; Ezek. 37:6, 8-9). Note. There is an opinion (expressed in ancient times by the Marcionites, now repeated by rationalists) that the Old Testament assimilates the same soul to both man and animals and, therefore, does not contain the doctrine of the existence of an independent spiritual principle in man. The basis for this opinion is seen primarily in those sayings of the Old Testament in which the soul - nephesch, and sometimes the spirit - ruach are attributed to both man and animals, partly in the visible identification of the soul with blood, which is why the consumption of blood was prohibited (Gen. 9: 4-5). Such an opinion should be rejected as wrong. The word soul - nephesch, especially in conjunction with living - chaija, is used in the Old Testament in a very broad sense, in the sense of a generally living and moving being or a vital principle that animates the body, with the removal of which the living being dies (for example, Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 9:10, 16; Deut. 20:16; Josh. 10:40 and etc.), or in general in the meaning of “life” (for example, Gen. 32:30, Deut. 19:21; 1 Kings 19:2, 4; Ps. 34:7; 53:7; Job 27:8; Jonah 4:3; Jer. 21:9 and many others; in the New Testament in the same meaning, i.e. life is used sometimes ψυχή, for example John 12:25; Luke 12:19–20). In this sense, nephesch - soul, obviously applies to both animals and humans. But it does not follow from this that the life principle of animals and the human soul are homogeneous. When the Old Testament speaks of the soul, nephesch is the predominant name for the soul of an animal, but the proper name for the human soul, especially where the soul of animals and humans are compared with each other (for example, Job 12:10), is ruach - spirit. Ruach in psychological meaning is never attributed to animals and is always used in relation to man and God (the only exception is Eccl. 3:21), but in relation to animals it is used exclusively in the physical meaning - breathing. As for the expressions found in the Pentateuch: the soul is in the blood, or blood is the soul (Gen.9:4-5; Lev.3:17; 7:26; 17:11, 14; Deut.12:23), then in them there is no identification of the soul with the blood or body. They contain only the idea that blood is, as it were, the seat of the soul, the soul in the sense of the actual life principle in general, which is why in some places in the Old Testament the names “soul” and “blood” are used as unambiguous words (Jon. 1:14). But it is not directly said about the human soul that it is also in the blood. The book of Genesis says that life is in a person's blood (9:4, 5), and the book of Leviticus says about the soul of animals that it is in the blood (17:11). The blood of animals was forbidden to be eaten in order to instill in people respect for life and aversion to murder. In addition, the law on the blood of animals had a ritual and at the same time educational significance in the Old Testament. Since the blood of animals during sacrifices had to plead at the altar for human souls (Lev. 17:11), and this is, of course, because it prefigured the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lord appropriates it for Himself, forbidding people to eat it. The source and focus of all mental forces and actions of a person, his thoughts, feelings and desires and all his activities is recognized in the Old Testament as the heart (Gen.6:5; 8:21; 20:5; Deut.29:4; Ps.50:19; 54:22; Prov.10:23; 26:24; Is.29:13; Jer.24:7 and many others; sn. Matthew 15:17–20), the heart not in the physical, but in the moral sense. The opinion about the homogeneity of the soul of man and animals, however, was not unknown to the later writers of the Old Testament. In the non-canonical books of the Old Testament one can also find direct denunciations of this opinion. (Wis.2:23; Sir.17:1–8). In the New Testament, the existence of the soul, as a special spiritual essence distinct from the body and the higher body, is affirmed more clearly and more often. Jesus Christ told his disciples: do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but fear Him more who is able to destroy both soul and body (ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα) in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28). About the high advantage of the human soul over the earthly and sensual, He says: what good will it do to a person if he gains the whole world, but damages his own soul? or what ransom will a man give for his soul? (Matt. 16:26; Mark 8:35–37; cf. Matt. 6:25). Regarding the burden of sleep on His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, He says: the spirit (πνεῦμα) is willing, but the flesh (σάρξ) is weak (Mark 14:38), and at the moment of His death He cried out to His Father: Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit (τὸ πνεῦμά Μου – Luke 23:46). There is much of the same evidence in the apostolic epistles. The Apostle James writes: the body without the spirit is dead (2:26), which shows that the spirit is the bearer of life in man, in him is its main and only source and its ruling power The Apostle of Languages ​​inspires: glorify God both in your bodies and in your souls (ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν), which are God's (1 Cor. 6:20). He also teaches that the body is only a vessel (2 Cor. 1:7), a church for the spirit (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; cf. 2 Pet. 1:14), that the spirit (πνεῦμα) although connected with the body, can act contrary to the inclinations of the body (Gal. 5:17), in some special states it can even be detached from the body, so that it is difficult for a person to say whether he then exists in the body or outside the body (2 Cor. 12:2), that a person can live a personal and independent life after separation from the body: I have a desire to be resolved and be with Christ (Phil. 1:21-23). This is also assumed by the New Testament teaching about the general resurrection of the dead (John 5:22–29; 1 Cor. 15, etc.). Opinion about the tripartite composition of man. – The spiritual nature in man is called in Scripture either soul (ψυχὴ) or spirit (πνεῦμα). And the Apostle Paul has a saying in which soul and spirit are more directly distinguished in the spiritual nature of man, and a complete man appears to consist of body, soul and spirit. Thus, in the epistlers to the Hebrews about the effect of the word of God, the apostle writes: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword: it pierces to the dividing of soul and spirit (ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος), joints and marrow, and judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12). And he expresses his goodwill to the Thessalonians as follows: May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved in their entirety without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ( 1 Thess. 5:23, cf. Phil. 1:27). 209 Do I either constitute spirit and soul as two independent spiritual principles, or are they just two different names for the same spiritual essence, denoting different aspects and directions in its life? 210 Some of the teachers of the church of the first centuries of Christianity (for example, Tatian, Justin, Clement al., especially Origen, Didymus, etc.) were inclined to understand the teaching of Scripture and especially the apostle. Paul about the soul and the spirit in the sense of the two-part spiritual nature of man, and in relation to the whole man, thus accept a three-part division (spirit, soul and body, the so-called trichotomy). They had such an understanding in connection with the distinction, learned from Plato’s philosophy, between two independent spiritual principles in man. 211 The Arians expressed their opinion more decisively about the tripartite composition of human nature, and Apollinaris (the younger) even found in this teaching the basis for his heretical opinions about the face of the God-man. He distinguished in man the body, the living soul and the rational soul (ψυχή νοητική); the place of the latter in the incarnate Lord, in his opinion, replaced the Divinity. The Manichaeans recognized the tripartite composition of human nature. But such an opinion about the composition of human nature must be rejected, as it does not agree with the true teaching of St. Scriptures and the ap. Paul, nor with the teaching of the church in the person of the most famous fathers of the ancient church and, finally, as contrary to the testimony of our immediate consciousness. In revelation in general there is no teaching about the three-part composition of man - body, soul and spirit. When revelation depicts a person as consisting either of body and soul, or of body and spirit, then by spirit and soul it means only two different names for the same internal, invisible side of the human being. Therefore, both of these names are sometimes placed in parallel, as unambiguous (for example, I will speak in the distress of my spirit; I will complain in the sorrow of my soul - Job.7:11; sn. Pres.16:14). In particular, in the teachings of St. Paul's soul and spirit, which he assimilates to every person (Rom. 8:16: 1 Cor. 2:11; 2 Cor. 7:1), are distinguished not as two separate and independent parts of a person's spiritual nature, but as only two directions or forces of a single indivisible soul. The soul is ψυχή in the teachings of the apostle. Paul is the lower side of the single spiritual principle in man, facing the earth and the sensory world; the area of ​​its manifestations is either the life that occurs in the connection of the soul with the body, or that internal activity in a person in which he is a seeker of everything that delights our sensuality and avoids everything that is unpleasant to our flesh. Spirit - πνεῦμα - is not a special principle near the soul, - the same soul, but only at the highest level of its life, at which man is a moral being and knows God. According to the teaching of the apostle: with the spirit man serves God (Rom. 1:9), the spirit lives for righteousness (8:10), the spirit is the organ of testimony of the Spirit of God (8:16). In the present natural state, the human soul is more ψυχή than πνεῦμα; it is done by πνεῦμα or spirit in a state of grace-filled rebirth (1 Cor. 2:10–16). This understanding of the Apostle’s teaching about the soul and spirit is confirmed by the distinction he makes between the spiritual and the spiritual man - distinguishing them not by nature itself, but by their moral state. A spiritual man is a person who is occupied only with carnal or worldly calculations, who has set the task of his life to achieve temporary goals, peace and earthly happiness, because the highest things of earthly life are not available to him, and are not considered essential by him: a spiritual man (ψυχικός ἄνθρωπος) does not accept what is from the Spirit of God, because he reveres it madness; and cannot understand, because this must be judged (ἀνακρίνεται - discussed) spiritually (1 Cor. 2:14). A spiritual person (πνευματικός ἄνθρωπος) is a person pursuing higher goals: likening himself to God and glorifying Him, and to achieve these goals he also uses spiritual affinities: faith, sacraments and the grace of the Holy Spirit. In a spiritual man, the life of the soul is in constant subordination; according to the inner man, I find pleasure in the law of God (in the commandments of God), the law of the mind (νόμος τοῦ νοός); The natural man is governed by the law, warring against the law of my mind and that which is in my members (Rom. 7:22, 23). But just as a spiritual person can become spiritual through rebirth and self-development (Rom. 7:5, 6), so a spiritual person can descend even to the level of the carnal (Gal. 3:3). 212 In accordance with this teaching of the apostle. Paul about the soul and the spirit should be understood and the given sayings - Heb.4:12 and 1 Thess.5:23. Spirit and soul differ in them not as special independent principles, but only as two sides or forces of one and the same spiritual nature of man. In the first saying, this is clear from the very composition of the speech: the word of God also penetrates to the division of soul and spirit, as well as joints and marrow; members and brains are only parts of the same human body, and not separate parts of a person. Based on this, we can conclude that in the goodwill of the Thessalonians, the spirit does not mean a special component of nature, but the highest ability of the same soul, and the Thessalonian Christians understand the goodwill in such a way that they, along with the integrity of body and soul, would preserve their spirit until the day of Christ’s coming - that spiritual structure of life that distinguishes the regenerated (spiritual) person from the natural one. The doctrine of a two-part, and not three-part, human nature was the common teaching of all the most famous fathers and teachers of the ancient church. The composition of human nature from two principles - from the soul and the body, they (for example, Cyril Hierus., Gregory B., I. Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret, Blessed Augustine, I. Damascene, etc.) affirmed both in their explanations of the history of the creation of man and in general in their discussions about man, and by spirit they did not mean anything different from the soul, but only the highest side or stage in the life of the same soul. “The mind (also the spirit) in a person, according to St. I. Damascene, not anything different from it (the soul), but the purest part of the soul itself. For as the eye is in the body, so is the mind in the soul.” 213 Relatively few of the teachers of the first centuries were inclined to the opinion that the spirit is an independent spiritual principle in man, different from the soul, but only a few of them expressed their opinion more or less consistently, without deviating to the idea of ​​a two-part man. 214 But since the appearance of the false teaching of Apollinaris, the opinion about the three-membered composition of man was subjected to decisive condemnation, and at the same time the doctrine that in human nature there are only two components - body and soul - received special separateness from the expression side. “According to the teachings of Apollinaris, writes Blessed. Theodoret, there are three components in a person: the body, the animal soul and the rational soul, which he calls the mind. But divine Scripture recognizes one soul, not two; this is clearly shown by the history of the creation of the first man." "God. Scripture does not divide man into three, but says that this living being consists of soul and body. God created a body from dust, breathed a soul into it, and thus showed two natures, not three.” 215 Gennady of Messaly, asserting the same thing in his presentation of church dogmas (chap. 15, 19, 20), adds to this: “the spirit is not the third part in the composition of man, as Didymus thinks; but the spirit is the very same soul according to its spiritual nature.” Finally, the opinion about the three-part composition of human nature also contradicts the evidence of our immediate consciousness, which tells us about the existence of only two parts or principles in our composition, about the spirit or about our “I” and about the body, its instrument, but says nothing about the existence of any third component part. § 28. Properties of the human soul The soul of man, no matter how constantly and forcibly his own self-consciousness testifies to everyone about its real existence and difference from the body, in its essence remains incomprehensible to us. In this regard, the soul, as the image of God, fully shares the essential feature of its Prototype. Therefore, in revelation the essence of the soul is not determined, but only its properties are indicated, by which it is possible to form a fairly accurate and clear idea about it. The essential and most general properties of the human soul, according to the teaching of revelation, as well as according to the testimony of our own consciousness, are its independence, spirituality with the properties inherent in spiritual-personal existence - rationality and freedom, and immortality. Independence of the soul. – The human soul, although connected with the body, dwells in it like a church (2 Cor. 5:1:4), but it is an independent principle, distinct from the body. Numerous testimonies of revelation about the existence of the soul in man (see above, § 27) are together evidence of its independence. The frank teaching about the immortality of the soul and the afterlife before the resurrection of bodies also presupposes the independence and difference of the soul from the body. The soul itself invariably testifies to its independence in the immediate consciousness of every person. Therefore, people of all times, peoples and states, the truth of the existence of the soul, as a special immaterial principle underlying the phenomena of a person’s inner life, have always been and are considered one of the most self-evident truths that do not require proof - as undoubted as undoubtedly, for example. existence of the visible world. The denial of this truth (by materialists) for immediate consciousness is as incomprehensible as the denial of the existence of the visible world (in extreme idealism). Ancient (Epicurus and his followers) and modern materialists, recognizing matter as the only principle of being, argue that spiritual phenomena are not the products of an independent spiritual principle, but simply the sum of various functions of the nervous system and especially the brain. This seems to be confirmed by the constantly observed dependence of mental phenomena on the body and its states, why, with a healthy state of the body, especially the brain and nervous system, the functions of the soul occur freely and unhindered, and, conversely, with bodily disorders or underdevelopment of bodily organs, the spiritual life in a person is delayed or upset. But the existence of a relationship between mental phenomena and bodily states does not prove that the former are produced or generated by the latter, that is, it does not necessarily presuppose a causal connection between them. The existence of an observable connection between the functions and states of the body and discoveries in the activity of the soul and its abilities shows only that the manifestations of the spiritual principle that animates the body in a person, while he lives on earth, are made dependent by the Creator on the body, but not that spiritual phenomena are produced by the action of material causes. The assertion, on the basis of the dependence of mental phenomena on the functions of the body, that mental phenomena are nothing more than the activity of bodily organs, and especially the brain, is the same as if one began to assert that a game, for example. on a piano there is an activity of the keys and strings themselves, since the player is obviously dependent on the instrument he plays, and if the strings are broken or out of tune, then he produces only dissonance. Just as a player who plays is not one and the same with his instrument, so one must distinguish the soul with its abilities, as an independent beginning of mental phenomena, from the organ, depending on which external manifestations of activity and the soul itself and its abilities take place. Without recognition of the existence of such a principle, from bodily poisoning and in particular the brain and nervous system, none of the manifestations of mental life is inexplicable. Even the origin of sensory sensations, that is, the simplest and most primitive activity of the soul, cannot be explained from previous physical and physiological processes - without the participation of a mysterious something (the soul), completely different from the nerves and independent in relation to them. All the more inexplicable in this way are more complex manifestations of spiritual life, such as the formation of ideas or images of objects, especially those that arise, for example. when reading descriptions and narratives, and those created by our imagination. Explanation by brain processes of spiritual phenomena of a higher order - consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, especially about what is not given in sensory sensation, for example. about the infinite, of course, is even less possible. Along with observations of the dependence of spiritual phenomena on the body, there are many opposite observations - examples of the strong and irresistible influence of the soul on the body. If we deny an independent spiritual principle, distinct from the body, which animates and forms the body, phenomena of this kind are obviously completely inexplicable. But they are quite understandable when the existence of an independent spiritual principle connected with the body is recognized. Man was created by the Creator as a bodily-spiritual being, and therefore all his functions, while he lives on earth, bear the character of this bodily-spirituality, therefore both soul and body mutually act on each other 216. Spirituality of the soul. – The human soul, being an independent beginning of mental phenomena, also has a nature that is qualitatively different from the body. It is spiritual or immaterial in nature (Prov. Isp. 18 questions). This is clearly expressed in the narrative about the special way God created the soul. It was not created from earth and earthly elements, but from the breath of the Divine breath into the dust of the earth, man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). It is hardly possible to express the idea of ​​the spirituality of the soul more clearly than through the image of the breath of God’s mouth. The creation of man in the image of God also presupposes the spirituality of the soul, for the image of the immaterial and purest Spirit (John 4:24) can only be spiritual, and not anything material. The Savior taught: do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28) - it is clear that the soul is by nature opposite to the body, which is subject to destruction and death. Ap. Peter testifies about the Savior that He came down and preached with His spirit (His body was in the tomb) and the spirits in prison (the souls of dead people) (1 Pet. 3:18-19). In general, in revelation the truth about the spirituality of the soul is assumed to be obvious to immediate consciousness and therefore does not require proof. It is presupposed in the very name of the spiritual principle in man - soul and spirit, for the spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Actually, science cannot say anything more than what was said in revelation and science does not say anything about the essence of the spirituality of our soul. Her definitions of spirituality are limited to negative provisions: the soul is unextended, indivisible or simple, invisible (formless), and generally opposite to everything material. They pose the question: what kind of spirituality belongs to the human soul - pure and most perfect, or only relative, in comparison with the body and the material world? Some of the ancient fathers expressed the opinion that the human soul, like the angels, is spiritual in comparison with the material world, but in comparison with God everything turns out to be crude and material. “There is only one Divinity,” says St. I. Damascene, immaterial and incorporeal.” In his opinion, “angels, soul and demon, although they do not have physical coarseness, but also have the appearance and limitations inherent in their nature” 217. But this is a personal opinion. In general, the ancient fathers called the soul incorporeal, immaterial, intangible and invisible. Reasonability and freedom of the soul. - The human soul is a rationally free personal principle or being and, as such, constitutes a special type of creation of God - it is neither part of the universal spirit in the pantheistic sense, nor simply a vital principle or force, homogeneous with the living force of plants and animals. The human soul possesses the property of rationality, as its most essential distinguishing feature. Revelation, having as its goal the religious and moral teaching of man, and not the communication of formal and scientific definitions, depicts the property of the rationality of the soul primarily in view of its main goal. A distinctive sign of the rationality of the soul is, first of all, self-awareness, that is, the ability of the soul to distinguish itself from its body, from the visible world and from the entire content of its own life. It is this ability of the soul (the distinction between “I” and “not I”) that makes a person a personal being, independent and free, the culprit of his actions. Revelation not only assimilates this ability to man, but also makes self-knowledge, especially knowledge in the light of God’s commandments of his weaknesses and shortcomings, a duty in order to free himself from sinful thoughts and sinful moods. Let man test himself..., teaches the apostle; for if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged (1 Cor. 11:28, 31 cf. Matt. 7:3). He gives the instruction: Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves (2 Cor. 13:5). But most clearly one can see the special character of the revealed teaching about self-knowledge in the constant demand from man both in the old (for example, Ps. 50; 32:5; Job 33:27; Ezek. 18:23, 32; Jer. 14:26–21; Hos. 6:6 and many others) and in the new testament (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 3:3; Acts 17:30 and many others) repentance (μετανοία) - living consciousness and confession of sinfulness, as a necessary condition for the remission of sins and entry into the kingdom of God. In the same way, recognizing in man the ability of rational knowledge, revelation, as a distinctive sign of the rationality of the soul, points not so much to this ability of knowledge in general, but to the ability of higher or religious knowledge. It calls only the pious and believers in God truly reasonable, and recognizes the wisest of “this world” and the wicked as insane and equates them to senseless beasts. Just as the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7), the knowledge of God and the action of His love that saves man (1 Cor. 1:19-27; 2:14-16), so the manifestation of madness is the denial of the existence of God (The fool said in his heart: “there is no God.” - Ps. 13:1), serving the creature instead of the Creator and wickedness (Rom. 1:19-32), alienation from the life of God ( Eph.4:17–18). – Finally, one of the most significant external signs of the intelligence of a person’s soul is the gift of speech or articulate speech. In the Bible, this gift is considered a distinctive feature of the human soul, which is why animals, as dumb creatures, are recognized as having no reason (Ps. 31:9; 46:21; 2 Pet. 2:12, etc.). The existence of freedom is a new essential sign of the spiritual principle in man. The human soul is free, that is, it has the ability to voluntarily direct its activity to certain objects, to choose one or another path, to give preference to one or another motivation for activity (the so-called formal or psychological freedom). The existence of such freedom in St. Scripture assumes to be common knowledge. Numerous commandments requiring man to obey the law of God, the promise of rewards for fulfillment and punishments for violating them would be inappropriate if man were not free. The existence of this freedom in man is affirmed in many private sayings of Scripture: Behold, today I have set before you life and good, death and evil, Moses said on behalf of God in his farewell admonition to the Jews, choose life, that you and your descendants may live (Deut. 30:15, 19). If you want and obey, you will eat the blessings of the earth; but if you deny and persist, the sword will devour you: for the mouth of the Lord speaks (Is. 1:19-20). The Savior teaches: If you want to enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17; cf. 23:37; John 7:17). The Apostle testifies that man is sovereign in his own will (1 Cor. 7:37: fn. Rom. 1:21; Col. 5:21; Eph. 5:10, 15–17). But the particularly high dignity of the rational human soul does not lie in this freedom, but in the freedom that makes a person a moral being. This freedom of the soul is spoken of primarily in St. Scripture. This freedom (the so-called moral freedom or freedom of spirit) consists in a person’s voluntary desire for the purpose indicated to him by God or for good; it excludes sin. And. Christ said to those who believed in Him: if you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:31-32), and to those who do not believe he says: everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.... So, if the Son frees you, then you will be truly free (John 8:34, 36 v.; fn. Rom. 6:17). Ap. Paul teaches: where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17), and about himself he says: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2; cf. James 1:25; 2:12; Rom. 8:20). 218 Thus, the human soul is a self-conscious or personal and rationally free principle. Man’s ability to live a rationally free life, arising from his self-conscious spirit, is a property that immeasurably elevates and essentially (and not quantitatively) distinguishes the human soul from the soul of animals. The Word of God, assimilating to animals the soul (nephesch, ψυχή), as well as the simplest mental and physical states (for example, pain and suffering - Rom. 8:22, fear - Job 36:33, gratitude - Is. 1:3, etc.), however, nowhere does it not only not assimilate to them the ability to live a rationally free life, but also directly denies the existence of reason in them, calling them dumb (Jude 10 v., 2 Pet. 2:12, etc.), freedom (Ps. 32:9), ability to live a rational life (Ps. 72:22). In Scripture, a person who has forgotten and does not know God is likened to senseless cattle (Ps. 48:13). 219 Immortality of the soul. - The human soul is immortal. It was created capable of living not only in the body, but of continuing a conscious and independent existence even after the cessation of its connection with it, that is, after the death of the body. The property of immortality is acquired by the soul both in the Old and in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not given full disclosure, but the statement that in the Old Testament, at least in ancient times, there was no this teaching 220 is completely false. The deepest basis of the immortality of the soul lies, according to the Old Testament teaching, in the divine creation of man in the image of God. The soul of man is the breath of the mouth of God, and in his spiritual nature man bears the image and likeness of his Creator. But just as the Prototype is eternal, so the trait of immortality is imprinted in the being created in His image and likeness. God, says the Wise One, created man for incorruptibility and made him the image of His eternal existence (Wis. 2:23). Therefore, death, according to the definition of God’s judgment over the sinned ancestors, should extend only to the human body (dust you are and to dust you will return) and does not extend to the breath of the mouth of God - the soul of man, sealed with the image of God (Blt.3:17-19; fn. Eccl.12:7). On this basis, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was proclaimed and professed during all periods of Old Testament revelation. All patriarchs professed this faith. They called themselves strangers and strangers on earth - by which, as the apostle noted, they clearly expressed that they were looking for a fatherland, and strived for the best, that is, for the heavenly (Gen. 47:9; Heb. 11:13-16). They usually called God the God of the fathers who had already died (Exodus 3:6), and this, according to the Savior himself, served as new proof of their faith in immortality, for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32). They looked at death as an addition to their people or a migration to their fathers (Gen. 25:8, 9, 17; 35:29); the same expression is used in the story of the death of Moses in Deut. (33:50; 34:6). In all these cases, attachment to one’s people differs from burying a body in a coffin and, therefore, indicates the resettlement of another part of a person - the soul - to a country where previously departed souls already lived. They called the place where souls move after death Sheol (in the translation LXX - ᾅδης); So, Jacob said, mourning the imaginary death of Joseph: with sorrow I will go down to my son into the underworld - Heb. scheolah (Gen. 37:35). By Sheol, he, without a doubt, meant the place where the soul of his son went, and not the tomb of Joseph’s body, because he was sure that his son was torn to pieces by wild beasts (Gen. 37:33) 221. An especially tangible proof of the existence of another world and the immortality of man could serve for the people of that period in the application of Enoch: And Enoch walked with God; and he was no more, because God took him (Gen. 5:24), that is, God honored him with some special glorious transition to another life - he was translated so that he did not see death (Heb. 11: 5: fn. Sir. 44:15). Later, St. Elijah was awarded a similar transition to another life: he was carried into heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11), and was caught up in a fiery whirlwind onto a chariot with fiery horses (Sir.48:4, 9). The belief in the possibility of calling the dead that existed among the Jews during the time of Moses, kings, prophets and after the captivity (Lev.19:31; 20:6; Deut.18:11; 1 Sam.23:29; Is.19:3; Sir.46:20), the description of the actual appearance of St. Samuel (1 Sam. 28:1-25) show that the faith of the patriarchs the immortality of the soul was invariably preserved in their offspring. This belief was confirmed in the three cases of resurrection of the dead mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:33; 13:21). But the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is most clearly expressed in the teaching and prophetic books of the Old Testament. Thus, the Psalmist confesses: God will deliver my soul from the power of the grave when He receives me (48:16; cf. 15:9–10; 29:4). Ecclesiastes says: and the dust will return to the earth, as it was; and the spirit returned to God, Who gave it (12:7; fn. Ps. 146:4). In these same books one can find in fairly detailed detail images of Sheol (Ps. 62:10; Ezek. 26:20; Job 10:20–22; 26:6), a common place for the souls of all the dead (Ps. 89:48–49; Job 30:23; Proverbs 21:16), their afterlife state (Job 3:17–19; Is.38:18–19), as a state of consciousness (Is.14:9; Ezek.31:3–18), the thought of unequal rewards for the righteous and sinners (Wis.4:7, 10–11, 14; Ezek.32:18–32; Ps.48:11–16), about the liberation of the righteous from the bonds of hell (Hos.13:14; Ps.16:15), about the future judgment (Dan.12:2-4; cf. Pres.4:20; 5:1-7; Eccl.11:9; 12:14) and, according to the merits of the Redeemer, the resurrection of the dead, when souls will again be united with bodies (Is.25:8; 26:19; Ps.16:15; Ezek.37 ch.; 2Mak.7:9; 12:43–45) 222. In the New Testament, the entire teaching is permeated with the idea of ​​the immortality of the soul. The fundamental truth of Christianity is the truth that God is the God of life: to the Sadducees, who rejected the immortality of the soul and the resurrection, the Lord said: you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God... About the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:29–32). The Savior encouraged courage in the fight against sin by the fact that those who kill the body cannot kill the soul (Matthew 10:28). In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, He makes it clear that after death, just as the soul of the righteous Lazarus enjoys peace, so the unfortunate soul of the rich man is alive, but troubled by sorrows (Luke 16:19-31). The reward for deeds of self-denial, according to His promise, will be a blessed eternity: he who hates his soul in this world will keep it to eternal life (John 12:25; Matt. 19:29). The victory of Him, our King, over death is the victory of all believers: I live, and you will live, He says (John 14:19). In accordance with this promise of the Savior, the apostles expressed the conviction: For we know that when our earthly house, this hut, is destroyed, we have from God a dwelling in heaven, a house not made with hands, eternal (2 Cor. 5:1; cf. Heb. 13:14; Phil. 3:20). For for me life is Christ, and death is gain... I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ (Phil. 1:21-23; cf. 2 Cor. 5:6-8). The conviction in the immortality of the human soul, based on the testimony of the word of God, can find some confirmation for itself in the fact that belief in the existence of an afterlife is a belief as deeply ancient and universal in the human race as religion itself. It also agrees with the principles of sound thinking, as evidenced by the rational proofs of the immortality of the soul that appeared in the pre-Christian world (in Greek philosophy) and are now presented in a developed form (their most important forms: ontological, psychological and moral). 223 The question is raised: how to understand the immortality of the soul - is it immortal by nature (in the sense of inability to destroy), or by grace? Of the ancient teachers of the church, some limited themselves to simply asserting that the soul is immortal, since it bears within itself the image of the eternal God 224, or immortal, since it is incorporeal or spiritual, and spirituality necessarily excludes its destructibility 225. But others complemented this thought by explaining that God alone is unconditionally immortal, which is why He is called the only one who has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16), and in the God-like nature of the soul, although there are the makings of immortality, in its final foundation immortality, like the existence of all created things, is exalted by the will of God. So St. I. Damascene says: “Only God is ever-present”... Immortality, like other properties, “was received by the soul by nature by the grace of the Creator.” However, “everything that has a beginning by nature also has an end.” Therefore, “the continuation of the existence of creatures is the work of His all-containing power,” therefore, the final reason for the immortality of the soul is in the goodness of God. According to St. father and “angel, immortal not by nature, but by grace.” 226 Otherwise it is impossible to understand the immortality of the soul. For although the soul bears in itself the makings of immortality, but as having received existence by the will of the Creator, by virtue of this same will, if only the Creator wanted, it can cease to exist, since “to the Creator,” notes St. Epiphanius, it is possible to destroy even the immortal.” These are the most important properties of the human soul: the human soul is an independent being, distinct from the body, spiritual, rationally free and immortal. It is these lofty properties of the human soul that make man a god-like being. § 29. The image and likeness of God in man Man is created in the image and likeness of God. The nature of all creatures reflects the perfections of the Creator, but of all earthly creatures only one person is gifted with the image of God. And God said, says the writer of everyday life, Let us create man in Our image and in Our likeness... And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; He created them male and female (Gen. 1:26–27; 5:1). What is the image of God in man? Since God, by His nature, is the purest and most perfect Spirit, then the image of God must be placed in the being of the human soul. The external sign of the image of God in man, according to the instructions of the writer of everyday life, was the royal power granted to man over all the creatures of the earth (Gen. 1:26). But it is clear that the ability of such dominion relates to the soul, and not to the body. The ancient fathers and teachers of the Church believed that the image of God was in the soul, and not in the body of man, strongly condemning the opinion of the anthropomorphites, who represented God as having a human body 227. The body can be involved in the image of God in the human soul only as an external reflection, dwelling and organ of the soul. The most particular features of the image of God in the human soul, according to the explanation of St. Fathers of the Church, consist in those properties and abilities of the soul that are given to man in creation itself, constitute the essence of his spiritual nature, bring him closer to God and distinguish and elevate him above dumb animals. Such features, according to ancient patristic teaching, are in particular: spirituality, as an image of the most perfect simplicity of God’s being, reason, as an image of the infinite mind of God, free will, capable of loving good and being holy, as an image of the infinitely free and independent will of God, which is the highest love and holiness, immortality, as an image of the eternity of God, the gift of speech, as an image of the hypostatic Word. 228 Is there a difference between the image and likeness of God in man? In St. Scripture gives reasons for this distinction. Thus, the writer of everyday life indicates that God is in the council of St. The Trinity determined to create man in His own image and likeness, and about the creation itself it is expressed: and God created man, in the image of God he created him (1:26–27). The silence about the creation of man and in his likeness is, without a doubt, not accidental. One might think that this indicates that the image of God was given to man in creation itself, as something innate to the spiritual nature of man, and the likeness is given only in possibility, there is only an ideal to which man can approach by revealing the God-given powers and abilities (or ideal aspirations) of his nature. 229 In other places of Scripture, there are indications that the image of God is also in fallen man, for example, in the words of God to Noah: whoever sheds the blood of man, his blood will be shed by the hand of man: for man was created in the image of God (Gen. 9:6; fn. James 3:9), or in the words of the apostle. Paul about the husband, that the husband is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7), and meanwhile Christians are commanded to put on the new man, created according to God, in righteousness and holiness (in the central glory of the Bible - in reverence) of the truth (Eph. 4:24). From this we can conclude that not only in fallen man, but also in the primordial, the likeness of God had to depend on his will and activity, and is given to man in the very nature of his soul, preserved even in people corrupted by sin (Gen. 9:6), although in a darkened form, only the image of God. The ancient church fathers also made a distinction between the image and likeness of God in man. “In a word: the image signifies the strength of the mind and the power of freedom,” says St. John of Damascus, and in a word: in likeness, assimilation to God in virtue, as much as possible.” “To be in the image of God,” argues St. Gregory of Nyssa, is characteristic of us from our first creation, and to be in our likeness also depends on our will... and exists in us only in possibility, but is actually acquired through activity.” 230 So, the image of God in man is a similarity with the Prototype, innate and inherent in our soul, although it can be obscured under the influence of sin, and similarity constitutes the task or goal of human life, which can be achieved through active exercise and improvement of the natural properties and abilities of man according to the commandment of the Savior: Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). § 30. Appointment of a person Having placed man above all earthly creatures, adorning him with predominant perfections and gifts, the Creator of the world thereby predicted for him a special, high purpose, different from the purpose of other earthly creatures. 231 This purpose is to achieve, through the gradual disclosure and formation of strengths and abilities, through an active striving and approach to one’s Prototype, the full measure of God-likeness possible for a finite being and the closest unity with God or communion of the Divine nature, and with this the possible full participation in Divine bliss throughout all eternity. Man's final goal is in God, in communion or living union with God. Created in the image and likeness of God, man by his very nature is in some way of the divine race (Acts 17:28–29). Being of the race of God, he cannot help but seek communion with God - not only as with his beginning and prototype, but also as with the supreme good: for in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Outside of living and personal communication with God, nothing can calm a person’s spirit; everything is vanity and ruin of the spirit (Eccl. 1:8, 17–18; 3:10–11; 8:17). There is only one peace for man - in God. 232 Therefore, it is instilled in us: Seek the Lord, seek His face always (Ps. 26:8; 104:4). The psalmist confesses: My soul thirsts for You (Ps. 62:2); As a deer longs for streams of water, so does my soul long for You, O God ( Ps. 41:2 ),... it is good for me to draw near to God ( Ps. 72:28 ). He cried out to the Lord: cast me not away from Your presence (Ps. 50:13), knowing that those who remove themselves from You perish (Ps. 72:27). According to the testimony of the New Testament revelation, Jesus Christ, who came to restore man to the primitive state and bring him to the final goal of his creation, from which he deviated through the fall, directed the entire work of redemption to destroy the barrier that separated man from God, and to lead him to peace and unity with God. Departing to suffer on the cross, He cried out in prayer to His Father: that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so that they (all believers) may be one in Us (John 17:21, 24 f. Eph. 2:14; 2 Cor. 5:19; 2 Pet. 1:16, etc.). And the apostle points out that the Son of God, having completed the work of redemption entrusted to Him by the Father, will lead those resurrected into eternal and blessed union with God, from which man fell through sin and into which he was returned by the death of the Redeemer: When he has put all things in subjection to Him, then the Son Himself will submit to Him who put all things in subjection to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). But, as a rationally free being, a person can achieve communication or unity with God only through the conscious and free improvement of his powers. Hence, in order to achieve the ultimate goal of his existence, man must strive for the fullest possible reflection of the perfections of God in his nature - holiness and generally a God-like life. In particular, gifted with a mind similar to the mind of God, with an innate love for truth, a person is obliged to strive and come as close as possible to possessing the truth that God Himself possesses; equally, having the will, with an innate attraction to good, he must strive to achieve holiness similar to the holiness of God, and in his heart, with the ability to feel and love, cultivate love and taste for that supreme good, which is by nature God Himself. Revelation clearly points to God-likeness as the task of human life. God Himself tells people: be holy, because I am holy (Lev.11:45 fn. 1Pet.1:15-16). Be perfect, the Son of God inspires, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). The Apostle testifies that God called us out of darkness into His wonderful light precisely so that His perfections might be revealed in us (1 Pet. 2:9). And man is inspired in all his deeds to glorify His Creator by exaltation in virtue. So let your light shine before people, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16). The Apostle teaches: glorify God both in your bodies and in your souls, which are God's (1 Cor. 6:20; cf. 2 Cor. 9:12–13; 1 Pet. 4:10–11); Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do everything to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). The ancient fathers of the church pointed to this purpose of man when they taught to distinguish the image of God given to man by nature from the likeness of God, which constitutes the task of human life, and in general when they said that we were created in order to imitate and become like God through good deeds. Pointing to the likeness to His Prototype as a measure of a person’s spiritual self-improvement, revelation shows that to achieve such a task, not a certain measure of time is assigned, but an entire eternity. Moral success and self-improvement, beginning in earthly life, will continue throughout eternity (Matthew 25:46; John 16:22; Rev. 22:5, etc.). As a person becomes like God, he becomes capable of communication and unity with God. According to the testimony of revelation, just as sin removes God from man, so holiness and purity bring man closer to Him. Thus, God Himself says about some: My Spirit will not forever be neglected by men; because they are flesh (Gen. 6:3), and to others he promises: I will dwell in them and walk (2 Cor. 6:16). The Savior also promises to the one who loves Him and keeps His word: we will come to him (Father and Son) and make our abode with him (John 14:23), and according to the words of the Apostle John, he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16). It follows from this that as one achieves likeness to God and communicates with God, another goal is achieved by a person, and as its consequence - bliss. For God is an endless and inexhaustible source of all good, therefore, assimilation to Him and communion with His very nature cannot but be accompanied by a feeling of the highest bliss. In the Savior’s conversation about the beatitudes, beatitude appears to be a consequence of the moral perfection of man and the communion with God connected with him (Matthew 5:3–12). The state of bliss, as a result of communion with the Divine nature, felt by people of true moral and spiritual life even in earthly life, will be revealed in its possible fullness in the future life, with the revelation in all the power of the kingdom of God, when believers will see God face to face (1 Cor. 13:12; cf. Matt. 5:8), will see the glory of the Only Begotten Son of God (John 17:24) and will appear in the house of God as His heirs and joint heirs with His only begotten Son (Rom. 8:16–17) and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). This future bliss cannot be comprehended by human thought: the eye has not seen it, the ear has not heard, and it has not entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). This is the purpose of man in relation to his godlike soul, which obviously has much in common with the purpose of the world of pure spirits. But a person consists not only of a soul, but also of a body. It follows from this that with the destination for blissful union with God, man is also destined for the earth and earthly existence, that is, he must achieve his destination no other way than through the medium of the earth and the sensory world. This is the peculiarity of the purpose of man in comparison with the purpose of the world of pure spirits. And the visible world is truly adapted by the wisdom of the Creator to what is an excellent auxiliary means for man to achieve his purpose. It provides rich and varied food for the development of a person’s cognitive abilities, reasons for discovering and strengthening the will, for developing and nurturing a sense of beauty, and as a great book, incessantly preaching about the perfections of God, as a majestic church of God, in which God is everywhere and constantly present, the world constantly disposes a person to elevate his spirit to God and thus helps a person to achieve greater and greater growth in his knowledge and love for Him, as well as more and more close inner union with Him. And so that the earth and the external world cannot serve as an obstacle to man in achieving his highest purpose, man is appointed by the Creator as king and ruler over the visible world (Gen. 1:26) and endowed with powers that are incomparably higher than all earthly and elemental forces and make him capable of managing and mastering them. This is the teaching of revelation about the purpose of man. This purpose was indicated to the primordial man, but it remained the purpose of the fallen man. Only the paths to achieving this destination are different. Before the Fall, the path to man’s achievement of his destination was paved in paradise, bright, painless, not blocked by death, and fallen man must achieve his destination through earthly wandering, by struggling with sin to free himself from it and assimilate the saving fruits of redemption, through death, corruption and resurrection. No teaching, neither religious nor philosophical, has ever indicated a higher purpose for man, one that corresponds to the deepest needs of human nature, nor can human thought indicate it. In natural teachings about the purpose of man, both religious (for example, in Brahminism - the doctrine of merging with Brahma, in Parsism - the doctrine of the fight against evil), and in philosophical (eudemopicism, utilitarianism, altruism, the doctrine of autonomous morality) one can find only part of the truth, but not one of them has risen to the knowledge of the true plans of the Creator for man in the fullness as God Himself deigned to reveal it. In real life, renunciation of the frank teaching about the purpose of life leads to joyless pessimism, to a loss of consciousness of the value of life, which is sometimes resolved by suicide 233. The literature on the issue of human origins is predominantly apologetic in nature (against evolutionary theory). – Glagoleva S.S. prof. About the origin and primitive state of the human race. Moscow. 1894 – Sergievsky N.A. prot. Creation of the world and man. – Kudryavtseva V.D. About the original origin of the human race on earth (3 volumes, 2 issues of his work). – Ornatsky F. Origin of Man (Tr. Kyiv. Ak. 1881, Nos. 1 and 4). – Petropavlovsky I.D. prot. Antiquity and origin of the human race (according to Pfaff) and Geological research on man. (Sn. Sat. Art. “In Defense of the Christian Faith,” issue 2. Moscow 1897). – Popova V. The inconsistency of Darwin’s doctrine of the origin of man (Prov. Sob. 1873, I–III volumes; 1874, II volume). Modern natural science teaching about the origin of the universe. - Meñana. Peace and primordial Human. 94 pp. et seq. - Fabry. Letters against materialism. St. Petersburg 1870 Add. 1st – Belyaeva A.D. prof. The meaning of the story of St. Moses about the creation of man. Moscow. 1882 Bogorodsky Ya. prof. The origin of man, his nature, dignity and purpose. Right Sob. 1903 In ancient times, the view of this legend of Moses as an allegory was developed by the Alexandrian school, especially by Origen in connection with his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. In the 16th century Cardinal Cayetan especially insisted on its allegorical understanding. This understanding has not disappeared in our time. The view of this same legend, as a fiction to express the truth about God - the Creator of man, is expressed not only in Protestant theology, but even in Roman Catholic theology (especially Lenormand). The basis of this understanding is the false idea that in Scripture only doctrine and moral teaching are inspired by God, and everything else is not inspired by God. Metropolitan Philareta Zap. on the book Genesis. Page 7 according to ed. 1816 These are, for example. explanations of this story: Chrysostom in Bes. on the book Life VIII ; Gregory Nis. in tr. “On the structure of man” (1 part of his work in Russian translation) and in demons. on the next Scripture: Let us create man (Chronicles, 1840, III), in explanation. on the book Life bliss Theodorit, Ephraim the Syrian, blessed. Augustine, in I. Damascene in Tochn. izl. faith (II book. 12 chapters) and others. In pagan philosophy, the question of the origin of man was resolved differently, but generally in a materialistic sense. Some of the philosophers (Anaxagoras. Parmenides) produced man, as well as animals, from a mixture of elemental principles, dissolved by moisture and warmed by the warmth of the sun; others thought (like, for example, Empedocles) that the earth produced the disparate members of man, which later united into one whole; still others (for example, Democritus) brought people out of mud and water in the likeness of worms, and Epicurus and after him Lucretius attributed to the earth the birth of the first babies, in the likeness of grass, etc. Further, Aristotle hesitated between accepting such opinions and the thought of the eternity of living beings. An opinion was also expressed in pagan philosophy (by Anaximander) about the origin of people from animals that changed their breed. See Kudryavtsev. On the unity of the human race (III vol. 2 issue op. 3 pp.) and The original origin of the human race (199 pp.). See Kudryavtsev V.D. About the first. origin kind of people pp. 217–219 Charles Darwin’s essay “On the Origin of Man,” which addresses the issue in the spirit of the doctrine of the transformation of species, was published in 1870. But the idea of the animal origin of man in the same way was expressed in the 18th century by the English scientist Ern. Darwin and the Frenchman Demellier, and later by Lamarck, who proved the kinship of man not only with monkeys, but also with fish (transverse the lines on the human body seem to have been inherited from fish). See Glagolev about this. About the incident and primal comp. person Chapter IV, also in Art. “Imaginary discovery” (Bog. V. 1896 Oct.). See about the Munich Congress, in Art. – Are the conclusions of natural science about the origin and life of man reliable? (Chronicle Thu. 1880, Jan.–Feb.). From the abstract of Prof. Virchow, read at the congress on August 1. 1892 See Church. View. 1892 No. 35, also art. Glagoleva S.S. Moscow Congress in relation to the question of the creation of man in Thurs. Love. Spirit. Ave. 1893 No. 2. Vasily V. Bes. 8 on Shestodnev, p. 139. M. 1845 Literature. – Kudryavtseva V.D. About the unity of the human race (III volume, 2nd issue. Op.). - Sergievsky Prot. Creation of the world and man. Chapter IX - Meñana. The world and the original Human. Chapters VI–X Glagoleva S. On the origin and origins. state of the human race. - Gettinier. Apol. hr. II part 5 hrs. - Rozhdestvensky. Apologetics. II vol. 283–293 pp. – Luthardt. Apology. 5 Thu. - Zhane. Morals unity of people kind. 1872 – (approx. to the book “Modern natural science about the origin of the universe.”). - Quatrefage. Natural history of man. Transl. Suvorin 1861 – Viguru. Rukov. to read. and studied Bible. I vol. 396–413 pp. – Bellustina. The origin of the human race from one couple (Sunday Reading, 1872). In addition to this significance, the dogma of the unity of the human race has a special significance in the sense of historical truth. Faith in the unity of the human race gives rise to the best aspirations that developed especially in the Christian world, such as: concerns about the enlightenment of savage peoples, the liberation of enslaved and oppressed tribes, the establishment of peaceful international relations, etc. The denial of this unity is combined with the denial of the brotherhood of peoples and their spiritual union. The example of ancient paganism with its constant international wars, fratricide, violence, slavery, etc. sufficiently shows what are the consequences of the loss of a living consciousness of the truth of the unity of all people in spirit and body. This is how the ancient Fathers of the Church explained the indicated difference in the narrative. See eg. Vasily V. Sl. about the device person (Chronicle Thu. 1841 IV. 7 pp.). Chrysostom On the book. Life b. XII. Ephraim Sir. On Life (VI vol. 323 pp.). Theophilus To Autolycus; Book II, chapters 19–20. On Life Rep. to the question 44. Wed. Zlat. On the book Life Demon. XX, 1. August. About gr. God XV book. Chapter 16 Filar. Metropolitan Zap. on the book Life The number of original species is calculated differently by different polygenists. Thus, Vire, who was the first to give polygenism a scientific form, distinguished only two types of people, Bory admitted 15 types of people, Desmoulins - 16, Morton - 32 families, which consist of many species, Gliddon - 65. and some (for example, Knox) ​​even think that people are created according to nations. Such a difference of opinion indicates that in reality the constancy and immutability of species assumed by polygenists does not exist, that, on the contrary, one race passes into another. Among the convinced monogenists are quite a few famous scientists, such as, for example. Haller, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Camper, Humboldt, Blumenbach, Rud. and Andr. Wagner, Flourens, Quatrefage, etc. Quatrefage. Natural history 245 pp. Rozhdestvensky. Apologetics II vol. 252 pp. cf. Art. (according to Pfaff) Antiquity and origin. people kind (in the book “In Defense of the Christian Faith.” 2nd issue. 99–100 pp.). The same opinion on the issue of the antiquity of man was expressed by other scientific naturalists, for example, Russian academician Baer, American Dawson. A comprehensive consideration of the issue of the antiquity of man can be found in the above works (note on p. 149 to § 25). See also article in Pr. Ob. - About the antiquity of people (1866, No. 2), in Prov. Antiquity of Man (1 vol.), Letters from Prot. 2, add. Of the ancient church fathers, Gregory of Nyssa most clearly expressed this assumption. See about the device. people Chapter 17 See Martynova A.V. prot. Uch. St. Gregory Nis. about human nature. 123 pp. et seq. A more detailed explanation of this thought and solution to the question - would there have been birth in paradise if no one had sinned? See in the work of the blessed. Augustine - “On the City of God.” XIV book. Ch. 21–23 A relatively detailed analysis of opinions about the origin of souls was made by Rev. Sylvester. Op. Dogma. God. III vol. §§ 47 and 48. Sn. Seredinsky T. prot. About the origin of the soul in every person. Riga. 1896 See also Archimandrite Theophilus. From notes on psychology. Collection lectures by professors Kyiv. spirit. acad. 1869 209–220 pp. and art. in Christ. Thurs. 1864 Part I. The origin and immortality of the human soul. Some exegetes believe that in the Old Testament there are traces of the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, but this opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the passages they indicate, namely Job 1:24. Ps.139:15; Pres.7:3; 8:19. See bishop. Chrysanthes. Rel. ancient world III vol. 153–155 pp. Grigor. God. Sl. 37 (III part 226–227 pp.). Theodore. Izl. God. dogma Chapter IX - Grigor. Nis. about the device sat down Chapter XXVIII August. About the city of God. XI book. Chapter 23; About the book Life letters Book VI Chapter 9 and others. Sn. Pisareva. Uch. bl. Augustine about man. 192 et seq. pp. See also Kiril. Al. – On John 1:9; Damascus. Izl. ver. Book II Chapter 12 Lact. Divine. mouth III, 18, Hieron. Pis. 226 to Mark., as well as the letter of the emperor. Justinian against the opinions of Origen (Acts of the ecumenical council in Russian translation Kaz. 1868, V vol. 460–505 pp.) Acts Everyone Sob. Rus. lane vol. V p. 504. Kaz. 1868 Prot. heresy 2 books II, 33. Ep. Sylvester. Dogma. God, III vol. § 47. The rest of God from the works of creation can be understood conditionally and with limitations. For an explanation of this idea, see Prof. V. D. Kudryavtseva. Origin world (III volume 1 issue op. 318–320 pp.). See prot. A. A. Lebedeva. Differences east. and west, church. into the doctrine of the Most Holy. Virgin Mary. 1881 pp. 206–212 Tertul. About the soul, ch. 19–21, 24–25, 27, 36–37, etc. This opinion about the origin of souls in Tertullian is supported by his definition of the soul as a corporeal substance corporalis, having the figure and shape of the human body and even a certain color. Hence Tertullian’s position that the soul of Adam is the natural and only source of human souls. Grigor. God. Sl. about the soul (IV vol. 243–244 pp.) Gregory Nis. About the device people Chapter XXIX About the soul and resurrection. (IV vol. 297–299 pp. in Russian translation) Afanas. Vel. Resp. ad Quaest. Antioch 26. Macaria Bes. 30, § 1. Blessed. Augustine hesitated between accepting this opinion and the doctrine of the creation of souls (see Pisarev. St. Augustine’s Doctrine about Man in His Relation to God. 1894, 193–199 pp.). Ep. Sylvester. Op. Dogma. God bless III vol. 339 pp. according to the edition. 1899. The right reverend author himself is inclined to accept the opinion of the direct (without the participation of the souls of parents) creation of souls by God, expressing his thought as follows: “it is better to directly adhere to the hypothesis of the creation of souls accepted by the church.” – Rev. Filaret in his Dogma. Theology (I part § 126) gives preference to the opinion about the birth of souls from the souls of parents. Rev. Metropolitan Macarius resolves the same question this way: “God creates human souls, as well as bodies, by the power of that very blessing - to grow and multiply, which He bestowed on our forefathers at the beginning, He creates not from nothing, but from the souls of parents” (Dogme. Theology 1 vol. § 79). An opinion close to this is expressed in the Orthodox Church. confession of P. Mogila: “the soul, it is said here, is given from God (can be understood as the Creator of life in general) at the time when the body is formed and made capable of receiving it. And when it enters, it spreads throughout the whole body, like fire in a red-hot iron” (answer to question 28). But this word is strongly dependent on the Roman Catechism (“spills” - taken directly from there). See eg. Gregory Nis. – About the structure of man (I part in Russian translation). Vasily V. - Demon. 3, on the next listen to yourself (IV part 44–46 pp.). Blazh. Theodorit - about Providence. Sl. 3–5 (in V volume). For a fairly detailed review of the revealed teaching about the human soul, see Art. Vorontseva A. The Bible's teaching about the human soul (Prov. Sob. 1900, II–III parts and in separate ed.). “Why does the earth plague the living soul?” asks Vasily V., and answers - “to know the difference between the soul of cattle and the soul of man. since, according to Scripture, the soul of every animal is its blood (Lev. 17:11), and condensed blood usually turns into flesh, and decayed flesh decomposes into the ground, then in all fairness the soul of cattle is something earthly” (On Shestodn, demon. 8. Works. Vas. Part I Moscow 1845, 138 pp.). Sayings similar in form of expression are also found in the Old Testament (according to the LXX translation), for example. Job 7:15; 12:10 ; Ps.16:9. On this issue, see Art. On the three-part composition of the human being (Reader. Lyub. spiritual. enlightenment. 1892 March-April.), - Stukova F. A note regarding the meaning of the teachings of St. Scriptures about the three-part composition of man (Prov. Sob. 1885 Mar.), also by A. V. Martynov, Archpriest. Anthropology of St. Gregory nis. 215–229 pp., in V. Myshtsyn Uch. ap. Paul on the law of works and the law of faith. 1894 2 ch. Plato distinguishes two souls in man - a higher, rational and immortal soul, having a divine origin (νοῦς), and a lower, unreasonable, animal soul, which has the ability to collapse along with the body (its powers are τό θυμικον, i.e. irritability and τό ἐπιθυμιτικόν – lust). In the teachings of Plato and his followers, the idea of ​​the tripartite composition of man received its most developed form, but it is already found in the ancient religious teachings of the East and among the Jewish rabbis. The carnal moral state (1 Cor. 3:3) or living according to the flesh (Rom. 8:1, 4; 2 Cor. 10:2) is called in the teaching of the apostle. Paul, such a state when the sinful principle living in a person subjugates all the spiritual and physical powers of a person (Rom. 1:24; 6:13; 7:18-20; Eph. 2:3 and many others). The works of the flesh are known; they are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, quarrels, envy, anger, strife, disagreements, (temptations), heresies, hatred, murder, drunkenness, disorderly conduct and the like. ( Gal.5:19–21 ). Damascus. Accur. ed. faith II book. Chapter 12 For examples of this, see M. Macarius, Dogma. God. 1 volume §80, also at Sylvester Ave., Op. Dogma. God. III volume § 35. Bl. Theodore. Razg. between Yeran. and right, oh dear. conn. natures in Christ (Chronicle, 1846, part 1, 337 pages). Abbr. from dogma. Chapter XI (VI part 46 p.) See also Gregory Nis. Rebuttal opinions of Apollinaris (VII part of works in Russian translation). A detailed refutation of a similar error of the Manichaeans was made by Blessed. Augustine in op. De duab. anim. contr. Manich. A detailed refutation of materialistic views on the human soul can be found in Nikanor, arch. Posit. Phil. and super sensitive. Genesis II vol., Ulritsi - Body and Soul 1869 I. Janet - Brain and Thought, Chicherina - Science and Religion (161–207 pp.), in psychology courses, for example. Chistovich, Snegirev and others. See also M. A. Ostroumova prof. Review of Philosophy. teachings 2 books. 1880, pp. 155–167. V. D. Kudryavtseva. Initial foundations of philosophy. 357–377 pp., Goettinger. Apology. I part 1 part. 7 th., I. D. Petropavlovsky prot. Independence and immortality of people. souls (In defense of faith II issue). On the same issue, articles in spirit. magazines: Gr. Malevansky. On the spiritual nature of man - against materialism and Darwinism (Prov. Ob. 1873, 4 books). – Let’s look at it differently. materialists on the soul and its freedom (ibid., 1863, 4 and 5 books; sn. 1869, 5 books). – The human soul and its relationship to the body according to the teachings of modern natural science (Prov. Sob. 1879, II volume), etc. Damascus. Sl. 3 about icons. Chapter 24 Wed. Accur. izl. V. 2 books 3 and 12 ch. Similar opinions were shared by Ambrose (De Abrah. 2 books, 8 chapters), Gregory V. (Moral. 2 books, 3 chapters). This opinion is repeated today. “People are not pure spirits”..., says one of the latest learned theological works, “even about the angels of St. Fathers and teachers of the church teach that they are not the purest spirits.... Angels are enclosed in certain fire-like or air-like bodies.... Likewise, the soul of a dying person takes with it to the upper world a certain thin material shell.” (Olesnitsky M.A. prof. From the system of moral teachings. Kyiv 1896, 6 pages). In the book. Monk Konev. monastery Mitrofan (How our dead live, III chapter 519 pp. according to the 1889 edition) the soul is called “a subtle ethereal being that has the appearance and image of a person.” On free will in man, see the extensive study of Malevansky G.V. Experience on Free Will (Tr. Kyiv. Ak. 1896–1899), as well as Anthony Bishop. Psychologist, data in favor of free will and moral responsibility. St. Petersburg 1888. About different types of freedom and a solution to objections from determinists against free will in man can also be found in systems of Morals. Theology, especially protopr. I. L. Yanysheva, (from a lecture on Morals of God. Pr. Ob. 1880 and in the department. ed.) and prof. Olesnitsky, as well as in psychology courses. The revelation outlines briefly and only the most important features distinguishing the human soul from the animal soul in terms of origin - one from the earth and therefore not having immortality, the other from God, and therefore immortal - and properties (the absence in the soul of animals of self-awareness, rationality, freedom, which presupposes the absence in them of the ability for abstract thinking and improvement, religious and moral life, the gift of speech). Wide observations of recent times over the animal world, as well as over the manifestations of spiritual life among different peoples, not excluding wild peoples, have provided a lot of experimental data confirming and clarifying biblical teaching. Therefore, the assurances of materialists that there is no qualitative difference between the soul of man and animals disagree not only with the testimony of the Bible, but also with the data of impartial natural science. The decisive visible sign dividing man from animals by an impassable border is language. Animals are dumb - because they do not have self-awareness, thinking, freedom - they are impersonal and not independent in spiritual terms. A detailed explanation of the question of the difference between the soul of man and animals can be found in the article: Svetlova P. priest. Man and animal are crazy. slope (Vera and Raz. 1892, 21 and 23 books). Giegemann Prof. The soul of animals and humans (trans. Pobedinsky, - ibid. 1889, 12 books). Shostina A.P. prof. Do animals have religion? (ibid., 1884, 15 books). Butkevich T. Rassudoch. the powers of animals (ibid., 1886) by K. J. Man and Animal (Pr. vol. 1890, 7–8 books). Inozemtsev A. Language as a border between animals and humans. See also: Peter and Paul Prot. Man and Animal (In Defense of the 2nd Century Faith), Göttinger's Apology. (1 part 1 father 7 art.), Ebrard. Apologetics § 69–72, Snegireva V. Psychology. In ancient times, this opinion was proved by the Marcionites and Manichaeans, and in modern times by many of the rationalists, starting with the Socinians. According to rationalists, the doctrine of immortality was borrowed by the Jews in later times from the religion of the Egyptians and Persians. For an analysis of this opinion in connection with the positive disclosure of dogma, see P. Yungerov. Uch. the Old Testament about the immortality of the soul and the afterlife. Kaz. 1882 Iv. Olesnitsky. Uch. V. head about the immortality of the soul (Reader lyub. d. pr. 1882, I and III volumes). Chrysanthus Bishop Rel. other world III vol. 170–221 pp. A. Lebedeva prot. Old Testament creed during the time of the patriarchs. 271–287 pp. N. Rozhdestvensky Apologetics II vol. 370–486 pp. Zh. Istochnikova. Imaginary dependence of the Bible. beliefs from the religion of Zoroaster. II part 4 ch. The ancient Jews strictly distinguished the word - scheol from the word qeber (keber) - and when talking about a place or cave where the bodies of the dead were buried, they used the word - qeber (sometimes bor.), and when they talked about the place where souls go after death, they used the word - scheol. LXX translators, all Jews, also strictly observed this distinction, and the Hebrew Sheol was always translated into Greek. – ᾅδης which among the Greeks designated precisely the kingdom of shadows, in other words, the abode of the intangible, disembodied souls of the dead, and the Hebrew qeber, the coffin of the Greek μνῆμα or τάφος (and the Hebrew bor - ditch, grave, - in the word λάκκος, for example. Ps.29:4), in the Vulgate – inferus or infernus. In the depiction of the afterlife of the soul there are no traces of either Persian dualism or the Egyptian doctrine of soul migrations - a clear sign of independence from the pagan influence of the biblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul. For a review of this evidence, see V.D. Kudryavtsev. Immortality of the soul (III vol. 3 issue op.), as well as in the Beginnings. basics philosophy 377–400 pp. Rozhdestvensky. Apologetics 1 part 411–435 pp. See eg. Epifan. Er. 64, 37 ch. (III part 123–126 pp. according to the 1872 edition). Wed. Just. Apol. I, 10, 12. – Irin. Prot. heresy 11, 3. – Athenag. Oh sunday dead. 12. August. De Trinit. XIV, 3–4. See eg. in Irenaeus, Prot. heresy Book II 34.2; V, 7, 1, - in Justin, O is risen. 2 – in Clement al. Strom. VI. 6, - in Origen, Prot. Celsus, III, 22. Later fathers more fully revealed this basic idea of ​​the ontological proof of the immortality of the soul, for example. Gregory of Nyssa in lyrics. “On the soul and resurrection”, “On what is the image of God”, Gregory V. in the words. 2 Zlothoust – on Gen. 21 demons 6, blessed Theodorite - Abbr. izl. god dogma Chapter 9 and others. Damsk. Accur. izl. faith II book. 3, 12 and 28 ch. The same opinion was expressed by: Justin - Razg. with Trif. Chapter 6, Epiphanius Er. 44 and 64, ch. 27, – Cyril of Jerusalem – Announcement. sl. IV, 18. Isidore Pelus. Pis. 95, to wild. confession (III volume in Russian translation), etc. Expressing such an understanding of the immortality of the soul, the ancient teachers decisively rejected the opinion that did not allow the inclinations or basis of immortality in the very nature of the soul. This opinion was expressed and persistently defended by Arnobius of Africa, a church writer of the 4th century. (in op. Adversus gentes). The soul, he taught, does not have immortality as an essential property; she can either die or turn into oblivion, or achieve immortality. This depends on the freedom of people: the souls of pious people are granted immortality by God as a reward for a godly life, and the souls of wicked people will be destroyed. The weapon of their destruction will be fire, with which they will be destroyed after prolonged and cruel torment beyond the grave. The assumption that God Himself, who called man from insignificance, would again turn him into non-existence, in order to deliver him from a painful existence, the ancient teachers found wicked - contrary to the demands of God's justice, undeserved of their evil pardon (see, for example, Chrysostom, Books to Theodore the Fallen I, on 1 Cor. 9 demons). Nevertheless, Arnobius’ opinion still has supporters to this day. With some modifications, it was repeated by the preachers of Socinianism (F. Socin, Krell, Ruard, etc.), and is still expressed today in Protestant theology (for example, Weiss, Reth, etc.). See F. Stukov. Origin in Christ. churches of opinions that contradict the doctrine of eternity of torment. Ave. Sob. 1892 II vol. 291–300 pp. and in the department. ed. These are eg. Clement Al. (Stromata II, 22; V, 4), Origen (On the Beginnings I, 1; IV, 37), Cyril Hierus. (Public teaching IV, 18), Vasily V. (On Ps.48 - V volume in Russian translation) Gregory Nis. (About the organization of people, chapter 16; Demon on the word. Let us create people, in Chron. Reading 1840, III, 303–305 pp.), Gregory God. (Sl. 45), Chrysostom (On Genesis 8 devils), bl. Theodoret (On Genesis 21 question), bl. Augustine (De Trinit. XII, 7; XIV, 3), Epiphanius (90 ep.), Damascus (Ill. c. II, 12) and many others. This concept of the image of God in man is given in the teachings of the church fathers taken together, but not one of them separately has a holistic and comprehensive explanation of this concept. Some church fathers pointed only to some particular features of the image of God in man: some saw the primary reflection of the image of God in the rationality of the soul, others - in freedom, others - in the immortality of the soul, and some, for example. bliss Augustine (Confession XIII book. II chapter, etc.), blessed. Theodoret (on Genesis 21 questions) pointed to the three main forces of the soul as a reflection of the Holy Trinity. Without any conflict of opinion, they obviously complemented each other. See the review of patristic opinions from Rev. Sylvester. Experience Dog. God. III vol. §§ 39–43. and at m. Makaria. Dogma. God. § 82. – On the same issue, see Art. priest Malevansky. Man among the creatures of nature, as the image of God (Tr. Kiev. Ak. 1867, 7 and 9 books). Such an explanation of this peculiarity about the creation of man can also be found in the Fathers of the Church. See eg. Gregory Nis. Demon. to the words: Let us create man into Christ. Read 1840 III vol. 320–322 pp. Damascus. Ed. faith II book. Chapter 12 Gregory Nis. Demon. on the next page: Let us create man. The Russian saint Demetrius of Rostov writes: “The image of God is also in the souls of an unfaithful person, but the likeness is only in a virtuous Christian: and when a Christian sins mortally, then the likeness is only deprived of God, and not the image. And even if it cools into eternal torment, the image of God is the same in it forever, but the likeness can no longer exist” (Search). On the purpose of man, in addition to the systems of Dogmatics, see Archpriest. V. A. Golubinsky. Prem. and the goodness of God Scripture. 1., Svetlova. Op. apol. izl. pr.-khr. religious teacher § 28, Ep. Feofana Drawing. hr. moralizing Moscow 1891 pp. 32–37, as well as art. K.P.P. The Ultimate Goal of Life (Pr. Ob. 1877, 11 books and 1878, 5 books). Purpose of natural existence of people and main. his present task. life (Pr. Sob. 1864 1). Morals appointment of people (Tr. Kyiv. Ak. 1891), Miloslavsky I. Chel. king and slave of nature (Prov. Ob. 1878, 9 and 11 books). Tareeva M. The purpose and meaning of life. Moscow. 1902 (the same in the Vera and Tserk. for 1901). “There is life in God,” teaches Vasily V. Alienation and removal from God is an evil more unbearable than even future torments in Gehenna—the most grievous evil for a person, like the deprivation of light for the eye and the taking of life for an animal.” (The demon is that God is not the author of evil.) For an overview of one-sided views on the purpose of human life, see e.g. at Prof. Olesnitsky. From the system Christ moralizing 1 hour Chapter 2 at Prof. Kudryavtsev in Beginning. basics Phil. (419–435 pp.), by prof. Ostroumova in Review of Phil. teaching. 2 issue 4 departments etc. You might be interested in: