Курсовые сочинения и статьи

In order for my article to be understood in the desired sense, it is necessary to clearly understand the point of view from which I am conducting my reasoning, and from the very beginning to fundamentally agree or disagree with it. In view of this, I will dwell on it more insistently than, perhaps, is required, and I will tell you in advance about the task that I set myself. No one, or almost no one, I think, will object to the opinion that a superstitious idea of ​​a famous person about an object or phenomenon is possible only insofar as he currently does not have a scientific or truly religious view of it. To establish the meaning of the word superstition, I turn to consciousness, which is at a fairly high level of development, but does not yet have scientific or religious views and, especially, does not have epistemology. That is why I speak quite affirmatively about phenomena like vampirism, which are initially real for such a consciousness. Whether it comes to deny or affirm them after scientific education is of no concern to me. I want to observe phenomena in their pure form; I, as the author of this article, am not at all concerned with the question of the reality of spiritualistic and other phenomena; What is important is only the indisputable psychic fact - namely, that there are spiritualists, there are people who believe in miracles, there are occultists and admirers of demonolatry. I refuse to evaluate all these views; What is important is that there are data of consciousness of a certain direction. They form my foundation. Most words associated with some relatively abstract concept and put into everyday use usually suffer one fate: they are erased, discolored, and, in the end, they begin to be used almost without any definite, perceptible content. It seems that this fate manifested itself most clearly over a word that means a lot for composing a view of the world - the word superstition. Incidentally and inappropriately, it is now used by society, especially with a hint of censure. My task is to capture the blurred appearance of this word, to outline the vague boundaries of its application. To show how uncertain the meaning of this word is, I will give several definitions chosen at random, and I will arrange them in order leading to the disclosure of the true meaning of the word. “Superstition,” says Meyer’s Conversations Lexikon, “is a state of trust, belief in supernatural events that do not correspond, or no longer correspond to the belief of the majority, or rise above it” 89. Here superstition is defined quite conventionally - by the belief of the majority. But they use this word without conducting statistical research at all; and by the “majority” of whom exactly does belief in this phenomenon become superstition? A small group of people call some of the views of the peasantry superstitions, but where is the majority? In his correspondence with Hugo Boxel Spinoza, amid a hail of ridicule directed at those who believe in spirits, having analyzed Boxel’s arguments in favor of the existence of spirits, notes: “However, leaving all this (i.e., arguments), I must say in conclusion that both these and all similar grounds cannot convince anyone of the existence of spirits and ghosts, except those who close their ears to the arguments of reason and surrender to the power of all superstition, which is so hostile common sense, that in order to humiliate the authority of philosophers it is ready to believe all sorts of old women’s tales.” Spinoza here alone speaks out against the entire mass of the people and the legion of authorities, calling superstition (albeit simply in the sense of nonsense, absurdity) the belief of not even the majority, but of everyone. It is especially clear how alone he was in this opinion from Boxel’s letter (LIX): “...not defenders, but opponents of the existence of spirits show distrust of philosophers, because all philosophers, both ancient and modern, share the belief in the existence of spirits. Plutarch testifies to this in his writings about the views of philosophers and about the genius of Socrates. The Stoics, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, as well as Empedocles, Tyrean, Maximus, Apuleius and others testify to the same thing. Among the modern ones, no one rejects ghosts either.” Whether Spinoza's meaning of a word is used correctly or incorrectly is not the point; one way or another, we see how vague the meaning of this word is and how little the majority means for clarifying the concept of superstition. In the same way, in the definition of superstition that we are analyzing, the reference to the supernatural nature of events does not explain anything, since the recognition of the supernaturality of an event depends on the point of view of the person expressing the opinion that this person is superstitious. Meanwhile, it is clearly felt that when we see superstition in someone, we do not consider our judgment relative, but consider it objectively valuable, just as we consider our judgment about behavior objectively valuable. Although in both cases we admit the possibility of error, but hypothetically, subject to strict thoughtfulness and knowledge of all the circumstances, we do not consider our judgment to depend on random views, just as a judge does not consider his verdict to be subjective. If we take the definition of superstition from the Litlré dictionary (Diction. de la lqngue française) 90, then it turns out that “superstition is a feeling of religious veneration based on fear or ignorance, as a result of which one often ends up creating false duties for oneself, believing in chimeras and relying on powerless things.” Obviously, here too the concept of superstition becomes vague due to the reference to conditional (conditioned by point of view) signs, such as: false duties, chimeras, powerless things. All this depends on the personal (random for the phenomenon itself) views of the person speaking about the superstition of this or that person, and it is clear that there can be directly opposite opinions about the same case, and, moreover, both opponents will be right according to Littré’s definition. But on the other hand, Littré’s definition indicates an important new point: namely, that superstition is a feeling, moreover, a type of religious feeling. Littré does not more closely define the nature of this feeling, but he still tries to define superstition by the content of the feeling, by the subject of superstitious facts of the psyche, and not by their form, which, as will be seen later, is the unifying feature of these facts. What is important is not what we have a feeling about (since the subject of the feeling is random), not how it manifests itself externally (spells, etc.), but how the subject of superstition, the superstition, relates to his idea. The failure of Littré's definition, therefore, lies in the desire to look for an essential sign of superstitious facts on the basis of their content and in the failure to recognize its own, special element in the superstitious mood of the spirit. Lehman 91 quite consciously carries out the same method to the end. Limiting himself exclusively to the material side of the fact, he gives the following definition: “Superstition is every opinion that is not recognized in any religion or is in conflict with the scientific view of nature at any particular time” 92 - the definition, as we will see, is correct, or rather, not incorrect, since it essentially does not define anything and reduces the concept of superstition to an empty place that has no content of its own. Lehman only talks about what is not superstition; shortening its definition, we will arrive at an obviously meaningless formula: “... superstition is neither religion nor science” - a formula, of course, indisputable, if we only accept that superstition and religion or superstition and science are not synonymous. The systematic use of the word superstition with an almost arbitrary meaning has introduced so many different characteristics into the very concept associated with this word, and has so vaguely expanded the scope of this concept that we are not able to clear it or formalize it. We do not have the right to eliminate any features from an existing concept; and, on the other hand, these signs resemble the heads of a snake or a hydra, which grow endlessly again and again as they are cut off; Having removed one feature extraneous to the concept, we do not guarantee ourselves in any way against the sudden appearance of ten others in a different word usage. The only thing that can be done is to completely abandon the existing concept and only retain the very word (sound) superstition. We ourselves must construct a new concept to replace the old one, develop its characteristics and then give it a constructive definition. We will conditionally give this concept that we have developed the name “superstition”, symbolizing it with the same word; There is nothing to be afraid of ambiguity here: we do not have two meanings of the word, since we completely destroyed the previous one and threw it out, at least until the end of the study. When this creation of a new concept is done, we can psychologically motivate the condition set - to call the developed concept superstition, and not something else. This motivation will consist in proving that the new concept is, so to speak, the center of the old concept that has blurred like a blur: the new concept is, as it were, a type of a whole bunch of previous ones, united under the word superstition - at the same time it is the historical prius 93 of the meaning of this word. We proceeded from definitions based on the content of the external manifestation of superstition, on the content of the results of superstitious feelings (known beliefs, actions, etc.), and came to the idea that those external forms of spiritual activity, in which alone one can look for an essential sign of superstition, are in themselves not yet characteristic of it, do not define it. Every time a similar phenomenon occurs: when a certain concept, which seems clear, cannot be determined by analyzing a certain part of its content and, as research proceeds, melts and evaporates, this circumstance already suggests the idea of ​​​​turning to another, remaining part of the signs in order to look for the essential there. In such cases, it often turns out that there lies the main sign, irreducible to others and indecomposable - some first manifestation in the spirit. So, for example, trying to define the concept of morality through the study of its external manifestations, we lose the very concept of morality as such; turning to the inner side, we find a specific, irreducible side of the activity of consciousness, which is characteristic of moral phenomena. So, not seeing a sign characteristic of superstition in its external manifestations, we turn to the internal side of this phenomenon, for it has two sides: external - superstitious actions, that is, sorcery (magic, magic) and internal - serving as the cause of external detection. One of the main facts of consciousness, if you look closely at each manifestation of it, is the opposition of what should and should not be perceived by consciousness. We make an assessment of a phenomenon, deed, action, etc., whether this assessment is ethical, aesthetic, or concerning the truth, reasonableness of the phenomenon and thing. But if we make an assessment, then this very thing already includes the thought of measurement by some measure, namely the idea of ​​what should be and, therefore, the presence of such an idea. This action is not good - this means that it does not satisfy the idea of ​​a proper action, that it should be different. Receiving a thought and having our own thought, our judgment, we recognize them as something true or untrue in a given respect, we measure each thought with the idea of ​​a proper thought: a false thought is one that does not correspond to the idea of ​​a proper thought, and is deprived of the right to exist. Should and should not be compatible, even always combined in every phenomenon or thing, but nevertheless qualitatively different - they do not represent degrees of the same thing, but are certain determinants of a thing, forces that pull it in directly opposite directions. By no effort can we identify them; what is recognized as false can be expressed, but cannot be recognized as true, no effort, no sophistry. You can do evil and, moreover, be perfectly aware that it is evil, but you cannot force yourself to do it as good by any effort: you cannot extinguish your conscience 94. But why do we treat some objects of consciousness as something we should, and others as something we shouldn’t? We believe that there are objective grounds for this, that in what our consciousness perceives there are properties that force us to see what is proper in some elements of consciousness, and what is not proper in others. For brevity, we will call what should be the Divine moment in the objects of consciousness, and what should not be called the devilish moment. But another kind of relationship to what is perceived by consciousness is possible. We can only treat it as a given, as an indifferent given. The human mind is limited to the world of phenomena. Sense perception is the only source of our knowledge. But experience alone, that is, the totality of past experienced states, is not yet knowledge; In this way we will not yet arrive at reliable generalizations. The fact that there were such and such experimental data does not guarantee that it was so before, that it will be so later, that it should be so and that it cannot be otherwise. Experienced cognition rises to the level of reliable knowledge provided that it synthesizes experimental data with a priori ideas or principles. As conditions, as laws of human consciousness, a priori principles have universal and necessary significance for experience, that is, experience always and everywhere implements them. The human mind cannot perceive everything that is conscious other than in these a priori forms: for example, everything that is conscious must be subject to the law of causality, or all external objects can be conscious only in three-dimensional space, etc. In processing the evidence of experience into knowledge, in acquiring reliable empirical knowledge without complicating it by evaluating it from the point of view of some norms, lies the attitude towards the perceived as an indifferent given. The indifferent datum stands, so to speak, on the border between what should and what should not. Its position is a position of equilibrium, but an unstable equilibrium. I would also compare the due and the should-not together with a plane, and the given with a line: on one side of the line there is an unlimited should, on the other there is an unlimited should-not, but the line itself is only the boundary of both, the place of transition from the should to the should-not or vice versa. And at the same time, we can say about it that it is part of the plane of what should be and equally part of the plane of what should not be. – If we turn to the process of transition from what should be to what should not, as it is reflected in the consciousness of the subject, then this instability of the position of indifference sharply catches the eye of everyone, especially in the field of ethics. If in itself no action is neither good nor evil, but only becomes one or the other, since it is performed by the subject of the action, which is definitely related to his action, then this action, as good, is separated from it, as evil, by only one line. In particular, this question is clarified by Vl. Solovyov 95: “How can I more clearly designate and define,” he says, “that narrow, but the only reliable path (compare Pushkin’s “Salvation is a narrow path and narrow gates”) that humanity must follow between two abysses, the abyss of dead and deadening “non-resistance to evil,” on the one hand, and the abyss of evil and also deadening violence, on the other? Where is the line that separates coercion, as a moral duty and as a feat of self-sacrifice for others, from violence, as resentment, as untruth, as villainy? There is this trait, and before giving it logical definitions, let’s ask the human conscience: can anyone, regardless of any religious convictions, in conscience condemn a Christian ascetic when he blesses and encourages leaders and warriors going to liberate the “father’s land from slavery to infidels and foreigners”?” etc. In relation to the perceived we have established three points; but from this it does not at all follow that all three are given equally in each perception, taken separately. At each moment we pay full attention to only one of these moments, while the other two remain in the shadows, although they are undoubtedly present and are vaguely recognized. If research begins and, as a result of research on one or another motive, consciousness comes to affirm the objectivity of perception of one moment and the subjectivity of two others, then it, consciousness, understandably, strives to obscure what it considers illusory, unimportant for the goal to which consciousness is moving. This leads each subject to perceive a thing or phenomenon from its own special point of view, different from the points of view of other subjects; the constant predominance of one of the moments in the perception of a given person forces him to see his surroundings always in the same color. According to the predominance of one of the three moments in relation to the perceived, three types of relationships are established, on the basis of the differences of which differences arise in the main three worldviews: religious, scientific and what we agree to call the superstitious worldview, or occultism. Let us consider the features of these three ways of relating and three worldviews. If a phenomenon is perceived in such a way that in it the Power of God appears to consciousness exclusively or almost exclusively - the power of what is due, directly causing the phenomenon; if a thing, as something independent, becomes transparent and through the transparent shell we perceive the power of the Good acting in it, then this perception of the existing, as an unalloyed result of the activity of the Divine, can be called the perception of a miracle, miraculous perception, and the phenomenon itself, since and only insofar as it is perceived in this way, is a miracle: we see in it the direct activity of a positive force. If we begin to look at the world always or almost always in this way, if we see in it the eternal miracle of God, then on the basis of such perceptions we form a worldview that should be called religious, since in religion predominantly (but by no means exclusively) there is such a way of perception. In this sense, a miracle is the result of faith, if only by the last word we mean the direct discretion of the actions of the Good Power. Each phenomenon, as it appears in experience, is constructed by us, but not only by the forms of contemplation and rationality, which provide only the possibility of existence, but also by those forms of spiritual activity that determine the perception of the phenomenon and thing as truly real and valid in some sense and through this connect the existence of a thing with the reasons that cause it. By refusing the opportunity to perceive a miracle, we also refuse a well-known way of perceiving the world: “... faith went out in the heart, which did not recognize its most beloved children - miracles” (Goethe). In view of this, it is a big mistake to think that if this or that person is “caught” in “fake miracles”, that if an “explanation of a miracle”, a solution, is discovered and found, then there was no miracle. And the result of this opinion is often the denial of miracles in general. The miracle does not lie in the fact. Why do you, an unbeliever, know that God did not want to manifest His will in this particular way, even through a trick? “Who is Paul? who is Apollos? They are only ministers through whom you believed... I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase... for we are God’s laborers together, and you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Cor. 3). A miracle is in relation to a fact. Everything can and must be explained scientifically, and receive its cause in the world of phenomena; in this sense, everything is natural, done according to the laws 96. But, since the Divine cannot be perceived and conceived only as transcendent to the world, but also as immanent, since pure deism is impossible, every phenomenon, except for such a scientific understanding, can be perceived by someone in the form of a miracle; in this sense, everything is wonderful, everything can be perceived as a direct creation of the goodness of God. In the lives of many scientists, for example, there were moments when perceptions were exactly like this; one has only to remember the pathos-filled words of Kepler 97, Swammerdam 98 and others. Eckermann 99 describes, for example, one walk with Goethe, during which the conversation was about natural history subjects. “The hills and mountains,” he said, “were covered with snow, and I noticed the great delicacy of the yellow color and that at a distance of several miles, through the intermediate foggy medium, the dark is more blue than the white is yellow (NB: this is important for Goethe’s theory of colors). Goethe agreed with me, and we then talked about the high significance of the first appearance, behind which, it seems, one directly sees the Divinity. “I do not ask,” said Goethe, “whether this Supreme Being has understanding and reason, but I feel that He is understanding itself, reason itself.” All creations are imbued with it, and man is so illuminated by it that he can understand the Highest.” How many events, seemingly trivial to an outsider’s eye, were attributed by Goethe to the Good Power, calling it “Demonic”. But even for average people, the perception of the environment as a miracle is even more common than is usually assumed. Everyone, of course, has experienced that these words are not an empty metaphor: When the yellowing field is agitated... Then the anxiety of my soul dissipates, Then the wrinkles on the forehead disperse, And I can comprehend happiness on earth, What I said about miracles is especially clear in the worldview of the Jews. “If the modern scientific worldview,” says Prince S.N. Trubetskoy 100,” does not allow a miracle as an arbitrary violation of the laws of nature through supernatural intervention, then we can say that the Jew, on the contrary, did not know any other law of nature other than the “statutes” of Yahweh and his continuously operating energy. The later scholastic concept of a miracle is based on the recognition of a more or less extensive area of ​​phenomena, removed from the environment of the constant living action of Providence, which only from time to time intervenes in this area externally, disrupting the natural course of events. Such a concept of a miracle is essentially itself based on a particular assumption of the mechanical worldview, and therefore ultimately turns out to be powerless against it. The Jew does not know miracles in this sense, because for him all nature with the visible regularity of its phenomena is a great and unceasing miracle of God. Among these phenomena he recognizes special “signs”; but these signs of God are completely included in the laws of nature, as he understands it.” These few words of Prince S.N. Trubetskoy elucidate the essence of the religious worldview to such an extent that I consider it necessary to point out only the following: since the facts of nature themselves, like the facts of spiritual life, do not differ from each other either with a consistently held religious point of view, or with a consistent scientific point of view, which will now be discussed, then the difference between them should be in the way of relating to these facts; already the existence of the word “miracle” itself, or, as Prince S.N. Trubetskoy, “the sign,” points to this. But, in addition to the indicated religious view, another is also possible, in which the isolation of a thing from the forces acting in it dominates. To consistently pursue this method of viewing, so to speak, to crystallize in its pure form the perception of a thing as a result of forces (since the thing itself is different from the forces that produce it), is the task of science. In order to fully understand a thing, we must first examine it one-sidedly from each point of view separately; synthesis is undesirable until each method of perception is sharply carried out separately: otherwise, instead of combining disparate views into a holistic view, we will end up with a mixture of elements that have not yet had time to take shape; instead of harmony, we will get noise. This means that a scientific worldview can and should pursue its point of view to the end, consider the world as a whole - independent, living its own closed life, inaccessible to outside influences; it can assert that the world is connected in its elements, as phenomena, and that only these connections can be taken into account in scientific research. But to say this does not mean to deny everything else; if science can and should develop in the purest possible purity of its methods, then it does not follow that those involved in it cannot have simultaneously diverse perceptions. The value of the entire worldview is not in the gray, mixed monotony, but in the living unity of diverse elements. From what has been said, you can already guess based on what feature I want to define superstition. By a superstitious attitude towards what is perceived (superstition) we will understand the perception of a thing primarily from the wrong side, if we see in it directly (mystically) or indirectly (by reasoning) an evil force; People very aptly characterize it with the name of evil spirits, evil spirits, wrong, unkind, nekoshny (filthy), unwashed, unwashed, king or prince of darkness 101, since it is precisely the negation of the pure, okay (harmonious), good. If superstition, a superstitious perception of the environment begins to predominate, then on the basis of such predominance, such one-sidedness, a new, third and final main type of worldview takes shape - occultism, a superstitious worldview, which could be called a negative religious worldview, because it is based on exactly what the religious worldview does not pay attention to (in the sense of the word mentioned earlier), and, on the contrary, it itself does not see what lies at the basis of the religious worldview. A true miracle occurs in the spirit of the believer when he sees in the apparently random and phenomenally causal the will of Him, by whom everything was the same as this phenomenon. “The reason why true miracles are not believed,” says Pascal 102, “is a lack of love. “But you do not believe, for you are not one of my sheep.” The reason for believing in false miracles is also a lack of love.” “The coming of the wicked man,” says the apostle, “according to the working of Satan, will be with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception of those who are perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth for their salvation.”103 The miracles here are false precisely because they are perceived as being produced by the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself “above everything that is called God or that is holy, so that he sits in the church of God as God, showing himself to be God” 104 . The falsity of these “miracles” is that the actions of the “son of sin” will be perceived as his own actions, and understood as the actions of God, for whom he will pretend to be - as miracles. These will be what we have called negative miracles; The mistake here will be in the interpretation of one’s perceptions, and it is due to a lack of love. Every fact can and should be explained, but every fact, as a reflection of the Eternal, can arouse a feeling of reverence towards itself. And indeed, a real miracle should consist precisely in such a rationally explainable, in a broad sense (but not hastily explained), phenomenon. Even the highest miracle - the resurrection of Christ - is a natural phenomenon, but so far only the only example, so to speak, of the highest law. For this alone, it is a natural phenomenon that everything will be subject to the law of resurrection: we will all be resurrected; and on the other hand, resurrection is a reasonable necessity (Soloviev) 105. Of course, we cannot define the life process (in the broad sense) from the point of view of scientific rationalism. But we cannot even explain the mechanism for charging the conductor with electricity, and we cannot describe the mechanism of who knows what else, apparently the simplest; but this in no way, from the point of view of a scientific worldview, does not prevent us from considering such phenomena as natural and separately explainable. It would be absurd to now demand an explanation of all the phenomena of life, and especially those where the influence of spiritual causes occurs and there are moral engines. We can only see the “divine” necessity (“divina necessite” - in the terminology of Leonardo da Vinci), the “reasonable” (in Goethe’s terminology), of the fact of the resurrection, but, of course, it is now still impossible to explain or even explain the method of resurrection. But even if we assume that such phenomena will never be explained, this still does not make them at all impossible. Superstition is such a way of relating to a thing or event that it perceives it as something originating from an evil and evil force; internally condemned as unclean, senseless, evil. With it, we see in things something that is not proper, some kind of sinister and dark product of forces striving to make everything unclean; we feel a strange horror and cannot, in curiosity and attraction, tear ourselves away from the contemplation of such a thing; something alien and dark enters us and takes possession of us. After satisfying curiosity, one feels a disgusted disgust for everything, as if one had overheard or spied something. The following words of Hoffmann 106 clarify the question: “People are more satisfied with mortal horror than with the natural explanation of what seems ghostly to them; This world is not enough for them, they want something else from another world that does not require a body in order to be open. “I cannot understand, Maester, your strange taste for such things (tricks),” said Kreisler. “You prepare wonderful things from various spicy drugs, like some kind of cook, and imagine that people, whose imagination is as flat as the stomach of a slug, will be irritated by such things.” There is nothing more unpleasant when, after such damned tricks that tear apart a person’s heart, it suddenly turns out that all this happened naturally. - Natural! - exclaimed Maester Abraham, - as a man of considerable intelligence, you must admit that nothing in the world happens naturally, yes, nothing! Or do you think, dear bandmaster, that if we manage to produce a known, definite action with these means, then its reasons, arising from the mystery of nature, will be clear to us? You once had great respect for my tricks, although you had never seen the best of them, the pearl of all my tricks... it was he who, more than anyone else, could prove to you that the simplest things, easily amenable to mechanics, often come into contact with the most mysterious miracles of nature and can produce something that remains unexplained in the simplest sense of the word.” (This trick is described below, where a girl in an ecstatic and somnambulant state made predictions, etc., and the sounds of her words were transmitted through pipes to a glass ball hanging in an empty room.) Regarding this, I would like to point out one more circumstance. Dr. Lehman, who per fas et nefas 107 staged a decisive raid on spiritualism, wanted to prove the presence of magic at séances 108 . For this purpose, he himself learned magic tricks and gave séances; those present, according to Lehman and judging by his reports, were deceived. But at the same time, after exposing his tricks, he does not hesitate to declare the following a few pages later: “Even during my mediumistic experiments (he previously called them tricks), some indications of extremely remarkable psychic phenomena were discovered, which partly determined my successes, and I am sure that the presence of this kind of phenomena is precisely what distinguishes a medium from a simple magician.” It would only be interesting to find out: did he draw up his reports in bad faith, not to mention the phenomena whose existence he wanted to deny? or was he himself inflamed with a desire for the glory of the medium? or perhaps he, too, was deceived by his own tricks? Just as to perceive a miracle one needs faith, the ability to intensely perceive the Divine moment of a thing or event, so to perceive a negative miracle, for the presence of superstition, the ability to heightened perception of the devilish moment of a thing is necessary. Here we call the object of superstition a negative miracle in parallel to negative religion - occultism, which represents systematized superstition. Just as a miracle is a consequence of faith, so a negative miracle is a consequence of superstition; Popular thought states the following regarding this: “... lately evil spirits have begun to appear rarely, because nowadays they have little faith in them” 109. I find it useful to clarify the views expressed with specific examples; I will limit myself, however, to a little. What could be more natural than a shadow, a reflection in water or a reflection in a mirror? It is somehow even, at first glance, strange to say that such an ordinary phenomenon can be perceived superstitiously. Meanwhile, among many primitive peoples, the shadow serves as an object of superstitious horror, as some kind of product of evil forces or, conversely, as an independent living creature. Here, perhaps, is the thought of some kind of alien and dark force that fragments us, distinguishes something essential from us. One involuntarily recalls here Balzac’s theory of the daguerreotype, according to which each photograph takes with it parts of the soul, so to speak, removes a layer of the soul. Superstitious fear of shadows is especially good to observe in children. One boy (he was 2½ years old at the time), known to me personally, could not be put to sleep by candlelight: the shadows it cast filled him with complete horror. He started shouting “Shadow!”, screamed at night and often woke up. This lasted for about a month and was repeated every time a candle was brought in. Having once seen his shadow during the day, he discovered the most lively anxiety and began to jump and spin around in order to get rid of it. But adults can also detect a special feeling - a feeling of creepiness - about the shadow. Who has not experienced instant horror when suddenly seeing one's shadow on a wall, or when shadows suddenly rise before a candle goes out? Who will remain completely indifferent to the shadow after reading Andersen’s “About a Man Without a Shadow”, or to the mirror image after reading Hoffmann’s about a man who gave his reflection? And Suvorov, who is afraid of mirrors and orders them to be hung everywhere? Finally, “Shadows” by Sologub; will they go unnoticed after reading the story? I have dwelled on these phenomena in comparative detail in order to show how what in most cases seems commonplace and ordinary can be perceived as superstitious. One might think that this phenomenon (shadows) is more closely related to the phenomenon of doubles, which causes superstitious horror to an even greater extent. In order not to dwell on this, I refer the reader to the case of Emilia Saget in Dell-Ouen 110 111. Meanwhile, these phenomena, like shadows, can and are being studied by scientific perception (this in no way prejudges the question of their existence: we can scientifically study, for example, stories about them). Everything connected with the phenomenon of death somehow especially attracted and attracts attention; all three moments in perception appear especially sharply here, and we find in the field of the phenomena of death, it seems, the best examples that one and the same phenomenon can be perceived completely differently. The body of the deceased, for example, serves simultaneously as an object of superstition and scientific research and reverent veneration, depending on whether we perceive some dark forces operating in it, physical and chemical processes, or, as in the relics, the Good Power that supports incorruption. But it is clear that in the latter case the fact of incorruption in itself is not at all important: in a dry climate, for example, corpses often manage to dry out before they decompose, and yet no one considers them to be relics. On the other hand, relics that are highly revered by Old Believers, for example, may not make the same impression on the Orthodox; on the contrary, the latter may see them as an object of superstition. But in addition, a corpse can serve as an object of superstitious actions: “Affin dé faire perir lés hommés dé malé mort, lés sorcérs ont coustumé d’éxhumér dés cadavres & notammént dé céux qui ont ésto suppliciéz & péndus au gibct. "Dé cés cadavrés ils firént la substance & matieré dé leurs sortilég-sés, commé aussi dés instruments du bourrél, dés picux, dés férs, élc, lésquéjz sont douéz d'uné cértainé forcé & puissancé magiqué pour incantations" 112 113. On the part of witches and witchers, this was a superstitious act; they blasphemously cut up corpses for their sorcery, seeing magical power in them. But can what we say about Bald Mountain be transferred to the anatomical theater? The same actions are performed there, but here the corpse is perceived not as a playground of evil forces and a means of evil, but as a scientific object, connected by certain relationships with other scientific objects. Everyone feels that the word superstition with such a perception of a corpse and the manifestation of superstition in action, sorcerer, with such a cutting of a dead man is not suitable, does not fit. Moreover, in the dissection of relics for antimensions we see an example of the same action, but which cannot in any way be called either sorcery or scientific dissection. The cutting of relics for the purpose of reverently venerating them cannot seem blasphemous to those who see a miracle in the relics; on the contrary, this action seems to them to be part of a religious cult. Closely related to the issues under consideration is the idea of ​​​​the possibility of a corpse coming to life or almost coming to life. And this phenomenon can be perceived by consciousness from three main points of view. “All the lives of the saints,” says Abbot Calmet 114, “are full of resurrections of the dead, thick volumes could be compiled from them.” However, one cannot call beliefs in such resurrections superstitions, even if one considers the facts themselves to be completely unhistorical. To show this more clearly with an example, I will cite the legend of St. Stanislaw, Bishop of Krakow, which I borrow from the book Calmet. “Having purchased from a nobleman named Peter land on the Vistula, in the vicinity of Lublin, for his Krakow church, St. Bishop Stanislaus paid the seller for it in the presence of witnesses and with the formalities customary in this country, but without written conditions, for at that time in Poland these types of purchase and sale were only rarely recorded: they were content with witnesses. Stanislaus took possession of this land under the authority of the king, and his church peacefully enjoyed the estate for about three years. During this period of time, Peter, who sold the land, died; the Polish king Boleslav, who received irreconcilable hatred against the holy bishop, who freely reproached him for his excesses, began to look for an opportunity to sadden him, incited the three sons of Peter, his heirs, and ordered them to demand the land back under the pretext that it had not been paid for; he promised them to support their demand and force the bishop to return the land. So these three noblemen called the bishop to trial before the king, who was then in Solec and judged in the rural chambers, according to the ancient custom of the country, in the general assembly of the nation. The bishop was summoned to appear before the king and confirmed that he had purchased and paid for the land in question. The witnesses did not dare to testify to the truth, and the place where the meeting took place was very close to Petravin - that was the name of the disputed land. The day was approaching evening, and the bishop was at great risk of being condemned by the king and his advisers. Suddenly, as if inspired by the divine Spirit, he promised the king to bring him Peter, the land seller, in three days; the condition was accepted with amazement as impossible to fulfill. The holy bishop returns to Petravin, spends three days with his family in prayer and fasting; on the third day, he goes in vestments, accompanied by the clergy and a crowd of people, to Peter’s grave, forces it to be opened and dug until they find the corpse of the deceased, completely dried out and spoiled. The saint orders him to come out and give testimony to the truth before the king's judgment seat. The deceased rises. It is covered with a mantle; the saint takes him by the hand and leads him alive to the feet of the king. No one had the courage to ask Peter, but he himself spoke up and announced that he had honestly sold the land to the prelate and that he had received money for it. Then he sternly reproached his sons, who so insidiously accused the bishop. Stanislav asked him if he wanted to stay alive to repent; but he thanked him and said that he did not want to expose himself to new dangers of sinning. Stanislav accompanied him back to the grave, and, having arrived there, Peter again rested in the Lord.” In this legend, both the corpse and the resurrection are something sweet, necessary in the mind of the believer, something produced by the Good Power. But the same phenomenon of resurrection serves as the basis for the most disgusting of ideas - for ghouls, ghouls, etc. p.; These ideas seem to exist in one form or another among literally all peoples. What was close and dear to us becomes an arena for the actions of alien and hostile forces; dark evil spirits take possession of the body of a dear person and turn the corpse, which automatically rises from the grave, into an instrument of death for others, mainly close relatives of the deceased. The rapid decline of those whom the ghoul visits, the panic of entire villages, epidemics of ghoulism due to infection with ghoulism through ghoul bites - all this, if you read the descriptions of specific and specific cases, represents the most disgusting phenomena. But even more disgusting is what happens when using anti-ghoul remedies. The description of one of the trials, for example, says: “The corpse was given to the executioner, and he burned it outside the village. The dead man roared like mad, waved his arms and legs and uttered a terrible cry when he was pierced with a stake another time, and a lot of red blood poured out of him. Finally the corpse was burned and the ghost did not appear again.” But in addition to the measures applied to the ghoul itself, there are also protective measures against ghouls; This is, for example, eating bread made from flour mixed with the blood of a ghoul. Let me give you the most typical scientific view on this subject, namely the opinion of the magazine “Glaneur” (for 1732). Of course, it seems very naive to us, but, however, precisely because of its naive determination, it is completely rational. First, I’ll just tell you about the case about which it was expressed by the magazine. “In a certain Hungarian country, which in Latin is called Oppida Heidonum, there lives a people known as the Haiduks. These people believe that the famous dead, who are called vampires there, suck blood from living people, from which they apparently lose weight, while the corpses of these bloodsuckers are so filled with blood that it seeps out of their bodies. This opinion was confirmed in a short time by many facts, the truth of which, apparently, cannot be doubted, if we take into account the characters of the persons who convey them... About five years before this, the haiduk Arnod Paol from a village in Serbia, who was said to be severely tormented by a vampire during his life, died (breaking his neck) and 20 or 30 days after this he killed 4 people who witnessed his unfortunate death. 40 days after the burial, his corpse was dug up and recognized as a vampire, since they found that decay had not touched his body at all, completely fresh blood was flowing from his mouth and nose, so that all his clothes were bloody, and a whole layer of blood had formed on his body and nails. As usual, they pierced him with a stake through his heart, and he uttered a very distinct groan and blood flowed heavily through the hole made, then the corpse was burned. Signs of vampirism were also found in the corpses of those four people who were killed by him, because all those who were tormented and killed by the vampire themselves became vampires: Arnod Paol attacked not only people, but also cattle, and since people ate the meat of these animals, they themselves became vampires, so that 17 people died within three months. Between them, the famous Stanjoska, the daughter of Haiduk Iotuytso, also died. This girl went to bed completely healthy, but suddenly at midnight she woke up with a terrible cry and complained that the son of Haiduk Millo, who had died 4 weeks before, was strangling her by the throat, after which she felt severe pain in her chest and died 8 days later. We went to the cemetery and among the thirteen corpses dug up, ten were found in vampirism and only 3 corpses of those who died, it seems, from another disease, rotten. Between the vampires were Stanjoska and Millo, who made her a vampire. On the girl’s neck under her right ear (the place where, according to her, Millo strangled her), they actually found a finger-length blue blood stain. When the coffin was opened, blood poured out of her nose...” etc. 115 “Here we are talking about a girl who woke up in the night and complained that she was being strangled by a vampire, but did not explain how her scream could prevent him from continuing the operation. There is reason to think that the vampire did not repeat his operations because on the following nights he did not leave her bed, and because her screams, if the vampire decided to torture her, would have let those caring for her know about it. On the eighth day, however, she died. Her sadness and fear, her despondency and torment clearly proved how much her imagination was upset. Residents of cities who suffered from a pestilence know from experience that fear costs many their lives. As soon as a person feels the slightest pain, he thinks that he is struck by an epidemic; it affects him so much that he can become seriously ill.” “The Dutch “Glanjeur” claims that the peoples who have vampires are too ignorant and gullible, so that the phenomena in question are nothing more than a product of their ugly imagination; their rough food is the main reason for this; They feed for the most part only on bread made from oats, roots and tree bark, and such food can only produce thick and spoiled blood and evoke gloomy images in the imagination. He compares this disease to the bite of a rabid dog, which transfers its poison to the bitten person. In exactly the same way, he says, those infected with vampirism transmit this dangerous poison to those who visit them. This explains the reason for restless nights, difficult dreams and the so-called vampire phenomena. If vampires scream when a stake is driven through their heart, there is nothing unnatural about it. The air enclosed in the heart, quickly squeezed out, necessarily produces this sound as it passes through the throat. This often happens with corpses even when no one touches them.” In the chapter on “systems for explaining the phenomenon of vampires” and others, Calmet develops primarily a view of them as having fallen asleep in a lethargic sleep. These are the examples of scientific views on this subject; although, of course, they seem naive now, it is impossible to deny in them the main feature of scientific explanation - an explanation that does not go beyond the world of phenomena. As can be seen from the quoted passages, most of the facts of life are not rejected at all, but they are trying to illuminate them differently. I will give the last example from Tasso’s “Jerusalem Liberated” 116. Everyone probably remembers canto XIII - the description of the enchanted forest. In order not to increase the size of the article, I will ask the reader to re-read this canto, which represents a superstitious perception as clearly as possible, and then compare with Tasso’s description the following scientific attitude to the same phenomenon, depicted in the letter of Marshal Vallac 117. Here is the letter: “The experience with poplars drilled to different depths reminded me of an incident that happened to me in Algeria in September and October 1838. Having ordered the cutting down of a large oak tree to build a fence, I was not only surprised, but downright amazed when I heard sounds coming out of the tree, faint groans, but so reminiscent of human ones that our soldier’s hearts trembled. A reddish liquid flowed from the tree along with gas bubbles, and flowed with force the entire time this groan continued. This incident in my African life reminded me of what I once read in “Jerusalem Liberated.” The crusaders are going to cut down the enchanted forest in which nymphs and fairies have found shelter. They retreat in horror as they hear the woeful lamentations coming from the trees touched by the axe. What seems like a fairy tale in the mouth of a poet is in fact the undeniable truth, and if instead of being in the twentieth century. in Algeria, we were in those places in the 12th century, with the superstitions of that time, and they would have told us that these moans come from the nymphs imprisoned there and that the reddish liquid is their blood, then, of course, our fences would have remained unfinished.” The same can be said about the “voices of nature”. Remembering the stories of travelers, the words of Hoffmann and Maupassant, it is difficult, I think, to rid ourselves of their superstitious perception, but nevertheless they are fully subject to scientific research. Now the question arises: does my definition of superstition agree with the existing and established understanding of this word. It was said earlier that superstition is a way of perceiving a thing or event in which they are perceived as originating from an unclean and evil force and are internally condemned as something improper, unclean. So, does this definition agree with the usual understanding? Yes, it does, and this was most clearly seen in the examples analyzed. True, sometimes the word superstition is used as a synonym for an absurd conclusion, hasty generalization, backward opinion, just as the word mysticism is sometimes used as a synonym for vagueness, fantastic conclusions. But this, of course, is a wrong usage; upon reflection, no one will call an erroneous or hasty induction, an absurd conclusion superstition, but will call it absurdity, nonsense, etc. Everyone understands, or at least everyone feels, that an element of special feeling is necessary in superstition; and therefore, since this feeling is present, even if it is not justified by the rational views of a given person, the perception will still be superstitious. “Never would these fairy tales, which, I note in passing, in childhood we constantly listened to with delight, and not at all with fear - never, I repeat, these fairy tales would have left such a deep mark on us if there had not been independent strings in our souls that sounded in response to them in the same tone. There is no way to deny the existence of a strange, hitherto incomprehensible, special world of phenomena that sometimes amazes our ears, sometimes our eyes, and believe me that the fear and horror of our earthly body is only an external expression of the suffering to which the spirit living in it is subjected, under the yoke of these phenomena” 118. These words of Hoffmann clarify the existence of special, specific feelings when perceiving negative miracles, dark forces that take over consciousness. “I think now,” he says, “that many things to which we usually do not attach any significance and call dreams and empty fantasy, show us, perhaps through symbolic revelations, the mysterious threads that, passing through our life, connect all its manifestations into one whole” 119. He carried out this idea especially vividly in “The Sandman,” to which I refer the reader. A good example of the possibility of threefold perception of the same phenomenon can be seen in the threefold attitude towards spiritualism. While for some, like Del Owen, for example, it is a gift of the Good Power, something like a new religion, a means of meeting with loved ones - for people who treat it scientifically (Crooks, Aksakov, Zellner, etc.) 120, it is simply a fact of study, a manifestation of some as yet unexplored forces, something neither good nor bad in itself, although, perhaps, useful and very interesting. For others, finally, especially for people from the clergy, for Dostoevsky (his “theory of devils” in “The Diary of a Writer”) 121 and others, it is an unclean thing, superstition in the full sense of the word. Persons of the first and third categories recognize it, but treat it differently; persons of the second category have the same attitude, but either recognize or completely reject the presence of the phenomena themselves. This is where it becomes clear in what sense the word superstition should be used. Let a famous person believe in omens: for example, that if you say hello over the threshold, there will be a quarrel. It is not a superstition here that a given person recognizes a certain condition as the cause of a quarrel; You never know, we incorrectly attribute the cause to the wrong place; it will be a delusion, a mistake, a hasty conclusion, but not superstition. Our view will be superstition if and only if we admit that some force causes quarrels, a force that goes beyond the “physical” - when we see the cause of the quarrel outside the world of phenomena and, moreover, do not attribute it to the Good force. Perhaps it is important here that we consider some force to have power over the soul and, not being able to recognize such a force as a “physical” force, we consider it devilish, since what should be cannot produce what ethically seems absurd. In France, for example, in small villages the following ritual is used: the key to the church dedicated to St. Petra is heated red-hot and applied to the heads of bulls, dogs and other animals to cure them of rabies. No one, in all conscience, would call such a ritual superstition, although they may consider it absurd; and indeed, the curate is recommended to work to destroy such rituals, but only by warning the bishop about this and asking his consent, and since this will not offend the faith of the people. This means that the church does not see anything positively bad here (which is always contained in the word “superstition”). Superstitious perception, the occult worldview based on it, and the practice that flows from it—magic—are very important, because they deal with a special side of a thing, which is not primarily necessary, and thereby expand our horizons. In this sense, systematized superstition constituted and will constitute a necessary complement to religion, which deals with the ought, and to science, which studies objects as an indifferent datum. But nevertheless, the position of occultism is more difficult than that of science, just as the latter’s position is more dangerous than that of religion (in the sense indicated above). Occultism perceives and studies what is not proper, and it itself will be proper and will be a good thing only as long as what is not proper is perceived as such. If he begins to treat evil as a matter of course, then the very activity of doing it becomes the work of an “unclean” person. It is difficult to keep from falling: to be constantly engaged in the untrue, unreal in a certain sense, and not to see in it the real and, as it were, due. Temptation lies in the guise of the evil, in the appearance of what is not proper, thanks to which it creates the illusion of what is proper and true. But having fallen, after a very short time the researcher begins to realize his fall. What is not supposed can look like a shell of what should be. Upon closer acquaintance, the evil makes itself felt, opens up, becomes visible, as soon as you penetrate through this shell of the supposedly true, through the illusion of the good. And now, having gained insight into his subject, the fallen researcher feels remorse: “How did I fall into deception, how did my moral and all other vigilance overlook such evidence, so that I bowed to the evil one?” This feeling of nausea, satiety, aversion to further involvement in superstitions characterizes the state of mind after the fall. I'm talking a feeling of nausea. This is more than a metaphor, for nausea, although an organic sensation, is nevertheless essentially related to this state: in most cases it is felt after excessive food, that is, when, having temporarily accepted food as an end and not a means, we worship it, creating an idol for ourselves. In the same way, after reading with passion (the subject itself) all kinds of occult books, after unnecessary talk about ghouls, etc., there remains a residue of uncleanness, an unclean feeling in the soul, namely some kind of dirtiness. Let me quote from Solovyov regarding the mask of evil: “I still don’t understand why your Antichrist hates God so much, and he himself is essentially good and not evil? – That’s exactly what it is, it’s not in essence. That's the whole point. And I take back my previous words that “you can’t explain the Antichrist with proverbs alone.” It is all explained by one and, moreover, extremely simple proverb: not all that glitters is gold. After all, this fake goodness has more than enough shine, but there is no significant strength” 122 123. It is impossible to express more clearly the tawdry, deceptively attractive mask of the Evil One. And the passion for tinsel is service to the “god of this age” in everyday life; in the field of occultism, it is replaced by a fascination with the object of research, which, with its appearance, captivates a person to worship itself, even if he even begins the research with the consciousness of its inappropriateness. Spiritualism as anti-Christianity 124 (About two poems: “The Ladder”. Poem in Chapter VII by A. L. Miropolsky, 1902 125; A. Bely. Northern Symphony (1st heroic). 1903 126) “Scorpio’s” 127 impartiality recently gave me the opportunity to compare two poems, the titles of which are written above, and, what is most interesting, they are both devoted to the same topic, occupied with the same thought - to depict the procession of a person to “au delà” 128. Both poems, both in their understanding of this entire process and in their view of the supersensible world, represent such a complete opposite, so completely they stand on the basis of mutually exclusive views, that this comparison suggests itself as involuntarily as you involuntarily determine for yourself the difference between them. Even in language, in purely external form, the difference is such that it hints at the opposition of worldviews. One poem, “The Ladder,” is written in verse that deliberately tries to take on the appearance of prose; the other is in prose, in places reaching almost to poetic form. In the first there is a decaying rhythm, in the second there is organizing chaos. And in parallel to this, - I anticipate my thought, - the first poem speaks of a spirit materializing, a spirit being despiritualized, so to speak, losing its spiritual properties; the other is about spiritualized matter, dematerialized matter, deprived of material characteristics. The same goes for moods. Dull calls fading dully in the damp fog; cold and darkness in which phosphorescent lights flicker; internal disunity, detachment and chaos, so that even individuality disintegrates and blurs: despondency and heaviness are the main features in Miropolsky’s depressed mood. The clear sounds of a silver bell ringing through the clear air; warmth and light flooding everything; internal unity of everything, connection, integrity; there is no vagueness: even essentially vague images (eternity, sadness) take on clearly defined forms, with outlined contours; joyful hope and lightness of soul - these are the features in Andrei Bely’s moods, fading with anticipation and filled with joyful sadness. There is an even greater contrast in the concepts being developed. For the author of “The Ladder,” God has nothing to do with the world, or with spirits, or with the action of the poem. He is somewhere in heights unattainable even by the flight of mystical perception, He is the ultimate concept, the opportunity for spirits to endlessly improve, to never stop climbing the “Ladder” higher and higher, to develop the will more and more by renouncing desires. In the gloomy cold evolution - every man for himself; there is no place for original sin, just as there is no place for redemption, but there is Buddhist karma, there is incarnation again and again, there is suffering that is purifying in itself. Instead of recognition of sinfulness and hope for healing, some vague feeling of uncleanness is always pressing. There is no final, complete. Everywhere and in everything there is only potential, “bad” infinity. From Christianity there is only a crucifix in the form of some kind of amulet, moreover, invalid against lower spirits (p. 66); and it is mentioned so unexpectedly and unnaturally that one wants to see it as an oversight. On the contrary, for the author of the Symphony, God is real to the point of tangibility; “At the evening dawn, the Lord God himself, completely shrouded in fog, wandered along the thickets and shook the blue iris.” He is here, now. Our efforts are not something imaginary, always striving but never achieving the goal, something that leaves more and more possibility of desire. No, just one more effort, let us exert ourselves for the last time, and in the inexplicable thrill of childish joy we suddenly enter the final and final stage, we receive our ideal appearance. We are in an unstable balance and cannot even obtain this appearance on our own; active prayer pulls the “sunken brother” out of the abyss. Dark hereditary forces, sinfulness, weigh on us, tempt us, and sin is ready to take over; but there is redemption from his power, the sure refuge is Christ, and the dark forces must release their prey. Everywhere and in everything there is completeness, complete, “actual” infinity. And everything is filled with light, smooth and soft, and childish. Later I will return to comparing both poems, but first I will consider each separately. “The Ladder” is not a literary work in the usual sense of the word; every letter in this amazing poem screams that it is not a product of free creativity, but a documentary description of a series of visions passing through a heavy sleep. I will say even more, it can be assumed that this is not the work of Miropolsky, but a simple recording “under the dictation” of spirits. Reading the poem, you involuntarily imagine the author, how he, with a cold, almost lifeless pale mediumistic face, perhaps in a trance, automatically writes down on paper the nightmarish whisperings of spirits, turning to some kind of telegraphic apparatus; “in his body, as if devoid of a personal soul, the souls of the dead pass through.” At first what he sees is blurry; this is The boundless sea of visions (p. 29). Then it is formed. Clouds of heavy vapors float before the motionless gaze. The fog swayed from a thousand faces Restless, pitiful, he is merged: From a running start he flies onto granite (p. 29). “Deadly fear” is caused by a dark spirit “breaking through with noise” through the earthly spirits; the eyes of this spirit shine with a gloomy flame. “I am the king over the body,” he exclaims, “ In connection with what follows, this passage seems to me not at all unclear. One has only to recall the views of some Gnostics, for example, Marcion, “the firstborn of Satan”, Cerinthos, “the enemy of truth”, Saturninus, Basilides, Carnocrates, etc., it is worth comparing with this the teaching of modern Luciferians in order to see where the author’s views are heading, or should be heading, if to be consistent. The Creator of the material world is a lower principle that interferes and resists evolution and wants to capture souls through the body. Tuton is called the Demon; among the Gnostics it is the Demiurge, among the Luciferists it is the “black god”, Adonai, irritated and jealous. The body remains for Him, and the soul must fear, flee from Him, rushing to the “white God” of the Luciferians or, as in this poem, to “God”. Escape from matter is necessary. In a word, this is the same detached spiritualism that makes redemption impossible and unnecessary, because it is impossible to save what is in its essence, by nature, evil, so that even the Demon himself “will rise boldly to God” when “the rebellious body dies”; and the souls have nothing to redeem, since they themselves, through their own efforts, free themselves from the body and move forward. The general views of the “Ladder” on the life process and on the structure of the spiritual world do not contain anything essentially new: it is a fusion of some Gnostic views with the systems of Davis 129 and Rivel, better known under the name of Allan Kardak 130 . Some of the views of the Neoplatonists, Neo-Buddhism and the doctrines of the Theosophical Society are very naturally attached to this. But, I say, this is not news. Such a synthesis in one form or another enjoys enormous popularity as a religion (“spiritualist religion”), so that since 1870 one must count the number of adherents of the “spiritualist church” to more than 20 million: according to Dr. Philips, in Paris alone there are about 400,000 of these “believers,” and in Liege almost a quarter of the population belongs to the same church (J. Bois) 131. Moreover, in Belgium there are entire villages that are mostly inhabited by spiritualists. It has its own church, its own religious meetings, its own cult of the dead; spiritualism, having openly broken with Catholicism, also breaks with Christianity. “We,” the spiritualists said to the above-mentioned J. Bois, “once had a crucifix over the bust of Allan Kardak, but we replaced it with Jesus the magnetizer.” However, this could not be more consistent, and from A. Kardek and Blavatsky to the Luciferistic “gospel” of Albert Pike there is only one step, and an almost necessary step. “Occultism, spiritualism and theosophy 132 133,” says Bois, “adjoins more or less Luciferism. They are led by the same spirit of pride and immediate satisfaction” and, as far as an outside viewer can judge, all these systems in a more or less obvious and conscious form contain hostility, sometimes reaching the point of hatred, towards the “official” God, towards Adonai, and some cult of the Risen One, whether this Risen One will be called by them simply God, the “white God”, Lucifer, Prometheus, Pan or some other way. Yes, even if all this were not in them, then consistency requires it; since the Creator of the world acts improperly, one must rebel against Him, one must honor everyone who rebels, and hence the cult. It is in vain that Valery Bryusov is so concerned about spiritualism: it is not the facts that are being denied; let them be; It is up to psychologists to study them. The facts, if not all, then many, are attested, and from a scientific point of view they are very interesting. But this is not that, not that, and we are not talking about facts! They want to present us not with facts, not even with theories, but with a religious-philosophical system, a spiritualist religion. We understand perfectly well what it obliges us to, what conclusions it forces us to and what consequences it leads to. Much can be accepted from spiritualist theories, but only insofar as they do not leave the field of psychology, physiology, etc. But when they want to imperceptibly drag us into the field of metaphysics and mysticism, when instead of scientific views they want to push us with improved positivism 134, then we will resist with our hands and feet. This is too serious, more serious than those who turn tables think. Recognizing the spiritualist religion is only the first step; and then you will slide from heresy to heresy, both logically and morally, - you will certainly slide to the cult of the Antichrist. To take such a step, you at least have to think, and that feeling of impurity that remains after the sessions for so many, that deathly appearance of the medium, which indicates the mastery of some, at least not good, forces - all this hints at what (or with whom) we are dealing 135. Spiritualism, which is not studied scientifically, in most cases is superstition. As for scientific study, it is just as absurd for us, alien to this special branch of psychology or pneumatology, to meddle in research, just as it would be absurd if someone, not knowing physics and not being prepared, began to study, for example, radioactive phenomena simply because they seem curious or important to him. So in this sense, Valery Bryusov’s solicitations are strange, to say the least, and an invitation to amateurism can hardly be desirable. “Spiritism,” he says, “is hateful for new mystics, because everything is rushing toward experimental sciences.” This is not true. Many of the “new mystics” strive for experimental sciences, they themselves seek confirmation and justification everywhere, including sometimes on spiritualistic facts, but the “new mystics” have Christ, and no spiritualism (as a religious system, and not a fact) will tempt them to fall away and wander in fog and darkness; if we sometimes have to force our way through the strongholds of natural science (to be convinced, however, that there was a wonderful way out), then will we really stop before the darkness of spiritualism? In any activity, based on any data, the subject rises to a new principle, more perfect than the data themselves; and then, having discarded the scaffolding, which turns out to be either unnecessary or even unreliable, the subject begins to be deduced from the found principle, which turns out to be valuable regardless of the stairs by which we got to it. These are, for example, the laws of energy in physics, the “law of duality” in geometry, etc. We climbed along different paths and from different sides, but we came together at one peak, in the highest principle - Christ. Now we don’t care about our paths, which may be circuitous and inconvenient. Our entire worldview is Christology; We can derive from Christ, build on Him, trust in Him, unite in Him and live in Him. But if the basis for the worldview in Miropolsky’s poem is made up of generally known ideas, then the enormous merit of its author is that he united these ideas into something whole, introduced abstract asceticism, which is little characteristic of real Luciferism, although it required it logically, and presented abstract and somewhat vague ideas of a religious-metaphysical nature in an artistic, concrete form. But the purely external side of the poem is no less remarkable. The peculiar song structure of the verse, the variety of rhythm, the correspondence of sounds and content make the poem interesting. Let's take a few examples. Here, at least, is the “song of the guslar.” It’s as if these oracular sounds are heard in the foggy night air; there is no resonance and the words fall dully like clods of wet earth. Yes, in essence, the whole poem is a poem of dying, a hymn to “sweet death.” Or watch the song of the march. Jerky, hissing and whistling noises, harshness and harshness of sound, cold and cutting cruelty: A few verses are enough to recreate the spiritual mood of warriors, brave, battle-hardened, harsh and cruel. But, however, this particular meter in which the “song of the march” is written, and a similar aesthetic idea have their own precedent in Tyutchev (“Song of the Scandinavian Warriors”) 136, although I cannot, of course, say anything about borrowing. Let's turn to the content of the poem. Of course, I resolutely refuse to spoil the poem with my presentation: I will only indicate the diagram. The Demon reigns over the world and the “terrible body,” obviously the same one who says in the introduction: “I am the king over the body, I gave birth to the body, I will also rule the soul.” Imperfect spirits, half-spirits, call Him God. This Demon took the form of a monk and “like a black, cold ghoul” flew into the monastery; “He was a wolf among the sheep, but an exemplary shepherd to the monks.” The Demon Monk is somewhat reminiscent of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor and expresses similar views about the need for a “great idol”, without which people would feel worse off, since it gives them peace. “We, wanderer, do not need an incorporeal world,” he says. – The spirits are waiting for liberation from the Demon, liberation in the name of some “imageless, Image-having” God, some “Unknown”, which is spoken of in the poem rather dully; she, however, would not lose anything if nothing was said about him at all, since such a God has the character of an “unnecessary hypothesis” and is an echo of the depth of the Gnostics; de facto God in the poem is a certain Elder, whose face “breathes with the living will,” and his assistant the Prince. And the faithful were waiting for the old fighter, Spent his life in painful evil, And he cursed knowledge again, So that it is pure, like an imperishable crystal, He could stand before death. Finally he was born and took a certain “chosen one,” the Prince, as his assistant. After some feats, the Prince learns from the Elder his Mission: “Learn that it flowed more than once Searching and striving, you did not know That you are fulfilling your former will. Like a black, cold ghoul, Driven by agonizing fear, A strong spirit flew into the monastery And he settled down as a monk. You, chosen one, will come to him, Like a beggar with a holy prayer; Under the cassock there is a treacherous knife Suddenly it will flash in front of you. Give yourself into sinful hands. And you will become the ruler of souls, Having gone through immeasurable torment...” (p. 43). This terrible thought becomes attached to the reader like an obsession, and against your will you begin to sympathize with the Prince in his madness; it’s something like Garshin’s “Red Flower,” but much crazier, because it’s about the life of a man who was “an exemplary shepherd to the monks.” The prince fulfills the order as he was told; for this he is burned. But then the fire flared up and went out in a bright flame. A meteor slid across the sky, and the unforeseen hour of struggle struck (p. 64), the hour of the final struggle between the Elder and the Demon. The elder “is full of enmity towards the Master (Demon)... he believes in the greatness of happiness without the will of a broken body. He knows formidable spells and fights the Demon bravely.” The fight ends with “The Demon will be cast into the abyss!” I conveyed the diagram of this poem and repeat once again that this “ladder,” which has “hundreds of steps to cold greatness,” represents a grandiose concept of positivism, undoubtedly anti-Christian: in Miropolsky’s view, it acquires high artistic interest, as a concrete image of metaphysical and religious ideas. I will now turn to Bely’s poem. The first thing you notice when reading the “Symphony” is its special musicality, not so much melodiousness or full-soundingness, but some kind of peculiar rhythm. It is difficult to explain in a few words what it is, but I will still try. Everyday speech has its own tasks: it is required to express it briefly, or accurately, or not to repeat itself, etc. All such conditions prevent the free crystallization of speech, and as a result, an incorrectly formed, amorphous sound body is obtained. On the other hand, poetic speech imposes its own restrictions; it requires melodiousness, rhyme, rhythm; all this is already necessary and with its inflexibility presses on speech, being for it something external, imposed from the outside and alien to the very essence of the phrase. These requirements again interfere with the correct organization of speech as speech; if you leave it to yourself, the verse will be unsuccessful; if not, then the external form prevails, while the content recedes into the background, being an accompaniment (Balmont). A. Bely’s “Symphony” is an attempt to eliminate all disturbing causes and allow speech to crystallize in a free environment, to enable the molecular forces of language to follow their natural paths and form an organized whole from within, rather than an amorphous mass. In a word, here we are talking about the art of pure words and, just as a symphony in music is music par excellence, pure music, so the work of A. Bely is an experience in the art of words par excellence over all other types of poetry. This is a demand for freedom; but not freedom of arbitrariness, but the recognition that speech, as such, in itself is something valuable and harmonious in its own special laws, that it can have its own goals - this is the requirement that A. Bely apparently sets. Therefore, if the inner spirit of a phrase requires rhyme, rhyme appears; but this is not an imposed rhyme, so to speak, but a necessary one. For greater clarity, let me look at a few examples. Something fresh sounded in the roar of the trees, which, making noise, They shuddered and froze in sorrow (p. 22). Here the rhyme reproduces the sound of the forest and a sudden gust of wind, and it is required by the content and form of the phrase. Before “what” comes a crescendo 137, the gradually approaching noise of the tops tilting. After "what" diminuendo 138; the wave goes away, and the tops of the trees sway in the other direction. But, for example, the ringing of glass bells, ringing and cold. ...Oh, my flowers are pure, like crystal! Silvery! Golden, fragrant, not simple - red-sleepy, radiant, like crystal, pure. And he shouted jubilantly: “I love you more and more tenderly” (p. 67–68). These are the voices of the indifferent forces of nature, dancing rhythmically. – Or even servility and grinning: The damned butler came out to greet the guests, Hunchbacked, bending over, he spread his arms and spoke smiling (p. 83) Etc. In the same way, alliteration appears naturally, due to the internal harmony of language; the same must be said about purely external rhythmicity. They laughed loudly. A simpleton saw them. For the same reason, there is a certain onomatopoeia, and in the sense of complete harmony between content and sounds, some phrases leave nothing to be desired, although this is not an artificial harmony, but such that in freely developing speech it could not but exist. For example, “a cold trickle of a stream babbled: “No-time...”.” Here you can feel the chill of the clear spring water, and you can directly hear the sounds of the water jet; the emphasized syllables are directly snatched from the music of water, justifying the words of Hoffmann: “... the musical tone is the more perfect the closer it comes to some of the mysterious sounds of nature, not yet torn from her breast.” Using similar, often completely primitive means, A. Bely creates a whole deeply promising picture, for example: The trunky distance darkened blue. Between the trunks The goat-legged forester hobbled, Disappearing somewhere to the side (p. 22). This “disappearing somewhere on the side” is a direct discovery and better reproduces a pine or spruce forest than any number of paintings. – Or here’s another: ...the knight pressed his hands to his chest, looked at the goat and sang in a rough bass voice: “O my goat-legged brother!... No matter how simple the words, it was hardly possible to depict better the rude voice of a rude knight, hoarse from loud shouting. - And this is the place: 2. Between the trunks in the days of madness, the voice of the sorcerer kept sounding, calling upon the silver-thin witches to perform witchcraft. 4. “With the thirst of the day by the fire in the darkness, fauns, sorcerers, goats, let us rejoice.” 5. “We are equal in dancing, let’s dance a glorious dance in the darkness!.. Goats!..” Black shaggy bodies wriggle rhythmically in the light of the fire. The intense orgasm reaches its highest state - and suddenly everything becomes numb with the sudden blow of the kettledrums: “fauns!”, breaking off dully, as if placed on something soft. This is a reproduction in words of the same thing that Grieg and Saint-Saens did in music. So far I have spoken only about the external rhythm of the Symphony. But the main rhythm in the “Symphony” is the internal rhythm, the rhythm of images, the rhythm of meaning. This rhythm is reminiscent of the return of a theme or a separate phrase in music and consists in the fact that several themes of varying importance are poured out at once; internally they are one, but externally they are different. And such topics are interspersed and separated from each other only by pauses. But since there are no gradual transitions from one topic to another - the topics seem to interrupt each other, then in addition to internal unification, some external unification is also necessary; this is achieved by repeating certain phrases - poems. For example, the themes of one of the parts are: the dark and unclean experiences of a knight; the queen's holy prayers; the life of the forest and the dancing in it, the giants. The last two themes serve as a backdrop for the developing tragedy. The life of the forest and the sorcerer depict the forces of nature, which in themselves are not evil, but not good either, which have not yet decided on either good or evil. This is natural humanity. The giants, with pale stone faces, straining over the dragging of clouds, represent the titanic in nature and humanity, 139 that is, nature, since it itself is something real, strong and for the time being, warring against God (Jacob). But this is not just a self-affirming creature, self-affirming as a creature, but something that is aware of its power, but does not define its boundaries. The hour will come, and, having injured its leg in an unbearable struggle, it will ask for blessings from the Divine and humble itself before the Almighty 140. These themes, interrupting each other and at the same time closely intertwining with each other, create the majestic tragic part of the symphony, giving it a special completeness. Ordinary works can be compared with single-voice music, this one will have to be compared with polyphonic music... “Northern Symphony” has a fairytale-apocalyptic spirit in its content. Its apocalyptic nature, however, does not lie in the fact that the poem depicts the events of the Apocalypse; this does not exist, and even the fourth movement of the “Symphony” does not correspond to “Revelation”. Apocalypticism is in the mood; from beginning to end, the awareness of the proximity of dawn gradually increases; through the lattice of fabulous words, the jubilant singing of “Christ is risen from the dead...” is heard all the time and a breathless whisper is heard: “They have made their robes white with the blood of the Lamb...” 141 An almost unbearable, terrible joy without images and definite ideas paralyzes the flow of existence, and one is convinced by experience that “there will be no more time.” “In a deep, lyrical voice, the centaur shouted to me that he saw a pink sky from the hill... ...that the dawn is visible from there... So the centaur Bucentaur shouted to me in a peaceful voice, rushing past me like a whirlwind. ...And the mad centaur rushed into the distance, shouting that he had seen the pink sky from the hill... ...That the dawn is visible from there...” The Symphony has four movements. The first of them, fabulously heroic, takes the reader into the Germanic world. Memories of childhood sound with new vividness, when we reveled in the folk tales of the Germans, when we could not imagine a king without a red robe trimmed with gold, and were interested in the question of how the king puts on a hat, since he always has a jagged crown on his head. Somewhere in the distance the action of the first part takes place. In the depths of centuries the heroic is visible, and a tape with a number of paintings passes before contemplation. Then the touchingly naive and even tawdry appears; one feels like Hoffmann's rehash. But the tackiness is sweet; as if a child dreams in naive forms about something important and serious; he wants to decorate this important thing with everything he has on hand, and he decorates it with gold leaf and tinsel, paper roses and colored ribbons from purchases... The heroic is inferior to the everyday. “Silver flashed in the king’s curls. Wrinkles furrowed the mother’s face,” and you want to cry childish tears and grieve with childish grief for the aging king and poor queen. It's done cold. “The Queen came out in a warm robe trimmed with ermine. The venerable king hid his hands in his sleeves from the cold. He liked to mark time, warming up. His nose was turning red...” The entire royal family gathered in their tiled room and hid from the blizzard. “The young girl was dozing on the lap of her sovereign mother. The father, taking off his red clothes and remaining in white silk and a crown, meekly darned the holes in the red clothes and trimmed them with gold...” “So it went year after year...” Light sadness and light joy, childhood and fairy tales are over. The second part of the symphony begins, tragic. Copper pipes scream ominously and sharply; The bassoons echo them nasally. Ease gives way to sharp and severe fractures. The contours are filled in, the characters cease to be outlines, and deep chiaroscuro appears. Dark heredity, sinfulness and unclean ghosts nod and smile and pull towards themselves. On the other hand, the holy ceases to be only sinless; it becomes higher than sin, becomes a power, although partly taming the unclean. Holiness and sinfulness fight and strain to the last strength. Moments of tenderness; sometimes evil spirits are suppressed, only to flare up with even greater force afterwards. They are exhausted. Sin breaks through, the final clash and... a thunderclap. And the forces of nature, throughout the struggle and after, murmur and shimmer, and play with pure and cold chords, calming after this struggle and the thunderclap. The second part ends slowly and quietly. “The sorcerer stretched out his hands to the wine-golden horizon, where the last lump of the cloud tower was spreading, melting, and sang to the dawn: “You laugh, all the carelessness, all, like eternity, golden, over this ancient world”... “Do not be embarrassed by our belated feast... Light up the bright scarlet flame above the forest...” (p. 69). If in the first part there is individualism, if there a person is a natural person, not yet good and not evil in himself, then in the second part there is a struggle between real and ideal content, an attempt to subordinate everything that interferes with the ideal to this ideal. From the Germanic world we move to the Slavic, from the hero to the saint, from the man-god to the God-man. Cold gray days. Rain and wind and yellowed leaves. Autumn songs... Thus begins the third part, the dramatic one. Sad and gray from the fall that has taken place. I want to fill the emptiness of my soul with blasphemy and satanism. The last glimpse of consciousness and a painful question. The titanic is making its last efforts, exhausted, ready to resign itself. Both holiness, having won the last victory, and sin, everything passes away. Sadness and expectation: how long, Lord, how long... The fourth part begins, mystical and beautiful. The situation changes, and we find ourselves in purgatory. Translucency and soft matte light. Difficult dreams and nightmares disappear. The old is remembered, the past is resurrected, “The clouds stretched and stood. Adam and Eve walked knee-deep in water along the shallows. They were wearing Old Testament sackcloths. Adam led the thousand-year-old wrinkled Eve by the hand. Her hair, white as death, fell on her dry shoulders. We went to familiar, lost countries. They looked around with delight and laughed with the blissful laughter of old people. We remembered forgotten places...” (p. 103). One cannot help but want to interrupt the presentation and recall the words of Elder Zosima. “...Old grief, the great secret of human life, gradually turns into quiet, tender joy: instead of youthful boiling blood, a meek, clear old age sets in; I bless the daily sunrise, and my heart still sings to it, but I love its sunset more, its long slanting rays, and take away the quiet, meek, tender memories, sweet images from my entire long and blessed life - and above all is the truth of God, touching, reconciling, all-forgiving! My life is ending, I know and hear it, but for every remaining day I feel how my earthly life is already in contact with a new, endless, unknown, but close future life, from the premonition of which my soul trembles with delight, my mind shines and my heart weeps with joy” (Dostoevsky) 142. It was this mood that A. Bely embodied in a number of specific images, and he did it very skillfully. I return to the presentation. In this country - purgatory, "dwelt happiness, young, like the first snow, light, like the sleep of a wave." “Here they forgot about work and sadness! They didn't talk about anything. Everyone forgot and everyone knew! They were having fun, not dancing, but taking off in graceful interplanetary chords. They laughed with a blissful watery laugh...” Universal sincerity and complete wisdom. Forgiveness. A barely audible organ, or perhaps the reeds, sing a chorale of joy and tenderness. Even the titanic bows down to the Almighty and is forgiven. Last night. Everything trembles with joyful anticipation of the future. It's already dawn. "The silver bell struck..." Both A. Miropolsky and, to a much greater extent, A. Bely, in their poems, despite the general consistency, there are some mistakes and false notes, which are very annoying when reading. But since our critics are primarily busy finding shortcomings in the works they criticize, I leave this part of the analysis to the hunters to catch other people’s mistakes, and I myself will return to the content of both poems. Miropolsky’s “Ladder” can be called a poem of anti-Christian positivism. Bely’s “Symphony” is a poem of mystical Christianity. By this, of course, I do not at all want to say that in terms of its content the first poem was positivism, and the second was Christianity. No, but the main mood of the first poem is the same one that makes you dream about endless evolution, about a “crystal palace” and life without a real and living God. In this world, however, the individual disappears, and it was he who wanted to be “like the gods”; in this world, endless evolution is impossible, human culture is fragile; in this world, finally, we have no reason to hope for a power that would arbitrarily rule the universe, for willpower. Both the individual and the race are destroyed sooner or later. If so, then all the claims of positivism are obviously absurd. And so, here a wonderfully ingenious bypass of all objections is invented. Everything that was previously said about the material world is now transferred to the purely spiritual realm, to the world of spirits. And here, as before, there is evolution, “hundreds of steps to cold greatness,” and self-affirmation, and an unlimited increase in one’s strength. Here we are dealing with the most terrible and powerful enemy of Christianity, and, no matter how views such as these may seem fantastic, or poorly founded, or even absurd, they are special beliefs and, as such, represent an incomparably greater anti-Christian force than all skeptical considerations combined. No matter how subtle skepticism may be, you cannot believe in it, because it has no content of its own; and since faith is necessary, the skeptic eventually returns along a different path to the same thing that he disputed. Spiritualism, like positivism in general, is something meaningful and therefore can be an object of faith; As an improved positivism, it does not have the weaknesses of the usual form of positivism 143. Although in actual content there may be many intermediate stages between Christianity and spiritualism, in the form of faith, in the basic all-determining mood, there is no transition between one and the other system of beliefs. There can be no middle ground here, and sooner or later a mortal struggle must arise between the spiritualist religion and Christianity. The fact that modern positivists look askance at spiritualism does not in the least prove the absence of internal kinship between them, so it is very natural to expect a union of these factions of positivism, or, rather, the absorption of ordinary positivism into spiritualism 144 . A. – Until now, all our conversations, no matter where they began, ultimately boiled down on your part to the eternal refrain: “There cannot be a consistent worldview, without a religious basis, there cannot be a consistent life - a life in truth, without religious experience.” On my part there was bewilderment: I did not deny, as you remember, that, indeed, the absolute worldview that you want is impossible, a worldview capable of embracing everything with a single dialectically bound chain of judgments; in the same way, I did not deny the impossibility of a completely consistent life according to the truth, that is, a life justified in every detail from the point of view of an absolute worldview - I did not deny, however, not because we are weak and unstable, but first of all because such truth is even impossible - it is impossible to give the full truth of life, its meaning, because I cannot, as I said, recognize the right of existence of an absolute worldview, and it only can, - more precisely, could - reveal the meaning of life and thereby justify, although would be post factum 147, behavior. A. – Do you think that this is possible for knowledge in general as its ultimate goal and a never-attainable ideal; or perhaps somewhere and someday, not for you, but for another, in millions of years; or, finally, maybe you believe that such a worldview is possible under the specific conditions given to us, that is, now, for you, for example? V. – Yes, now, it’s possible for me; but also for anyone who wants: “Ask and it will be given.” A. – And, if it’s not a secret, do you already have it? Did it work? Or did you succeed? V. – No, it’s not a secret. Much is not fully developed for me; even more not understood in logical forms, not sufficiently perceived and assimilated. But if not the worldview itself, then the beginnings and foundations of it already exist. It’s just in vain that you change the meaning of the above quotation: it was not “successful” and not “given,” but given 148 . A. – I understand, but... however, I don’t want to argue. Let it be “given”. Just tell me, is it possible for your worldview, which is just beginning, which is being prepared - whatever you want to call it - to be subsumed under some established type? A. – Which one exactly? A. – I hope it’s not church-related. V. – You hope in vain: it’s the church, the catholic. A. – You know, I deliberately conducted the conversation with such details; I wanted you to say exactly what you just said. Q. – That the absolute worldview is Catholic Christianity? A. – That’s exactly what it is. I want to talk to you to explain myself. Of course, it is not my intention to talk about the absoluteness of such a worldview; this supposed absoluteness sounds too strange to me to be worth wasting time discussing. But I want to understand, as far as I can accommodate, your views on reality... V. – (Silence interrogatively.) A. – Are you looking, perplexed? Are you silent? Cum taces clamas? 149 Shout to yourself silently. I cannot raise questions about the absolute worldview, I cannot, if you like, purely physiologically. Absolutes get stuck in my throat and with their astringent astringency spoil the mood of the spirit; all these “Truths” only make you angry. No, spare me the absolutes... 150 V. – Quid est veritas? 151 So, what? A. - That's it. And what do you need the truth for? It is not for nothing that Dostoevsky’s Chort points out the following trait: “If he wanted to cheat, why else, it seems, would there be a sanction of truth? But this is our modern Russian man: he won’t even dare to cheat without permission, so much so has he loved the truth.” V. – Does this apply to us? A. – By the way, I remembered; However, let’s leave such a delicate subject aside. But, I say, I want to understand you. Not recognizing absolute worldviews, I will not, of course, demand absolute evidence from you in favor of your worldview. It would be enough for me - I would understand you - if you showed me that your worldview is legitimate among others. After all, now for me it is an outcast, a pariah among other worldviews; although they are also unimportant, you still won’t choke on them like yours. After all, for me, from the theoretical side, it is children’s fiction, and from the practical side, it is a harmful social poison: latet anguis in herba 152. But that's not the point. I can and will recognize this state of affairs as having ceased then, and only then, when it is shown to me, firstly, the possibility of everything that you assert, i.e. miracles, sacraments “and other things,” but not separately, but in the form of a coherent system, and, secondly, when it is shown to me that all these statements of yours, if they turn out to be possible, conceivable, among countless other statements, have some advantage in the sense of probability, that is, that they are not only conceivable, but also have some not too small probability. So, I will understand you when you can show that all your dogmas, sacraments and the like are conceivable as such - do not contain absurdities - and that your decisions and your views on the sacraments and the like have behind them any significant number of chances - not infinitely improbable. A. – It’s a pity. Well, in that case, for now - note only for now, in anticipation of your de omni re scibili atque quibusdam aliis 153 - for now I will give up my second wish, and from the first I will leave the following: I will offer you several questions, and I will help you in every possible way, as if taking my side. Is it coming? A. – (After some silence.) The general scheme of your worldview, as I understand it, can be expressed as follows: a certain psychophysical action of man, which you call the Fall, led man into a painful state - painful in the broadest sense, that is, he could previously control himself and the reality surrounding him: plants, animals, etc. - and had power over the states of his body and spirit and over nature. But man lost his psychophysical balance and disrupted his stable relationship with the environment. Loss of balance with the environment entailed suffering of all kinds: illness in a more intimate sense and, ultimately, death. By heredity, such a disease of the entire psychophysical organism, that is, a violation of the proper and hitherto, in your opinion, functioning of the entire psychophysical organism - the flow of mental and physical states - was transmitted to the entire family; and since there is no question of justice from the laws of reality, it turned out that every individual suffers from the same ailment, although he personally did not take part in the Fall; Everyone’s body is upset from its very birth - this is like the consequences of alcoholism in the offspring of an alcoholic, no one can therefore sufficiently control the body and spirit - obsessed, in your terminology, with lusts and passions, which is why he suffers all sorts of illnesses, suffers, suffers; and as a result - exilus letalis 154, and all people, as descended from the same ancestors, are all sick. Here is the first, so to speak, picture of your worldview. I will not touch on all the difficulties that it arouses in me for now - we will talk about them another time - I will just mention something: nothing proves any particularly high state of man in ancient times, but on the contrary; especially nothing proves the existence of moral will in ancient times; nothing proves the absence of death for such a person; nothing proves his supremacy over nature - even on the contrary; we do not know what kind of psychophysical effect this can perturb the entire organism; We have no grounds to affirm the unity of the human race and to make such a broad - nay, all-encompassing - application of the principle of heredity of acquired characteristics, especially since this principle has not been proven at all. Let, however, all these difficulties be avoided; let it all be as you say. I will go further in presenting your teaching. Picture two: a number of individuals, called, in your opinion, prophets, pointed to a means to stop this collective disease - the disease of the family. At least one person had to cope with himself and thereby set an example for others. The prophets did not know in detail what the fight against the disease should consist of, and did not have enough strength and determination to use their knowledge. I admit, however, that there were still some conditions unknown to them, which, so to speak, had to be in the air for healing to become possible - well, there was some special composition of the atmosphere, some hygienic conditions, sewage disposal - and the absence of these conditions prevented the self-healing of the vices. They, however, were convinced that sooner or later healing would be accomplished, that all the data for healing one of the people would be found - not necessarily consciously, but by instinct, inspiration. They called such a self-healing person the Messiah. Some considerations - I don’t know which ones, but I admit for the time being that they were solid - some considerations, I say, allowed the prophets to indicate a number of signs of such a Messiah, for example, for some reason the prophets considered the blood of the Davidic family especially favorable for the emergence in a person of that outstanding power that could defeat the disease, they said that such a person would come from a virgin, they saw the most favorable conditions in the climatic conditions of Bethlehem, associated them with certain astronomical phenomena and so on. One pointed to some signs, the other to others, so that in general a certain picture was formed. A. – I don’t go into details - all this seems extremely incredible to me, almost unthinkable - almost, because it cannot be argued that all this is absolutely unthinkable and logically, internally contradictory. Such a teaching contradicts our current information and beliefs, our modern experience. However, although the experience is modern and quite perfect, we still know so little, there is so much that is unclear and unresolved that I would not consider myself right to say decisively: what you claim is impossible. Maybe... although for me it’s incredible and fantastic. No wonder Arago 156 used to say: “Celui qui en dehors des mathématiques pures, prononce ce mot impossible, manque de prudence” 157 158 . I remember somewhere Pascal says: “Nothing can stop the mobility of our mind. There is no rule without exception, there is no truth so universal that it is not incomplete from some point of view. And if so, then we always have the right to bring a miraculous case under the exception we are talking about, and then a miracle becomes possible” 159. Remaining scientifically conscientious, I cannot say that Pascal was completely wrong in defending your assertions in this way. You say, “such and such a phenomenon occurred that usually does not happen.” What then? Maybe you can somehow find such a combination of mental and physical-chemical conditions, select the preceding and coexisting phenomena in such a way that they will produce the effect you want - strange, unusual, but still not impossible in principle. Maybe... We cannot, of course, prevent you from taking advantage of this Pascalian bypass of scientific principles; we cannot prevent you from justifying many of your statements in this way; in your own way, you are right, but... what you come to is extremely incredible, and, although formally right, you are essentially wrong, you say absurd things... V. – (Quietly.) You are justifying someone, but what does that have to do with us? A. – (Without hearing.) However, temporarily I will speak as if I recognized all your positions and now I am only conveying how I understood them; After all, I need to find out if there is any oversight on my part. Otherwise it's difficult to talk. So, in the end, when there was in the world... A. - Well, of course, in the world of experience, in the world of colors, sounds, pressures and various mental states - when among these bundles of phenomena there were all the conditions for such a Messiah - he was born - as a natural link in the chain of existence, as a bunch of phenomena among others, as a result of very complex combinations of different circumstances; due to the fact that from his very birth he, this Jesus, had all the data to fulfill what was predicted by the prophets - more precisely, to fulfill all the instructions of the prophets - to fulfill not in the sense that he consciously acted according to the recipe, but in the sense of doing, perhaps instinctively, everything necessary to heal himself from the consequences of a birth illness. Chief among other psychophysical actions was the determination to undergo execution. Instinctively or consciously, one way or another, but Jesus, according to your ideas, came to the conviction that with such determination and the torment of execution he would bring himself into a special state, so that after death, in his psychophysical apparatus, the “proper” functioning of the entire organism would resume - he would be resurrected with an “enlightened body” and thereby set an example for others... V. - Wait. This is already factually incorrect. He will not give an example, but will change everything with His death and His resurrection, so that nature and man will have the opportunity to restore the previously lost order. A. – Well, we’ll hear from you about this, my dear, at another time... (Thinks.) 160 . However, so be it. I will temporarily admit even this, and precisely in this formulation: the psychophysical states of Jesus during the execution caused - this is again in your opinion - caused some changes in the world and humanity, due to the fact that the person being executed had such and such properties and performed a number of actions that were discussed earlier. In other words, he, by His death, introduced into the world real conditions for the possibility of transformation; these conditions consisted of some kind of influence - psychic waves, perhaps, some kind of radiation, outflows, whatever you want - on the environment in which Jesus lived; These are the changes that were not noticed by anyone then, perhaps, and could not be noticed then due to the lack of means of observation - these changes were introduced by Jesus into the world for its further transformation, “purification”. Such a transformation, in your opinion, could not take place right away, since it requires some other conditions for its implementation. They are created little by little by the activity of mankind, and in the end, when everything that is needed is fulfilled, that is, when all the necessary conditions are introduced into the phenomena of the world, then suddenly a world catastrophe will occur - either a cataclysm, or a world fire - a transformation of nature - Jesus will appear again, and everyone will be resurrected. Why will there be such a fire? – Well, at least from the fall of the Earth into the Sun... It seems that everything has been said. Yes, I also forgot to add that for his, so to speak, services to humanity and the world, you consider it possible to make a god and, in gratitude for his life and for his activities, you give him the title of son of God and god-man... Is this how I stated the most important thing in your worldview: V. – Although you are not Faust, I can still give you Margarita’s remark: Das ist alles recht schön und gut; Ungefähr sagt das Pfarrea auch, Nur mite in bißchen andern Worten 161 . A. – Why “mit andern Worten”? V. - But because wenn man’s so hört, möchts leidlich scheinen, steht aber doch immer schief darum; den du hast kein Christenthum... 162 V. – This is a tricky question, but it has already been answered by Jesus Christ Himself. “You seek Me, not because you saw miracles, but because you ate bread and were filled. Do not strive for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for the Father God has set His seal on Him... The bread of God is the One who comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world... I am the bread of life... I am the living bread that came down from Heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I gave for the life of the world...” (John 6, 26, 27, 33, 35, 48:51). A. – I don’t understand what this has to do with the conversation? V. – Then let’s start from the other side. The fact is that you made a print from the worldview, so that its external form is extremely similar to the original, but in its inner essence both are diametrically opposed. A. - How so? After all, I kept all the most important things in my presentation, and only missed the little things. For example, he did not talk about the sacraments. V. – Although the sacraments are not trifles at all, that is not the point. Even in what you indicate, the most important thing is missing everywhere, but the form of the most important thing is left. The result is not Christianity, not even some kind of distorted Christianity, but a very skillful counterfeit of Christianity, an imitation so clever that it can easily deceive anyone who does not listen carefully enough to your “mimicry.” A. – Didn’t I talk about everything that is said in the Catechism: V. – About everything, but not quite. Have you noticed such a strange thing: when presenting Christian teaching, you managed to do without the word God completely. A. - How so? I said you are making Jesus a god. V. – That’s the point. You don’t have God as such, but He is made for merit. God for you is something like an honorary title, a kind of “actual state councilor,” but in a different area, and not at all a definition of a Being. A. – In this case, perhaps it can be formulated this way: Jesus was resurrected and by this, by his resurrection, by his victory over death, he became a god, just as heroes turned into gods through their exploits? V. – Of course not. Jesus Christ did not become god, but was and is God. For you, His Divinity comes out as some kind of result, something additional, secondary, and not the first, whereas it is the beginning, the essence. You said: “Jesus became god because he was resurrected.” A. – After all, it was promised that I would help you, and therefore I wanted to express your teaching in the most favorable form for it. V. - Yes, but Jesus Christ is not God because he has risen, but because he has risen because he is God. The first is not empirical, but Divine; It is not the Divine that follows from the empirical, but, on the contrary, the empirical is a revelation of the Divine. A. – So, you really think that I did not expound your worldview? V. – The worldview that you presented is pure positivism; ours is essentially theistic. In the worldview you set out, a person violates some natural laws, that is, the laws of empirical existence, and therefore suffers the natural consequences of such a violation, then naturally, with his own strength, he finds a way out of this situation and becomes a god-like being. In a word, here all the springs of events lie in the sensory world, the causes and their consequences do not go beyond the boundaries of experimental reality. For such a worldview, there is only natural, psychophysical humanity, what in Scripture is called spiritual, in contrast to spiritual. And this kind of spiritual humanity creates Jesus Christ out of itself - it saves and deifies itself. The person of your worldview is actually a supporter of the one who said: “eritis sicut Deus” 163. Do I understand you this way: A. - Of course, so. But how could it be otherwise? What kind of humanity is this that does not act on its own? And so on. V. – You talk all about “bundles” and “bundles”. I will also help you, guided by James 164. Their representative in one area is a “bunch” of radishes and a “bundle” of bagels, and in another – a “bundle of specifically defined reactions”, called the “English gentleman”, and a “useful bunch of associations”, which from childhood, according to the “law of contiguity”, merged with the “delayed emotions” of standing in the corner and therefore “displaced” from the “field of consciousness” a bunch of “impulsive aspirations and original reactions”, called “walking down the street”, which appeared in the “wave of consciousness”, a “core” of feelings of boredom with a “rim” or “ring” of “thoughts” about deliverance and “desires” to be on the street, as well as “memories” of former happy times - “a certain rim” or “penumbra” of emotions of fear and the sensation of yawning - this is the bundle that “has some practical value for its owner unity”, which we call “Euclidean elements”. No, all jokes aside, I actually wanted to express your thought, but in an emphatic way. A. – This is us. Well, what about you?... V. - We recognize that by his fall, man violated not natural laws, not the laws of empirical existence, but the mystical order of being, that illness, death, and moral decay did not appear directly because the laws of the sensory world and the laws of that spiritual world, which is studied in empirical psychology, were violated, but [were] only an external revelation of a revolution in the mystical field, a change in the internal attitude towards the Divine, and this is the attitude of the spirit to the Divine prior to any “state of consciousness”, lies outside the “bundle of mental phenomena” 165. We recognize, further, that humanity could not create healing remedies from itself, because everything that humanity does from itself and from itself is all only human, that is, psychophysical, empirical, mental, and in this case it was necessary to act in the mystical field - to restore the mystical order. All empirical means would be palliatives 166, and, moreover, useless - they would be the construction of a Tower of Babel, and man does not and cannot have his own mystical powers. But, on the other hand, God as such could not change the damaged state of humanity, since humanity, being a member of the mystical damaged relationship and being an independent entity, could not be purified from the outside by absolutely nothing and at the same time could not be purified from within by itself. The only possibility was the incarnation of God. Since it was necessary that the action should not be directed from the outside, coming outside of man, God became man, and those were given the opportunity to act from within. On the other hand, man did not have the strength to act from within; therefore God began to act for him. The restoration could be accomplished only by such a Being who, having in Himself two natures, Divine and human, at the same time could act both as God and as a man, would have two wills giving a single moral decision. The God-man destroyed the dilemma, both horns of which separately were impossible, and, reconciling the divided horns of the dilemma, replacing the dividing “either-or” with the connecting “both-and”, he accomplished the restoration of humanity. But all the power lies in the fact that Jesus Christ did not become a god, but was the True God, remaining at the same time a man. His mission was mystical, not social or anything like that. A. - I don’t understand. You proclaim all this “without hesitation,” and yet... For experimental research, Jesus was the same as every person; There were, of course, some variations, but there were no significant differences. After all, the Apostle says: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and which our hands have touched...” (1 John 1:1). Do you agree that for every experience Jesus turned out to be approximately the same as any other person, of course, within the limits of individual differences? A. – Next, do you agree that the world... A. – It’s still the same experimental world, the world of “ligaments” with “rims” that you made fun of, that before and after the death of Jesus it did not reveal any fundamental difference, so that for any observer the change occurred the same as a historical change in general; Perhaps it was much more than the field of activity of some great man, but in its general character it was the same historical change: A. - In this case, the individual difference that is seen in Jesus, in comparison with every other person, - this variation was all that for which you considered Jesus to be God; this variation produced what you call redemption; and redemption consisted only in the historical advantage that was created by the activity of Jesus. Isn't it? After all, these are all such elementary arguments that it’s somehow awkward to talk about them. I am ready to believe - for the sake of conversation - in any peculiarities of Jesus, but the Apostle himself says that for his personal experience he appeared like any of us - well, that means that if there was any difference, then it was limited to how one person differs from another. Not clear? V. – Like day, but incorrect. V. – Without at all denying that individual variation in Jesus Christ that you speak of, and the historical change that was brought about by His activity in empirical existence, I directly affirm that they were not the issue at all. Jesus Christ was a preacher of morality - yes; was a philanthropist - yes; there was a spiritual mentor - yes; was a public figure - yes. But... we can theoretically think of all this as less and less noticeable, so that it will finally cease to be detectable by any kind of experience, we can mentally imagine that all these activities, decreasing, tend to the limit and disappear, and yet Christ remains Christ, and redemption is redemption. Let me explain this again with a rough example. No matter how important the activity of Jesus Christ is, which I just pointed out, it is not of fundamental importance, and therefore it can be compared with what cut and color tunic Jesus Christ wore, what voice he spoke in, and so on. And this is all very important, but it does not directly relate to the mission of the Savior. A. - Therefore, you say - let's make a fiction - that if Jesus did not exist, but there was some John, who would reproduce the appearance and life of Jesus to the smallest detail, if such a person was exactly a double of Jesus, if he died and was resurrected, then this would not be Christ and the Son of God? V. – That’s the point, I cannot admit that your fictitious person has been resurrected - I think that this cannot be accomplished by empirical means. But if you really want to make such a completely unthinkable fiction, then I will say to it: yes, it were not Christ and the Son of God, he would not have redeemed the world. A. – So, if we could do history twice, and once we would give the world after “redemption”, and the other time we would imitate exactly the same picture of empirical existence observed in experience, replacing Jesus with a fictitious person who would be similar to him in everything observable in experience, then these two states of the world would differ from each other? V. – Yes, because in the second case the world would not be redeemed, it would remain the same world in sin. But, however, we note that I admit your fiction only for the sake of convenience of reasoning, but in essence I do not recognize the possibility of imitating Christ. A. – Now I am beginning to understand what you actually want, but I am resolutely opposed to such views. If you allow me, I will put the question on a more general basis. Given two objects, a and β. There is a known difference between them, observed in experience; but it is such that it can be made as small as desired, so that to distinguish between a and β, more and more subtle experience will be needed; finally, in the limit we can think of the objects a and β as indistinguishable for any experience, no matter how sensitive it may be. Then the experimental difference between a and β is equal to 0, and is indistinguishable from β in any experimental way. Can a be different from B: That is, can there still be a fundamental difference between a and β? Convinced that the entire essence and entire being of an object is exhausted by what can be learned about it from the totality of all conceivable experiences with it, I think that objects cannot be different if they are indistinguishable for any experience, no matter how subtle it may be. For you, apparently, there may be a fundamental difference in this last case - in the case of complete indistinguishability of objects by experience. V. – Yes, that’s true. Here is a specific example to clarify this formulation of the question. There are two identical vessels, and each of them contains a piece of the same weight and volume. These pieces are porous, soaked in red liquid, smell of wine, and have the same taste. Thus, elementary experience - directly through the senses - does not reveal any difference between the two pieces. If, further, we began to carry out more thorough studies, determine specific gravity, hardness, heat capacity, electrical conductivity, microscopic structure and the like, then even then we would not find the slightest difference. Finally, performing a chemical analysis, the most accurate, we will find that the composition of the pieces is the same. After such an experience you declare that these pieces cannot be different; I’m saying that they can be different - fundamentally different: one piece can be a piece of bread soaked in wine, and the other can be the Body and Blood of Christ. V. – No, the wine and bread actually and substantially transubstantiated, that is, they changed their essence and became the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ. A. – Of course, this is a decisive example. Can we add to it the question of confirmation? V. - Yes. This also includes, for example, baptism. It is possible - at least on the theatrical stage - to reproduce baptism with all achievable accuracy, and this, however, will be a simple series of purely empirical actions. Otherwise, the same series of actions is a sacrament, fundamentally different from what is presented on stage and producing a mystical change in the baptized person - rebirth. A person before baptism is identical for sensory experience with a person after baptism, and yet they are internally different: something has been introduced into the baptized person that cannot be detected with the eyes or hands, cannot be discerned by any experience and which, however, is essentially new 167. A. – Yes, indeed, in your opinion it turns out that way, but can it really be accepted? It seems to me that this is some kind of rechictio ad absurdum 168, such casuistry sounds so wild to me. V. – It sounds wild and seems strange solely due to the excessive habit of exclusively sensory experience without a sufficiently critical attitude towards it. A. – But what else can I be used to? I don't know of any other experience. I can discern the difference in objects only with one method, and not twenty. V. – This is not true, and I will show that you have other methods of discerning the difference. Let's even pose the question more broadly: methods can be arranged in a ladder, and the further a given method stands on it, the deeper the differences it reveals between objects. But in order to understand in advance what the differences between objects that are not captured by this method lie or may lie, I will give a simple comparison. Imagine that you have a piece of glass and a piece of ice, polished in the same way. To the eye, these pieces - if the ice is clean - are almost indistinguishable, and it may seem to you that a piece of ice is no more interesting or beautiful than a piece of glass. But from the point of view of molecular structure, ice has an advantage over glass, just like the playing of an orchestra over the noise of a market. There is music in the ice, noise in the glass; in ice - harmony and orderliness, in glass - chaos and disorder; in ice there is organization, in glass there is anarchy. Each particle of glass is only for itself and, at most, pushes against its neighbors; there is no whole. In ice it’s the other way around: here each particle occupies a certain, inherent place in the regular fabric of the whole, in the organization of the wonderful structure. But this difference in internal structure, which is, as it were, a symbol of the difference between a spiritual person and a spiritual person, is completely invisible to the eye. A. – You wanted to move from this example to a general conversation about methods. V. - Yes. Each science delimits the area of ​​its research, creating diagrams of its objects and using a well-known set of characteristics; it is the latter that determines the object of this science as such. If two objects differ from each other according to one or more of the characteristics by which the object of a given science is constructed, then we can distinguish the objects using the methods and means inherent in this science. If it turns out that objects differ from each other according to characteristics that are not part of the object’s schema - a schema built for a given, specific science, then by the methods and means of this science the objects will turn out to be completely indistinguishable. Let us assume that, due to some conditions in which we are placed, we cannot use any methods and means of research other than those that are inherent in this science, that is, we will assume that due to some conditions we can study these objects only from the point of view of our science. Then objects that are obviously different will turn out to be absolutely indistinguishable for our research. So, for example, those two pieces - a piece of ice and a piece of glass, which were discussed earlier, are absolutely indistinguishable for geometric research, since it cannot enter into consideration of the internal structure of the body. Let us further assume that we stand at the point of view of mechanics and have the opportunity to study only the mechanical characteristics that define a certain object. Then we will be able to determine the shape of the body, mass, moment of inertia, and so on, but the temperature of the body, its electrical state, mental phenomena, etc. will remain completely unnoticed by us as such. We know well that two bodies that have all the same mechanical characteristics, but different temperatures, differ from each other, and, however, we cannot detect this difference in any way using the methods of mechanics. If we begin to consider our bodies from the point of view of physics, we begin to study them with the methods and means that physics has for studying its objects, then the difference between the two bodies, namely, their difference in temperature, is immediately seen and captured. In the same way, using the methods of physics, we will not be able to distinguish living matter from nonliving matter. Even if we admit that in living matter some special physical and chemical processes take place, compared to nonliving ones, then even then we will not be able to distinguish living from nonliving, since we can always mentally adjust such a system of mechanisms - postulate such kind of adaptations of a living body that, from the point of view of physics, it can be considered in this respect henceforth as nonliving. Only new methods - not physical ones - will make it possible to discover the difference between living and nonliving things. Here are examples of cases where two objects, indistinguishable in sensory experience at one level, become distinguishable for experience at another level. These are cases of the first type. To cases of the second type we can include those where two objects, absolutely indistinguishable in sensory experience, whatever it may be, however, have a difference for internal experience. As an example, consider the area of ​​morality. Here I am, twice in a row, performing the same act for external observation, under the same circumstances. Let both my actions approach each other as closely as possible in their external expression and external conditions; in the limit they can be thought to be absolutely indistinguishable to an outside observer. Any external experience - the experience of physics, biology, and so on - no matter what methods and means it uses, no matter how thorough and accurate it is, it will refuse to discern the difference between two actions. From its point of view, such experience cannot fail to recognize them as identical. And, however, these two actions are essentially different from each other. One is moral, the other is immoral 169. “Therefore, do not judge anything before the time,” says the Apostle, “until the Lord comes, who will illuminate what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart...” (1 Cor. 4:5). “Everyone’s business will be revealed; for the day will tell; for it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work as it is” (1 Cor. 3:13). “What man knows what is in a man except the spirit of man which dwells in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11). A. – The last one is not entirely clear to me. Perhaps you can explain yourself? V. – If you want... almost every person from childhood obeys moral and civil laws, at least he does not make very noticeable deviations from them. Everyone tries to be considered sincere, everyone seeks the glory of the just. And who would want to appear in society in naturalis 170, taking off all covers, if this entailed trouble? And indeed, almost everyone seems sincere and fair, as if they were so in the depths of their hearts. Evil and good, sincere and spiritual - every person, if he does not want to be branded as an abnormal or criminal person, lives, in general terms, the same way as the other. The difference is mainly not in the methods of action, but in the intimate springs of action - motives. A spiritual person does not go beyond the norm because he has fears of earning punishment or acquiring bad fame, there are certain honors that he may lose, for the sake of which he is a hypocrite; if spiritual people were not afraid of laws and punishments, if they did not tremble for the loss of their reputation, their honors, their fortune, in a word, if external connections ceased to force them to fulfill the work of God, then these people, not having an internal consciousness of their world citizenship, their purpose in the historical process, their connection with the single organism of the Church, not knowing love for God and the becoming body of Christ, not wanting to transfer the center of their being into the Absolute and establishing the axis of the world in themselves and in their whims - these people would break free from the chain that restrains them, deceive and rob others, offend and kill, because doing all this for a person who is going crazy with the internal, volitional denial of the Absolute is not only profitable, but also in itself pleasant and attractive. Then try to humanize and portray such a person. But as long as the wheat and the tares grow together and are connected by empirical reality, they cannot unfold with all their might and for empirical observation they do approximately the same thing. Only a spiritual person, internally affirming God and opening up to His influences, thereby becomes a conscious conductor of Divine powers, a living organ of the body of Christ, fulfilling its function with joy. Such a one does not live for himself and does not die for himself; whether he lives or dies, he dies for the Lord (cf. Rom. 14:7–8). That is why such a one can say: “We have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). That is why such a person has the right to declare: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). The general foundations for moral and social laws are expressed in the Ten Commandments. It is not difficult to verify that a so-called decent person, that is, a spiritual person who does not deviate too much from the average, lives his outer life more or less in accordance with these prescriptions, just like a spiritual person. He shows signs of respect to God - he goes to church, says prayers, listens to sermons, crosses himself, makes a pious and solemn face, fasts - everything is like a spiritual person; further, he does not commit crimes, that is, he does not steal, does not give false evidence, does not kill, does not take away other people’s property by force or cunning, and so on. However, all this is done from motives that have nothing in common with love for God, from external motives, in order to appear righteous in people, in order to enjoy influence, in order to have power. He doesn't kill; but everyone who interfered with his intentions would die a thousand times if the desire to send him to hell killed; If this person had not been bound by the fear of laws, fear of public opinion, if he had not foreseen failure, then, probably, the enemy standing across the road would have long ago been gored and slashed with knife blows, hacked to death with an ax, shot through or poisoned. Oh, if it were possible to burn with hatred, with what slow voluptuousness would he roast his opponent in the evil-burning flame of cruelty! With what glee he would have poisoned him with the poisons of caustic words, would have frozen his blood with the malicious sophistication of cold sarcasms! This man has not killed anyone, but he is a constant killer. Yes, he does not commit adultery; but he is annoyed at his “purity”. If it weren't for this damned publicity! He doesn't steal, he never has. However, he turns green and shakes with envy, looking at other people's goods, twenty times a day he is indignant at social orders that will prevent him from stealing with impunity. He does not steal, but, however, in his heart he commits theft after theft, and therefore he is a constant thief. A. – This “moral man” already spoke about himself. Don't you remember? Living according to strict morals, I have never done harm to anyone in my life. There were many different events where he “did no harm to anyone.” Here, for example, is one of them: I had a daughter; fell in love with the teacher And she wanted to run away with him rashly. I threatened her with a curse: she resigned herself And she married a gray-haired rich man. Their house was brilliant and full, like a bowl, But suddenly Masha began to turn pale and fade away And a year later she died of consumption, Having struck the whole house with deep sadness... I have never done harm to anyone in my life 171. V. – This is someone who has not yet felt and clearly understood that even such “virtue” constrains him. But do you know how external bonds torment a person who is aware of them! His “righteousness” becomes a heavy burden and a cruel yoke. Do you remember Sieur Clubin from V. Hugo? 172 Do you remember how this “most honest man on all the seas,” artistically hypocritical, calculating his game to the last detail, putting everything on the line in order to create a reputation for himself as the most honest, cannot wait for the moment when he brazenly mocks those who believed him, when he can throw off his mask, and rejoice, and revel in the crime for which he has been “honest” for so long. “For thirty years he wore a mask of hypocrisy. He hated virtue. He was a monster in human form. He was a prisoner of honesty; like a mummy in a coffin, he was enclosed in a shell of innocence, general respect suppressed him. Being known as an honest person is terrible. Often he hid the gnashing of his teeth with a smile. Virtue choked him, and all his life he tried to bite the hand that was covering his mouth; Meanwhile, he had to kiss her... He was nice to everyone, and that’s why he hated everyone. The hour has finally struck. He took revenge. To whom? Everyone and for everything... He took revenge on everyone to whom he had to pretend. Anyone who thought well of him was his enemy...” (V. Hugo). Only by thinking about what it is - virtue without love for God, the constant filling of the entire being with the Absolute, one can understand that the words of the Apostle, quoted so many times, are not an excessive and cruel demand, but an expression of the basic fact of ethical life - a condition not imposed on a person from somewhere outside, but arising from his own nature. This is the condition of all life in truth. “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, then I am a ringing gossamer or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I could move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my goods, and give my body to be burned, and do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3) 173. But no external signs reveal with certainty whether I have love or not; no sensory experience will show why I act the way I do, why I work on myself in every possible way, engage in all kinds of helping others and social activities, apparently do everything and end my life with martyrdom - at the stake. No sensory experience will reveal whether I am a ringing brass and a dully clanging cymbal or a consciously functioning organ of the body of Christ. But, meanwhile, this empirical indistinguishability covers up an essential difference, and it can only be discerned by introspection or some other way, but not by experience, if we take the word in its usual, most often used meaning, A. – Amen 174 . However, you have expanded too much, carried away by the tone of the sermon; look, you're disheveled, as if you haven't scratched for two days... V. - We can now move on to the third type of cases - to the case where two objects, given in contemplation, do not reveal a difference for him, seem to him indistinguishable and identical, while speculation makes it possible to find a fundamental difference between these objects. Since we deal with contemplation primarily in geometry, there are especially many examples there that explain what the matter is. We will have to mention only the simplest of them, although all such studies of mathematics play a decisive role and undoubtedly play a demonstrative role in the discussion of our questions. To begin with, I will point out the existence of incommensurabilities, that is, quantities of the same kind that do not have a common measure among themselves. When a general measure exists and the ratio of magnitudes is commensurable, then it can be expressed by a certain number; if the ratio is incommensurable, then there is no number that would express this ratio. Thus, the first pair of quantities has some fundamental difference from the other, but this difference cannot be noticed or discerned by any experience. To make this more clear, let's turn to geometric quantities. Let, for example, by some construction we are given two straight segments. By comparing them, we can detect the difference in their lengths; one segment will turn out to be, for example, longer than another. But we will not notice anything fundamentally different in this way - by direct comparison of segments - no matter how accurate the comparison is. However, by studying the way in which the segments were obtained, we can speculatively come to the conclusion about their fundamental difference, a difference in essence. The length of one segment, as it may turn out, is expressed by a certain number, while the length of another is not expressed by any number. To express the length of the second segment arithmetically, that is, to characterize the length of the segment in abstract terms, it is necessary to create a completely new arithmetic symbol, a new arithmetic scheme - the so-called irrational number. Thus, for example, the side of a square and its diagonal, being incommensurable, have some kind of internal difference, absolutely invisible to simple contemplation of these segments. This property of the said lines was already known to the Pythagoreans, and its discovery is attributed to the founder of the union. It is not difficult to guess what a stunning impression the discovery of this theorem must have made on the inventors. One of the main beliefs of the school was the recognition of the universal role of number, and then a number meant an integer. And so it turns out that there are objects, moreover, objects in the field of contemplation, which are not expressed by any number, are not controlled by any number, as if devoid of essence, for the essence of an object, for the Pythagoreans, is the number that expresses it. It turned out that people illegally looked into some mystical abyss, spied or overheard something that people should not know, tore out the secret of the gods from the abyss and stood like accomplices of one terrible deed, not daring to look each other in the eyes, flinching from a loud word, afraid to let slip and thereby finally bring upon themselves the death of the wrath of the celestials. Mysterious sighs of the wind howled; the trees swayed in horror and waved their arms; blackened leaves rushed in the whirlwinds. Blizzard gusts are harsh and harsh. A terrible secret is stirring in my soul. Draw the curtains at the window, my brother: It’s like Eternity is looking out the window. The Pythagoreans were not at all as uncommunicative and closed in their philosophical views as was commonly thought of them; but such discoveries... such discoveries had to remain a secret, had to be deeply shrouded in silence. To reveal what was accidentally seen, to discover what was experienced and found - this means with a blasphemous hand to tear off the veils from what the gods have covered, to shamelessly expose the divine secret. Woe to the wicked who dares to bring what is hidden out into the open. He then brings destruction upon the union and upon himself by his very existence. The only way to save yourself is to expel the blasphemer, renounce him, and declare him your enemy before the gods. May the eternal gods direct all their anger at the culprit, at him alone! And so it happened. The founder of the union, the seer Pythagoras, was still alive, he was living out his last years, when suddenly a thunderstorm broke out, and the union - listening to the rhythmic sounding citharas, engaged in pious exercises and contemplations that captivated the world of harmony and heavenly harmony - was dully agitated. The impious Hippasus, the treacherous wolf, who betrayed the trust of the sacred union, disdained the wrath of the celestials and, forgetting about the silence appropriate to divine truths, sacrilegiously revealed the secret to the profane - he issued a sacred proposal about incommensurabilities to the uninitiated and unrefined. Hippasus was tried and expelled from the order in disgrace; let the immortals judge him! And so the judgment of the blessed gods living in the high ether did not slow down. The mad wicked man had just sailed into the open sea, the coastal edge of Magna Graecia had just drowned in the blue fog, when Poseidon foamed the blackened abyss with his trident, rocked the barren sea, overwhelmed the fragile boat with giant waves - sea monsters - and the daring Hippasus brought punishment for his indiscretion to the gods. He drowned, and the impassive water desert closed his careless lips forever... A. – (Laughs.) These, in your opinion, are facts? V. – I didn’t want to state the facts; my task was to imagine how the facts could be reflected in the consciousness of the union. But now I'll just point out other examples. Due to lack of time, I will only mention the existence of so-called transcendental numbers and the quantities measured by them. It turns out that it is also possible to establish fundamental distinctions among irrational numbers, dividing them into essentially heterogeneous classes. Such are, for example, numbers whose powers are commensurable; These are also transcendental numbers. It is interesting that, although a transcendental number is significantly different from a non-transcendental or algebraic number, it is very difficult to find out what it is in relation to a given number. For example, the famous problem of squaring the circle, which exhausted the strength of mathematicians for almost 4000 years, contained a misunderstanding in its very formulation, and the latter was based on the failure to recognize the significant difference between the number π and algebraic numbers. In order not to dwell further on examples from the same department of mathematics, I will point out several examples from the so-called group theory 175. By a group of points we mean a collection of points given in a certain way; it is considered due to the homogeneity of the task - as something whole, unified. As a simple example, let’s take groups of points that are located on a straight line; the points are, so to speak, strung on a straight line. Then, in order to determine the position of a point on a straight line in relation to some fixed point - the beginning, you need to give a number expressing the distance of this point from the fixed point in some specific units of length, for example in millimeters. If a measure of length is given and a number is given, then the point characterized by the number is completely defined. By choosing sets of numbers according to one or another general rule, we will consistently obtain groups of points located according to one or another law. So, for example, we can demand that all those points be taken whose corresponding numbers - coordinates - are all rational numbers not less than zero and not greater than ones. This will be a group of “rational points” in the interval 0–1. In group theory, at every step there are cases where two essentially different groups, which have to be treated in all kinds of reasoning as very different objects, cannot be distinguished in contemplation. Take, for example, a group of points defined by all possible numbers between 0 and 1, including 0 and 1; this will be a so-called closed group. Let us take, further, a group of points defined by all possible numbers between 0 and 1, including 0, but not including 1; such a group is called non-closed. Both of these groups are absolutely indistinguishable in contemplation, “by eye”; one looks like the other; one is apparently identical with the other. But, in fact, there is a very important difference between them, which radically distinguishes the properties of the groups. The first group, closed, has, so to speak, endings; points 0 and 1 are its extreme points, so there is not a single point of the group that would lie to the right than point 1, and there is not one that would lie to the left of point 0. The same can be said about the left end of the second group, which is not closed; but this is not the case with the right end of this group; there is no end here in the proper sense; there is no last point, no extreme. No matter how far away a point we take, there will certainly be another, even further away; but the last one still doesn’t exist. We can come as close as we like to point 1, which does not belong to our open group, and yet we will never be able to reach point 1, because if we stand at point 1, we will leave the group, and if we do not yet stand in it and are to the left of it, we always have the opportunity to come closer. The tip of a closed group, so to speak, has melted away, the last point has been ground off, and the result is an open group. This change, invisible and imperceptible, however, produced a significant change in the properties, in the structure of the group, and anyone who has studied the theory of groups knows well how serious these changes in structure are and how carefully it is necessary to distinguish a closed group from an open one. The latter lacks some “little bit”, with the appearance of which it would become a closed group. But the absence of this “little bit” is perhaps more important for the essence of the group than in the field of aesthetics that “little bit” with which art begins. Let me give you another example. If we take the set of all points in the interval 0–1, including the limits 0 and 1, then, as is known, it has as its corresponding numbers the set of all irrational and rational numbers that are not less than 0 and not greater than 1. Such a group of points belongs to the type of so-called perfect groups. It makes no difference to every conceivable number, rational or irrational, there is a corresponding point of the group, and, conversely, to every point of the group there corresponds a rational or irrational number that is less than 0 and not more than 1. Now let us take, between the same limits 0 and 1, another group of points - the group of rational points; each point of this group certainly corresponds to a number between 0 and 1; but it is impossible to say the opposite: not every number corresponds to a point in the group, and if we take an irrational number, then there is no corresponding point. In the corresponding place of the segment - the carrier of the group - the group has a flaw, a gap. Since between every two rational numbers there is an infinite number of irrational ones, then in every department of our group there is an infinite number of defects; the whole group is corroded, chewed up. However, this exhaustion of the group has one remarkable property: the fact is that between any pair of rational numbers, no matter how little they differ, there is not only an infinite set of irrational intermediate ones, but also an infinite set of rational intermediate ones. In other words, no matter how small a piece of our straight segment we take, it will certainly turn out to be filled with an infinite number of points in the group. For this property, our group can be classified as an “everywhere dense” group. So, on the one hand, we have the aforementioned everywhere-dense group, and on the other, the perfect group, which was discussed earlier. All points that participate in the first group also participate in the second, but the opposite cannot be said; in the second group there is an infinite number of points that do not participate in the first. The first group is, as it were, the second group, eaten away by infinitely thin holes, and the second is the first one, filled with holes; both differ significantly in their properties; they are so different that mixing them is unthinkable; otherwise you can make grave mistakes. And, however, both of them cannot be distinguished from each other by any contemplation, by any microscope. The first is like a strip of dust, poured along a straight line, the second is a continuous thread; in the first there are scattered dots, scattered strings of beads, and the second is a continuous sequence of dots. And yet, both groups cannot be imagined as different, although, on the other hand, they cannot be thought of as identical. The concept of a derivative group introduced into group theory makes their difference especially obvious. I could give you many more examples from group theory, but due to lack of time I will hasten to move on. A. – Next? Where else is this going? V. – We need to turn to the Last, Fourth type of objects that cannot be distinguished by any methods other than mystical perception. Now I don’t want to prove anything to you, because we started the conversation with the intention that dicitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum 176. Therefore, we can state our beliefs quite dogmatically. We think that the sacraments are just such objects, indistinguishable in sensory experience, no matter how subtle and sensitive, from simple ceremonies and rites, and having, despite this, the deepest substantial difference from rites and ceremonies. We know about this difference from church teaching, just as from geometry we learn about the difference between the side of a square and its diagonal. How true it is that here, in the sacraments, there really is a unique essence, something essentially new - like a new creation - is another question; the possibility of this cannot, however, be denied. A. – But can one really be content with this bare statement and not have any factual evidence? V. – Nobody tells you to be content with only him. Completely unique and primary perceptions allow almost everyone, although perhaps not always, to discern that mystical element of the sacrament that the Church speaks of. Not only professional mystics, so to speak, but also the simplest believers often have such perceptions, and these specific experiences indicate the presence of a specific moment in the sacrament. Of course, from a purely theoretical point of view, it is necessary to subject these experiences to epistemological examination and justify their objective significance and value, as must be done with all kinds of experiences. Such consideration is not part of our plan, 177 but I cannot help but notice that the problem here is simpler than it seems at first glance. A priori 178, regardless of the epistemological beliefs of the person under consideration, it can be argued that the object of these specific experiences cannot lie in the field of objects of ordinary experiences; if this is a hallucination, then - no matter what we mean by hallucination - the cause that causes the hallucination lies in the mystical realm, in a new realm compared to that which we recognize empirically; after all, the empirical, whatever it may be, cannot by itself, without the addition of the mystical, build the mystical, which is fundamentally different from it. One could give any number of examples of such experiences. Here, for example, is what one girl teacher, brought up in the traditions of the sixties, then came to the Church, writes in a private letter: “Christ is risen, dear... I am a member of the Church of Christ, my sins have been forgiven, and I have received the Holy Mysteries. I am amazed and destroyed by God's forgiveness. I forgave, I forgave everything, because there is no more torment in my soul; the sun, the sky, spring and nature - everything for me, as for others; the love of family, loved ones and children (my students) - everything returned to me, although it might seem that it was never taken away. Why such mercy of God? And I still dared not to forgive the sins of others, when I myself was worse than everyone else, and God forgave me everything... Communion of the Holy Mysteries calmed me down... I felt in communion with my God Jesus Christ. I now believe that He took upon himself the sins of the world, that He came to earth and was crucified for us all and for me, and atoned for all the past and future sins of people...” “I live not for this purpose, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), - that is, Christ began to live in him. This is not moral only in the sense that all life, all activity, all thoughts, all feelings are all for Christ and for His sake. This means much more, it means that Christ essentially inhabits and creates an abode in the heart, He Himself really appears, according to His promise. “Salvation (the word of the cross), says Bishop Theophan, cannot be rejected, for the experiences of this are before everyone’s eyes: they hear the word of the cross, believe, receive baptism and are a new creation; they feel new, others see them new... Truly (those who accepted the word of the cross) were convinced of this power and wisdom when in baptism they buried the crucified Lord and tasted the saving power of the cross... ...These blessings are prepared for those who love God, that is, for those who, having left everything, cleave to God with their hearts, and enter into heartfelt living communion and unity with Him along the path indicated and prescribed by Him.” I won't remind you of other examples. A. – Concedo atque distinguo 179 . Everything you said made me change my mind somewhat. I now agree that you look at the Gospel events differently than I thought, and, moreover, in some respects the formal legitimacy of your point of view has become clear to me. A. – You have already answered some of these yourself, but I will now propose other questions another time: they are of a completely new nature. It’s also good that it became clear how I should understand what we are going to talk about. However, for greater clarity, you should once again briefly characterize two worldviews, one yours, and the other the one that I presented. Just make it shorter. V. – It’s simple; the first is empyrean, the second is empiric. A. – Too briefly. We still have a quarter of an hour; Could you please express this idea in extenso? 180 V. – If you please. The development of world drama, according to the worldview you have outlined, takes place entirely in the empirical field - in the field of colors, sounds, smells, pressures and all other aspects of the sensory-perceptible world, which can be directly or indirectly noticed by the methods of physics, chemistry, biology and other similar sciences, as well as in the field of desires, sensations noticed by empirical psychology. All threads of action stretch in the empirical realm, all the springs that move events do not go beyond the boundaries and limits of this world. Whether due to their subtlety, or due to the insufficiency of the perceiving apparatuses, many threads are perhaps still unknown to us; it is even possible that they will never become known to us. But, in essence, there is no difference between the known threads and those still unknown; all of them are considered in the same way as phenomena are considered in physics. The difference between them is similar to the difference between light and sound. For such features, the concept you outlined can be called naturalistic - naturalistic in a sense similar to the one in which we designate a well-known literary school with this name, because it is content with one plane of reality, the protocols of this world, 181 and wants to reduce every other plane to this unique one. Our worldview is essentially different. We are not content with the flatness of reality, we demand recognition of perspective, we see “cold heights, receding distances.” This promising depth lies in the fact that we do not align the entire diversity of reality to one plane - the plane of the sensory-perceptible, we do not herbarize reality, flattening and drying it in the thick counting book of positivism. Behind this front plane of the empirical there are still other planes, other layers. They are not reducible to one another, but are interconnected by correspondences, and these correspondences are not something conditional or imposed on reality; correspondences are established by the same act that produces “reality” in its represented form. In potency, in possibility, both you and we are given the same primary data - elements. But you - if only you actually perceive the surrounding reality as you say, and do not just consider it necessary to perceive it this way - you build a flat world from these elements, and we build a deep one. I will allow myself to continue the previous comparison, comparing the formation of a world view with the formation of spatial representations. What exists in sensibility from the beginning is not yet something spatial. Psychological analysis has sufficiently revealed that these spaceless elements are built by the mind somehow - in this case it does not matter how - into a planned spatial unity, into an image of the sensory world. But at first this image is only flat. Initially, all reality looks like a picture drawn according to all the rules of perspective on a certain surface; it seems to be attached to the eye. But in this picture there are only colors of brightness and saturation, there are all kinds of play and combinations of colors, now shiny, now matte and dull, now light, now dark, play of chiaroscuro and contours, but no, there is absolutely no relief, any hint of perspective or depth. The elements remain the same; but then new activities of the mind are added to their structure, completely new ways of acting the mind - whatever they are and whatever they consist of, it is indifferent to us now - and only then the meaning of the picture in its perspective is suddenly revealed, it becomes clear why it was drawn according to the rules of perspective. What previously seemed like an ugly distortion resulting from the ineptitude of the creator of the picture turns out to be a purposefully directed means for depicting depth. Then 182 and only then does the picture become for the Creator what it is in its design; before that, it was only a collection of ugly, distorted and skewed contours and shadow spots with some hints of expediency, because what is expediently drawn in a plane for those who do not understand perspective is a plan, and not a perspective image, an outline, a contour, but not an essence. The expediency of a picture of reality is understandable only with an understanding of perspective; otherwise, if the matter is limited to the plane, the expediency would be different, and if you lose the understanding of perspective, then it is natural to repeat after Alfonso V of Castile the famous phrase: “If the Creator asked my opinion, then I would advise Him to create a better world, and most importantly, a simpler one!” 183 If we now move on to the subject with which we began, to the difference between empiria and empyrean, then we can say: to those initial data that we and you have equally, you apply only one type of acts that construct reality, and therefore you get a uniform reality. This is empiricism. We apply a series of acts to the same data and obtain a diversely dissected reality. From some material you have built an object a; then you have nothing; however, it turns out that the materials of this object allow and require even further processing by new construction methods. In this way, objects α, β, γ ... and so on are constructed. These objects, however, are not separated from each other; being independent in their essence, they are, however, connected for consciousness by the unity of the material from which they are built, and in reality by the fact that this material is given by our relationship to a single thing, and these objects α, β, γ... are particular aspects of one thing, different aspects of its idea - essence. Objects α, β, γ... are, so to speak, parts, sides of a thing for consciousness. However, they are not equal. The object β, as a further processing of the same material that enters into α, contains α in a certain sense, but is itself something more meaningful than α, because it is something and, in addition, the fact that α, β precisely, plays the same role in relation to α, as a page from Goethe, considered from the point of view of a person who understands the poem, to the same page, but from the point of view of an illiterate person. For the first it is aesthetic plus visual images “black on white”, and for the second it is only “black on white”. Thus, due to the fact that different activities of the mind are used in the construction of reality, as a result of this, our objects, containing everything that is yours, have much more; but this “other” is the most important, the most essential - the meaning of what you saw and did not read. As a result, the objects of a religious worldview are more full-bodied and richer than positivistic ones. It is legitimate to compare them with chords if the objects of the positivists are called individual tones. But when all this has already been done by the mind, then the very front plane - that sensory world, which is built by the “positivistic” activity of the mind, acquires special importance and special meaning for us; he, so to speak, gives himself over to other, higher worlds, becomes their representative and, in a certain sense, their carrier; having renounced self-affirmation, from his existence as such, he becomes a being for another world. But thereby, having “lost his soul,” having become the bearer of another world, his body, he carries it in himself, embodies another world in himself, or is transformed, spiritualized and thereby transformed into a symbol, that is, into an organically living unity of the depicter and the depicted, the symbolizing and the symbolized. The empirical world becomes transparent, and through the transparency of this world the ardor and radiant brilliance of other worlds become visible. “...His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures...” (Rom. 1:20). As a result of such deprivation of selfhood, independent color, this world, shining through with the fieryness of another world, becomes itself fiery; it seems to mix with fire 184. “And I saw, as it were, a sea of ​​glass mixed with fire; and they that conquered the beast, and his image, and his mark, and the number of his name, stand on this sea of ​​glass, holding the harp of God” (Rev. 15:2). Those standing on the sea are those for whom this world has already become completely transparent, and so they, remaining in this world, directly touch the fiery element, which is mixed with the sea, and see it, and sing praise, saying: “Great and wonderful are Your works, Lord God Almighty! righteous and true are Thy ways, O King of Saints!” (Rev.15:3), So, if I called your flat worldview naturalistic, in the sense of a well-known literary school, then ours, in fairness, should be called symbolic because in it knowledge of the world is at the same time “contact with another world.” In fact, what else should symbolic poetry be if not an organically fused connection of the world that is given in realistic poetry, the world of experience, with new, higher layers of aesthetic reality. Each layer is significant in itself and leads to another, even more significant one. Here, in general terms, is the difference between the empiric and the empyrean, if we take the worldview or worldview as a whole. However, it would be inappropriate here to consider the relation of such a general worldview to the previously considered question of the sacraments. Application. A Note on Perceptions When Receiving the Sacraments The presence of special perceptions when receiving the grace-filled power of the sacraments is certain. But, in addition to such perceptions noted among “ordinary” people, in the literature there are examples of extraordinary hierognosis or, in the terminology of Ember-Gourbeir, eucharistic instinct (flair eucharistique), sometimes found in sensitives, visionaries, seers - people with a special organization. Clairvoyants of this kind are able to identify shrines of all kinds - relics, consecrated objects and, in particular, the Holy Gifts. Especially many cases of the Eucharistic sense have been recorded among Catholics, perhaps because Catholic writers tend to see in this kind of revelation, the so-called revelations privatae 185, and, understandably, hence they attach great importance to it. We do not see data for such an understanding of the matter and, on the contrary, we see data that serves as a hindrance. But, not being a revelation, the Eucharistic sense cannot be classified as a sensory experience and, most likely, it belongs to the group of phenomena that Myers designated as subliminal consciousness. Amber-Gourbeir collected a number of examples of such instinct (described in volume 1 of his work “La Stigmatisation” 186). Let's bring them. Saint Francis Borgia, upon entering the church, always found out where the Holy Gifts (consecrated ostia) were kept. Jeanne Marie de la Croix felt the fragrance emanating from the priests who took communion in the morning. Catherine of Siena once refused to take communion, feeling that the ostia offered to her by the priest was not consecrated due to his negligence. Among the 13 ostia, Lucia Parnian was distinguished as the sanctified one. Unbelieving doctors performed experiments on Louise Lato and became convinced that she recognized consecrated objects without error. Saint Charles Bordomey learned from the fragrance that in one church, which no one suspected, the relics of Saint Jerome of Aemilian were located. In the twentieth century, experiments revealed the Eucharistic sense of Maria Julia de la Frode. But the most interesting subject is the Westphalian peasant girl Anna Catherine Emmerich, who lived from 1774 to 1824. Stigmatized and visionary, Emmerich also had an unusually developed eucharistic sense. It is true that information about Emmerich must be treated with great caution. We must not forget that the description of her experiences was subjected to double censorship and a double series of amendments - by her secretary, the enthusiastic poet Clement Brentano, and by her “extraordinary” confessor, the devout Catholic Overberg. “Checking” of Emmerich’s visions by her secretary for scientific data and “encouragements” by Emmerich herself with gaps in the stories about visions by her confessor - all this gave the records of visions a “decent” appearance, but it forces one to be careful when using them. However, possible distortions relate to dogmatic or historical elements of her experiences, and there is no reason to assume them in the facts given below. Emmerich’s “sensitivity” went so far as to guess whether the priest who came to her that day celebrated the Eucharist or not. With extraordinary strength, she grabbed the priest by the thumb and forefinger (with which Catholic priests touch the Holy Mysteries) and released the priest’s hand only at the magical word for her, “listen.” The light invisible to others and the special shades of this light allowed her to distinguish among other externally identical objects not only the Holy Gifts, but also everything that the church consecrated with its sacraments, especially the relics of saints and relics. The commonality of such perceptions, witnessed by many researchers, allowed one of Emmerich’s friends to nickname her the sacro-meter. We have given these examples without examining them critically, wanting only to clarify what kind of facts are meant, and it should be noted that such examples can be collected as many as you like from the descriptions of the demoniac and possessed, clairvoyants and visionaries. Let us assume, however, that, for one reason or another, we would like to avoid using such descriptions, if only because we would not have the opportunity to critically weigh the documents. Then the question of the sacraments would be reduced to the necessary recognition of two existences: firstly, the presence of sacraments, in which famous persons do not see a special element, grace; and, secondly, the presence of a theory of sacraments, a part of dogmatics that asserts the specific nature of a sacrament, its “noun” 187 feature. So we have two facts; neither of them can be dismissed, both must be explained. Let us further imagine that we wish to take into account primarily the first fact, the absence of special perceptions from the sacraments in a given person. It is clear that the simple absence of perceptions in a given person does not predetermine anything in itself regarding the non-existence or, moreover, the impossibility of the existence of such perception in general, and therefore - the presence of the object of this perception - a mystical something. However, such a conclusion is sometimes still made by mistake; Let us show that in this case it leads to absurdity. For this purpose, we will temporarily allow it, that is, we will make a fundamental statement about the absence of specific perception and the specific nature of the sacrament. Then, one way or another, we need to take into account another fact - the traditional theory, which originates in ancient times and stubbornly persists - the theory about the specific nature of the sacrament. No matter how we feel about the Church, we cannot be so frivolous as not to take into account its fundamental convictions - with the convictions of millions of people of different upbringings and education, of different social status - with convictions that are in the restless stream of time. Let them be recognized as a mistake, an absurdity. But even for errors and absurdities, and especially those that exist in space and time, there are reasons that cannot be ignored. You cannot deal with such beliefs using the “non-noticing method.” “Perhaps,” they will say, “it will be shown that this theory of the sacraments is the result of historical influences on church teaching and its cultural heritage.” So be it, but this is not an explanation. After all, we fundamentally refused to recognize the special nature of a sacrament. The genetic explanation only transfers the question to another time and to another people, without even approaching the essence of the matter; the difficulty of explaining the reason for the creation of church theory remains the same as before. In fact, if we unconditionally deny special perceptions in the life of the spirit when receiving the sacraments, then with the same unconditionality we can assert that reflection on them could not arise. This in no way prejudges the question of the a priori nature of the logical scheme; What is at stake is only how, prior to experience, a given potency, a predisposition of the mind, passed into actuality. The concept of special elements cannot be obtained by any combination of existing data that is fundamentally different from the first. We may find the Eucharistic prayers consistent with the blessing of the Jewish Passover canon; we can connect them with the mysteries of Mithras, Dionysus or the Orphics. But, whatever the value of our statement about the historical succession of this or that phenomenon, it concerns only the form, the shell of the sacrament; the mystical side of it in this way is absolutely indeducible without mystical perceptions. “But,” they may say, “in the spirit there could be a concept of a specific nature, given before any concrete experience, - some, so to speak, reflection before the experience, a purely logical possibility of schematizing future experience.” Let there be in the spirit a concept, a scheme, given actually before the presence of that of which it is a scheme. So be it. But then, if this possibility is unconditionally detached from a concrete experience, then it is completely incomprehensible how it could subsequently enter into connection with other concrete experiences, sensory data. In other words, it is completely incomprehensible how the general, exclusively general and, moreover, relating to specific content, could be applied to the particular, to the material content of the sacrament, which, in addition, differs significantly from what is schematized by this concept - grace. It is not clear why the theory of sacrament was formed in relation to a certain phenomenon, and not to any other, and since this question relates to any empirical data, it becomes incomprehensible in general what connects this general, pre-experienced concept with any particular phenomenon given in empirical experience; It becomes incomprehensible why it is impossible to substitute anything under this concept, and then this would mean that the matter of the sacrament could not possibly get into the theory. For a concept to be applied to a concrete, it must be attached to a specific concrete; but for the latter it is necessary that this concrete be different for consciousness from any other, stand out from the rest, be special, that is, that consciousness perceive in it some kind of specific nature, if the general applied to it affirms the existence of such. For a theory to be applicable to experience, it is necessary that it have some kind of correspondence to itself in experience; experience must respond to the theory, and this response, this correspondence must be experienced - in other words, the empyrean must be experienced. So, the existence of a theory of this sacrament, as having a specific nature, led to the conclusion that, if not in this sacrament, then in some other historical precedent there was an experience of the empyrean. This contradicts our fundamental denial of such a possibility, and we arrive at absurdity. If so, then it is extremely likely to assume that such cases of perception were noted and recorded at one time, namely: as cases of something new compared to ordinary perceptions, as cases where other layers of reality broke through the empiricism to consciousness. “But,” they will say, “the church theory of the sacraments is maintained by simple trust in the words of Christ. Christ said about bread: τοῡτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μον and about wine: τοῡτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μον (Mark 14:22:24) 188; The apostles believed him, the primacy of the Church believed the apostles, and then, through the continuity of tradition, this understanding of the sacrament was brought to our time.” This remark is quite fair, but it evades the statement made at the beginning: there are no mystical experiences and objects corresponding to them. First of all, if Christ is a simple man (and this is precisely what a true empiricist asserts), then all those perplexities arise regarding Him that were indicated regarding any creator of the church theory of the sacraments; if Christ was mistaken in the above words, then it is necessary to explain the possibility of such a mistake, and this cannot be done without the assumption that He or someone who influenced Him had mystical experiences. If Christ is the God-man, then in Him there is already the supra-empirical; then it is impossible not to believe Christ, and the objection destroys itself. Then an objection may arise that the words of Christ do not at all contain the church theory of the sacraments, that the church understanding is a “layering” introduced by the apostles or fathers of the Church. Let us assume that this is also correct, that is, that church theory is the result of the development of an allegorical theory, according to which the sacrament is only an image and the word “ἐστίν” 189 is used in the sense of “denotes, serves as a sign.” Be that as it may, it cannot then be denied that, in the end, an understanding of the sacrament as something more than an image appeared; such an understanding, as qualitatively different from the allegorical understanding, could not be a simple modification of this latter, and this means that somewhere in the evolution of church teaching a significantly new angle of view was introduced. As such it could not be gradual for a given consciousness; it had to be discontinuous, sudden. A new moment of understanding the sacrament flashed, and that means that the one to whom it flashed for the first time turns out to be the creator of a new theory. And if so, then we have to repeat everything said above about him. To say that the church theory of the sacraments was the result of the Church’s misunderstanding of the tributary expression on the part of Christ means to say nothing, since for such a misunderstanding it was necessary to introduce into the words of Christ something that, in the opinion of the objector, is not contained there; and this requires recognition that mystical perception and reflection on it were certainly not alien to the spirit of the misunderstanding. So, wanting at all costs to reject the mystical character of a given sacrament, we are forced to accept the mystical in something else; and since a fundamental denial of the mystical is impossible, then we have all the data to recognize it as what Christ and the church tradition vouch for us, even if we ourselves have never personally experienced the sacrament and its mystical side. The sacrament, in which consciousness is given its gracious essence, is perceived by consciousness in the form of a miracle 190 191. This miraculousness may also be accompanied by astoundingness, that is, some empirical extraordinary things that highlight and highlight this phenomenon for attention. There are many stories about such miracles in ascetic literature; but before pointing out why we attach such importance to such stories, let us recall the general nature of such miracles. They occurred, according to the ascetics, when performing or receiving the sacraments, especially baptism and the Eucharist, especially the latter. The reason for this is quite understandable - this is precisely the comparative ordinariness of the said two sacraments, especially in the life of monks. In the descriptions of cases of miracles, mystical perceptions are quite clearly noted. So, for example, one legend 192 tells that John the Chozebite, while offering the Holy Gifts, “does not notice that the Holy Spirit sanctified them, as he noticed before.” The reason for this turns out to be that the Eucharistic bread was already consecrated through an oversight. In another legend 193 we see a priest tried for being late in performing the liturgy and thereby violating the rules. “On Sundays,” the elder justifies himself, “from the very midnight office I am at the holy altar and do not begin the liturgy until I see the Holy Spirit descending on the holy altar. When I see the influx of the Holy Spirit, I immediately celebrate the liturgy.” The third legend 194 of the same nature tells how the flock slandered the bishop of Romilla before the pope. By revelation from the Angel, Pope Saint Agapit 195, who summoned the bishop to court, orders him to serve the liturgy. “The bishop stood before the holy throne, the pope stood near him, and the deacons surrounded the throne. And the bishop began to perform the holy offering... He was already finishing the prayer of the holy offering, but before concluding it, he began again again, and then for the third and fourth time he began the holy offering without finishing it... Everyone was amazed at such slowness... Then the pope said to the bishop: “What does it mean that you have said the holy prayer four times and still cannot finish it?” The bishop answered: “Forgive me, Holy Pope, I did not, as usual, see the descent of the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not finish the prayer. But remove the deacon holding the ripida from the holy throne, since I myself do not dare tell him.” The deacon left, by order of Saint Agapit, and immediately the bishop and pope saw the influx of the Holy Spirit. The veil, which lay on the holy throne, rose by itself and overshadowed the pope, the bishop, and all the deacons standing before the holy throne for three hours...” In some cases, mystical perceptions were clothed in the symbolic form of visions, while the above cases apparently relate to non-symbolic perceptions. Here is a good example of 196 such perceptions in a picture shell. A certain elder, simple in faith, but great in deeds, said that “the bread that we receive is not essentially the body of Christ, but only a substitute (ἀντίτυπον).” The other two elders persuaded him, saying that this bread truly is the body of Christ, but the elder stood his ground: “If I am not convinced by the very fact, I cannot be completely convinced,” he answered the persuasion. Then, according to the weekly prayer of him and the elders, “God heard them. After a week, they came to church on Sunday... And their eyes were opened. When the bread was placed on the holy throne, he presented himself to the three brothers in the form of a baby. When the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, the Angel of the Lord descended from heaven with a knife, killed the baby, and poured his blood into the cup. When the priest crushed the bread into small pieces, then the Angel cut off small pieces from the baby. When they began to receive the sacrament, the elder alone was given flesh and blood. Seeing this, he was horrified and exclaimed: I believe, Lord, that this Bread is Your Body, and this Cup is Your Blood! And immediately the flesh in his hand became Bread, as happens in the sacrament, and he partook, thanking God.” “Saint Macarius (of Alexandria or the Younger) 197 told 198 about an even more terrible vision that happened to him. The brethren began to receive the Holy Mysteries. As soon as others extended their hands to receive the Holy Mysteries, the Ethiopians, as if warning the priest, placed coals on the hands of some, while the Body of Christ, taught by the priest, ascended back to the altar. On the contrary, when the more worthy of the communicants extended their hands to the altar, the evil spirits retreated from them and ran far away with great horror. He also saw that the Angel of the Lord stood before the altar, together with the hand of the priest, he also extended his hand to the altar and participated in the teaching of the Holy Mysteries.” Something similar to this is the story of an old man who, in his simplicity, adopted the heretical rite of the liturgy. The brother’s accusations had no effect, since during his ministry he saw angels about to perform a sacred ceremony. But, hearing from them that the brother who denounced him was right, the elder corrected himself in the service 199. In some services, the mystical nature of the sacrament was marked by extraordinary empirical phenomena. Such, for example, is the case 200 when, to test the correctness of the faith of a certain Severian heretic, an Orthodox Christian threw a particle of his communion into a red-hot vessel, and it immediately burned, while a particle of the Holy Gifts of the Orthodox Church remained unharmed. In the Alphabetical Patericon 201 (1491) there are cases when a secretly baptized Jew was persecuted by his relatives for some special fragrance, by which they learned about his Christianity; by a special action of grace, the baptized one did not burn in the red-hot bath oven, where the persecutors planted him, etc. Elsewhere 202 it is told how particles of the Holy Gifts, which the heretics wanted to burn, grew stems and ears, and this miracle made such a strong impression in Seleucia that “citizens and villagers, natives and strangers traveling overland and sailing on the sea, men and women, old and young, young people and elders, masters and slaves, rich and poor, authorities and those ruled, educated and ignorant, clergy, virgins and ascetics, widowers and married people, rulers and people - everyone exclaimed: “Lord, have mercy!” - and everyone cried out in their own way, glorifying God. Everyone thanked God for the indescribable and unthinkable sign. Many, having believed after the miracle, joined the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” But most often, mystical perceptions from sacraments in legends are associated with the element of fire. The fiery consecration of the Holy Gifts by St. Sergius involuntarily makes us recall the consecration of the apostles with tongues of fire - “and divided tongues appeared to them, as if of fire, and rested, one on each of them” (Acts 2:3). According to legends, a fiery tongue is sent to prevent insufficiently reverent handling of the Holy Gifts, and, according to this purpose, it produces a destructive effect. So, for example, 203 a certain heretic Isidore, having learned that his wife had received Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, became furious. “Having grabbed her by the throat,” he says, “I forced her to vomit the shrine. Picking up the shrine, I threw it in different directions, and finally it fell into the mud. And instantly, before my eyes, lightning caught the Holy Communion from that place...” Several similar descents of fire occurred in cases where the liturgy was performed inappropriately and illegally. The point is this. “Emperor Justinian at the beginning of the 6th century issued a decree that all bishops and presbyters, not in silence, but with an exclamation in the hearing of the Orthodox people, would perform the Divine Ascension (short story 137, chapter 6). But the consequences showed how unsuitable such a decree was” 204. One of the cases of this kind 205 occurred in the city of Apamea, in Syria. Near this city, children were grazing cattle and started playing mass. “They appointed one to the rank of priest, the other two were promoted to deacons. They found one smooth stone and began the game: on the stone, as on an altar, they placed bread and wine in a clay jug. The priest stood in front of the altar, and the deacons stood on the sides. The priest said the prayers of the holy offering, and the deacons waved their belts like ripids...” The boy priest knew the prayers, since they were read, as they say, loudly in the church, and the children stood in front of the sanctuary during the liturgy. “When everything was arranged according to the church order, before starting to crush the bread, suddenly fire fell from the sky, devoured everything offered and completely incinerated the stone itself, so that no trace remained either of the stone or of what was offered on it. At the sight of an unexpected phenomenon, the children fell to the ground in fear and could neither stand up nor scream.” The parents, who went in search of them, found them in an unconscious state, and only the next day the children were able to tell what had happened. Then the parents went with their children and people to the scene of the incident. “There were still traces of the fire that had fallen,” which were later seen by the local bishop, who built a church here. We can find similar cases when children performed the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist in the Patericon. We will, however, give one more story about Saint Athanasius 206. “Saint Alexander, who was pope in Alexandria... saw children playing there according to custom on the seashore. They represented the bishop and everything that is done according to order in the church. Having looked closely at the children's play, he saw that some sacraments were being performed among them. Struck by this spectacle, he immediately calls the clergy and tells about what he saw. Then he sent to take and bring all the children to him. The children appeared,” they told everything in order and, among other things, that “they baptized some catechumens by Athanasius, whom the children appointed bishop over them. Then the bishop carefully questioned whom the children had baptized, and learned that the children performed everything exactly according to the order of the Divine Service. After a conference with his clergy, the pope decided not to perform baptism a second time on those who have received the holy sacrament...” The number of such stories could be significantly increased, but the size of the article does not allow this, and besides, there is no particular need for this. Therefore, now it will be possible to move on to theoretical considerations - very fragmentary, since they will be presented in more detail and more coherently elsewhere. If one of the goals of the scientific-philosophical worldview is responsiveness 207 to each aspect of reality, so to speak, accounting of consciousness, the ability to have every detail in the mind and “make calculations” of every facet of it, then the goal of scientific experience (I understand this word in the broadest sense) is to split the elements and aspects of reality, to emphasize them, to outline them. But in order to carry out such separating work, such dismemberment, consciousness must have something on which it operates, and this is something given in the spirit. This something is not given immediately, but is developed and revealed by a special subconscious process, which is most conveniently called folk experience. Of course, the names “scientific” and “folk” are not taken here in the sense that scientists have only scientific experience, and the “people” have folk experience. This is not the case, since these two experiences are inseparable, but, with intensified reflection, the first predominates, and with the predominance of contemplation and effectiveness, the second. So, scientific experience presupposes folk experience, and from here the characteristics of the latter are already clear. The task of the first is to emphasize and divide. The task of the latter is to provide the most full-voiced experiences, the material as unemphasized and undivided as possible. However, this material cannot be concrete reality itself, since reflection cannot be directly directed at the infinitely diverse. Consequently, not being reality and, at the same time, not being abstract diagrams, this material must be a typical image of reality in the spirit. This image must be such that it allows the application of schemes of reflection to itself, that is, it must have in itself a certain unity, completeness, a certain limitation (ρέρας); but it must also carry within itself the possibility, the potency of the entire completeness of the definitions of reality, never exhausted, but constantly exhausted, and, in this sense, such an image must have in itself a certain infinite multitude, incompleteness, limitlessness (ἄπειρον). Whole in itself, it must have many roots through which the life-giving juices of reality flow into it and, being a part of being, it must in a certain sense include all of being; actually complete, it must be potentially limitless. From here it is clear that it must bear in itself the features of a work of art - be a living, rich and organic type of reality, if you like, an idea of ​​reality revealed in the spirit, with the only difference that the idea in a work of art is given to consciousness as something ready-made, and this one is revealed by consciousness. This image resembles a similar, albeit confused, mixed image of a dream - living poetry or poetic life. It is not for nothing that Karamazov’s Chert remarked: “Sometimes a person sees such artistic dreams, such a complex and real reality, such events or even a whole world of events connected by such intrigue, with such unexpected details, starting from your highest manifestations to the last button on your shirtfront, that, I swear to you, Leo Tolstoy would not invent, and meanwhile, such dreams are sometimes not writers at all, quite ordinary people, officials, feuilletonists, priests...” 208 209 ? Works of art were sometimes called (Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) 210 by induction of a few observations of their creator; If we agree to this use of this term, then the image of reality in question can all the more be called induction - the induction of thousands of generations and millions of experiences. That is why the experience of the people is predominantly “folk” experience and contains an inexhaustible reserve for scientific processing; it is not distorted, although often a symbolic or even conditional picture of reality. No matter how absurd this experience may seem, the pride of rapid reflection must humble itself before it, science must impartially delve into folk wisdom, which in its integrity is always ahead of science. The key to more than one riddle of worldview lies in the hands of folk wisdom, 211 and it is worth remembering the history of science, well, at least the doctrine of meteoric stones or the phenomena of subliminal consciousness and occult activities of the spirit, in order to think about the frivolous disregard for the leitmotifs of folk wisdom, which one sees all too often. But reflection can only be applied to “folk” experience, and not directly to the experience of the people. The question is how to transpose the latter into the former. If we approach the works of the people with the methods of rational thought, then it is clear that we will not find in them anything except words expressing concepts; and as such they cannot be anything other than the result of reflection, nothing more than a part of the scientific and philosophical vocabulary of the environment in which these works arose. So, looking through “scientific” glasses, we will not see anything except good or bad scientificity, and it can be stated in advance that any given scientificity can only see what is not higher than it. The experience of the people, for the most part, in its scientific nature, is lower than the experience of science, and therefore to approach it with such methods, and, moreover, without bearing in mind the goals of history, means wasting time. But if for reflection a word is only a sign of some scheme, a concept, then for a direct, pre-reflective relationship a word, at least in its connection with others, is something more than just a tool to evoke a scheme in consciousness; For science, in fact, there are no words, but there are terms, but a term and a word are different things. The word has a dual nature. It is a word in its proper sense, and may as such be called super-rational, a miniature work of art; but besides that, it is a term, something rational. It is this feature of the word 212 that allows these words to express something that is certainly not expressed by them, if you look at them from the point of view of words-terms - reflection. Therefore, the content of speech can outgrow its terminological meaning, which is only grasped by reflection, Doesn’t our heart burn, doesn’t it freeze in sweet peace when our eyes fall on the amazingly simple words of Ruth to Noemia: “Don’t ask me to leave you and return from you; but where you go, there I will go, and where you live, there I will live; your people are my people, and your God is my God, where you die, there I will die and be buried. Let the Lord do this and that to me, let him do even more; Death alone will separate me from you” (Ruth 1:16–17). Will not a fragrant spring blow over us, will not a bashful breeze blow into our ears: will not our whole being be inflated with a white sail when we hear the calls of the shepherd: “Get up, my friend, my beauty, come here; because winter has already passed, the rain has passed, passed; flowers appeared on the ground; the time for singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is already heard in our land; The fig tree's berries are ripe, and the vines, as they blossom, give off a fragrance. Get up, my friend, my beauty, come here. My little dove, sitting in the gorge of the rock, under the roof of the cliff! Show me your face, let me hear your voice...” (Song.2:10-14) 213. Let’s imagine that we are reading similar words or, even better, some mystic, at least Isaac the Syrian, and quite conscientiously trying to understand the experiences described, but approaching what we read with reflection. What will we see then? Yes, nothing except what is now known to the scientific worldview, that is, nothing except physiological and empirio-psychological processes. Mystical experiences will break down into light, thermal, auditory, muscular and general somatic sensations and into bare statements of the features of this complex of sensations. However, the latter, that is, the claim to the peculiarity of experience, will remain completely unjustified and will even clearly contradict the complete decomposability of the described processes into “ordinary” sensations. This parsing of the description will be correct in its own way; but it is such precisely because science does not have the means to capture mystical experiences, and, instead of them, it catches incidental processes - not the very essence, but foam, not a pearl, but mud remains in its hands. But one has only to approach it differently, to look directly at the work, so that its super-terminological content is revealed to the spirit, so that in simple words, in words that are terminologically insignificant, something infinitely sweet, fragrant, like the half-forgotten smile of a child wakes up and looks out at us: he has just opened his clear eyes and is reaching out with his little hands from his bed to the column of gold dust that has broken through the curtain... Myth is an extreme example of superterminological literature. A genuine myth, in its entirety, is a genuine set of words for scientific analysis - a primitive, half-meaningless philosophy of primitive thinking. This - with a certain limitation on modern myth-making 214 - is indeed so; but for immediate consciousness, myth as a symbolism of the deepest experiences projected onto the empirical is the basis of all comprehension of reality. Legend also represents something similar to myth. This does not mean at all that the “matter” of the legend, its plot, would be a fictitious combination of what is usually observed. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of legends, it seems to me, must be accepted en toutes lettres 215, understood tautegorically and recognized that everything told in them is true. All that is said is that the essence of the legend, no matter how unexpected its plot, its plot, no matter how much new it gives for the scientific worldview in itself, is not in the plot. It is a matter of secondary importance, the projection of mystical perceptions onto empirical incidental phenomena, perhaps ordinary, perhaps extraordinary, but, in any case, in themselves having the role of only signs, σημεῑα 216, signa 217. The main thing is the perception of a miracle, and a true legend (and such is always religious) is a story about a miracle, surrounded by signs to highlight and isolate it. Turning to a legend without reflection, we can often grasp those experiences that are enclosed in the shell of the plot, and for us it is not at all so important whether this shell appeared at the moment of perception of the miracle as a necessary screen for the projection of the mystical, or whether it was created later, gradually. Bypassing the discussion of the last question, we cannot help but note the fact of the remarkable monotony of the legendary plots. This is usually seen as the existence of a template according to which legends were compiled. One way or another, the application of uniform symbolism to homogeneous experiences indicates that there is some kind of connection between the symbolized and the symbolized. That is why often, even without experiencing a legend, you can get a lot from it, using symbolism that has been studied once and for all, in which certain external phenomena, certain signs are projections of their corresponding experiences, also certain and already known in advance. Origen's work “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” as an experience of metaphysics 218 Οὐδὲ βάλλουσιν οῖνον νὲον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς εἰ δὲ μή γε, ρήγνυνται οἱ ἀσκοὶ, καὶ ὁ οῖνος ἐκχεῖται, καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται ἀλλά βάλλουσιν οῖνον νὲον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὐς, καὶ ἀμΘότεροι συντηροῠται. Κατὰ ΜατΘαῖον, IX, 17 219 The need to study "Περὶ ἀρχῶν" separately from other works of Origen. The first-born of Origen’s works, “ἀπαρχή”, in his own expression, was written, according to Redepenning 220, in 223. Between this work (the first volume of the “Commentary” on the Gospel of John), in which Origen, according to the expressive words of Bl. Jerome, “with all the sails of his mind goes into the open sea of ​​speculation,” and his death in 254 - death after cruel torture for confession, a thirty-year period of tireless activity unfolds. During this period, according to Epiphanius, he wrote 6,000 books, among which four books “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” probably date back to 228 or 229. The presence of this 30-year interval alone makes one wonder whether it is legal to give a summary presentation of Origen’s views - a statement based on all his works at once. Changes and development could not have happened in his worldview over such a period of time. Indeed, in the writings of Origen one can discern an undoubted development in the sense of the gradual identification of the main features in the metaphysical and moral makeup of the “hardworking” (Photius) Alexandrian. So, for example, over time, from the definition of the Being of God as a person, Origen comes more and more closer to the understanding of God as standing above any essence, that is, the Plotinian understanding, and thus comes closer to Neoplatonism 221; in the same way, the idea of ​​world solidarity and universality in the matter of salvation develops and strengthens in him, and the understanding of resurrection as the resurrection of Λόγος σπερματικός 222 223 is defined in the same way. Recalling further the characteristic features of the work of the “adamant” teacher, his specific manner of thinking 224 - expressing his thoughts either about the exegesis of the text, or refuting heresy, a manner that makes the course of presentation so dependent on data external to the thought itself, we have no reason under such conditions to expect complete unity in details, not to allow changes in his views. Only the main ideas - rather, perhaps, the main moods of Origen never stray from a certain path. Words and forms of expression are often so inconsistent with his basic moods that we can consider them a kind of lapsus calami 225. If so, then the need to give a genetic presentation of Origen is clear, and not just a summary, as is done, for example, by Denis and many other researchers. The work “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, distorted and broken by Rufinus, who diligently forged and remade it according to a stencil 226, in this regard should make a particularly insistent demand for a special review, regardless of Origen’s other works: after all, it expressed Origen’s metaphysical system more completely than anywhere else. The task of the work. Individual metaphysical propositions do not yet form metaphysics. Only their system, that is, their coherent, planned unity, can be called by this name. But, as will be clear from Chapter 1 of this work, Origen wanted to give not a metaphysical work, but a theological one, although he introduced into the latter many metaphysical positions and reasoning. We must abstract ourselves from strictly theological elements, from exegetical excursions; we must abstract evidence “from Scripture.” By mentally throwing them out, we thereby violate the integrity of the work; we must, willy-nilly, separate individual provisions that are actually not connected and scattered throughout all four books of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” - separate them, because we deprive them of the non-metaphysical connection that exists between them. In order to have the right to speak about this material as individual provisions of metaphysics, and not just metaphysical provisions, we must show from the text of the work itself that the individual provisions of Origen in his mind were connected into a system, that the parts flow from one another and, despite external fragmentation, are internally unified. – To reconstruct Origen’s metaphysics, if this turns out to be possible, and to show that it actually contains the necessary departments of all metaphysics - this is the new formulation of the topic. However, it would be completely arbitrary to glue together a series of provisions into one whole. Every system, in the consciousness of its creator, has, or at least should have, a certain starting point from which the author sets out, a certain method by which thought is guided in its movement, and a certain specific sequence of propositions developed by this method. The provisions of the system cannot be shuffled according to one’s taste, its presentation cannot begin with this or that question, the choice of which is determined by whim; The mutual relations of provisions and questions, their order characterize the system no less than its content. But we must not forget that in his presentation, Origen, having in mind not a metaphysical system, but a theological system, violated the normal metaphysical order of his system; we will need to reconstruct it, guided by the spirit of individual arguments and the general methods of reasoning in Origen. – It can be assumed, judging by the spirit of the book, that Origen’s train of thought was twofold; first - from the surrounding reality to God, then - from God to the world in its whole and parts. General characteristics of the Origen system. The first path - the path upward - is, as it were, a metaphysical propaedeutics; the second - the way down - by the construction of metaphysics itself. But since Origen nowhere directly sets out this path upward - one can only guess about it - then we will begin to present the system, and here in two or three words we will point out the general train of thought in connection with the said propaedeutics. – Diversity and variability, according to Origen, by their very existence presuppose something as their logical prius 227; they cannot be conceivable without the consciousness that is given at the same time about their secondary nature. There must be some beginning - something that, in the words of Origen, “ἐξ οὐδενῆς”, from nothing (Contra Cel. 6:65) or, more precisely, not from anything, while everything changeable is “ἐξ τινός”. The thought of the surrounding reality leads consciousness to the need for a beginning. While this is still an almost meaningless concept, defined formally; but already from such a concept of the beginning follows a number of definitions of it as simple, unified, timeless, spaceless, etc. d., good and fair and, finally, personality. Then the beginning becomes the Beginning, hence Origen’s teaching about God follows. The definition of Him as the Beginning, that is, as God, with the necessary predicates of His "good" and "just", is the center of Origen's metaphysics; all further movement of thought consists in creating a system that simultaneously accepts the Beginning with Its properties and the surrounding reality. It can be said that in its pure form, without layers of historical and psychological influences, Origen’s metaphysics is a coherent system of postulates and propositions that answers the basic metaphysical questions about reality in such a way as to reconcile the properties of what is given in experience with the properties of the Origin and to explain the experienced from the beginning. – Origen does not at all ask the question whether the Beginning is legitimate if experimental reality is given. For him It is given more firmly than anything else. Origen's main question is “how is reality possible,” and his system answers this question. – The goodness of the Beginning determines the need for peacemaking, and justice determines the properties and structure of the first-created world. But the original equality of the first-created creatures and their unity, derived directly from the justice of God, contradict the inequality of creatures and their fragmentation given in experience. Hence, the act of the Fall is necessarily postulated, and for it - free will. The fall of the world leads Origen, for the same reason, to recognize the need for restoration; from here the world process is deduced as a new manifestation of God’s goodness. And the properties of the fallen spiritual world (fragmentation and inequality) determine the nature of the impact of God’s justice. From here the creation of this visible world by diversity and unity in diversity is deduced. Further, the justice of God forces Origen to admit that individual elements of the world (spirits) cannot be saved except in connection with their self-activity. But because... experience shows that such self-activity can also be directed towards evil, then, in connection with the universality of restoration, which the goodness of God necessarily requires, Origen has the conviction that the self-activity of spirits does not stop with death, but is somehow possible after death. But since the definition of God as a person, as complete in himself, does not allow for the infinity and eternity of this world, Origen thinks to save the opportunity for each spirit to achieve a purified state by affirming the multiplicity of worlds or the multiplicity of phases of the same world, successively replacing each other. This leads to the need for world catastrophes – private doomsdays that destroy these worlds. – These are the main ideas of Origen’s metaphysics. As you can see, it contains the necessary parts of any metaphysics - ontology, cosmology and teleology, or typology, and in general represents a fairly coherent whole. Origen undoubtedly had metaphysics. - Here, however, one circumstance is revealed that increases interest in “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”: at the beginning of this attack it is said that “Origen wanted to give not a metaphysical work, but a theological one.” This was his wish. But this unexpected coherence of the metaphysical system, revealed behind a forest of texts from Holy Scripture stuck everywhere “to the point of tastelessness” (Denis), makes us suspect whether Origen really had a theological system in his head as an independent something, and did not adapt theological provisions to previously formed metaphysical views. Did he not pour “new wine into old wineskins?” A review of the system shows that this actually happened and that many theological data were, so to speak, “interpolated”, forcibly introduced into the metaphysical system as such; they can be mentally eliminated, not only without violating the integrity of the system, but, perhaps, making it more coherent. This is the position of metaphysics; but the theological system is not clean of metaphysical positions alien to it. Therefore, completely leaving aside the substantive question of the compatibility or incompatibility of theology and metaphysics in general, we are forced to say regarding the case under consideration that in it the organic connection of both was not possible, and this was due to the peculiarities of Origen’s theological and metaphysical views. Not content with Christianity alone, Origen could not be only a metaphysician; but he failed to combine these two definitions of his personality and, as a result, the result was an unnatural addition of one view to another, an addition that destroyed the completeness of both. II. General notes about "Περὶ ἀρχῶν" Subject of the essay “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. The first and naturally arising question is the question of the subject that Origen wants to consider in his work. What is the essay “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” about? Apparently the answer to this is given by the title itself - “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. This is where confusion arises, however. First of all, there may be confusion in the purely etymological understanding of the word ἀρχῶν. Rufinus, in the preface to his translation of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” into Latin says: “...Περὶ ἀρχῶν quod vel De principius vel De principatibus” 228, i.e. “either about the principles or about the principalities” 229. However, a closer look at the work clearly shows that the latter understanding of the word ἀρχά cannot be retained, since in addition to the “principalities,” i.e., God and the angels, Origen speaks in great detail about cosmological, ethical and exegetical issues. Further, when the understanding of ἀρχαὶ as beginnings is established, a more subtle question arises: the word beginning leads to the question: what? What exactly (Περὶ ἀρχῶν νος? De principius alicujus rei?) does Origen want to talk about the beginnings of what? The possibility of giving this title elliptically - omitting further definitions of “beginnings” - shows or, more precisely, hints at the fact that there can be no talk here of the beginnings of any particular aspect of being or our understanding; otherwise, ellipticity would be completely illegal, and therefore, since it exists, it can be seen that Origen means by ἀρχαὶ not the beginnings of something separate, not the foundations, for example, of some separate science, but some principles primarily. Περὶ ἀρχῶν τῶν κατ' εξοχήν - this is the clearer title of Origen’s work. – But this consideration does not yet determine the subject of the work under consideration, because the primary principles (and they are unconditional principles), whatever they turn out to be a posteriori, after research, a priori we can already think in two ways: either understanding them ontologically, as actually existing principles of being, or normatively, as the beginnings of the understanding of reality that must be; Moreover, the principles of the latter kind, with sufficient analysis, are defined, generally speaking, as religious principles or principles, because they alone determine the proper attitude towards being in its whole and parts. If so, then the title “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” can be interpreted in three ways, and, indeed, 230 1) some (Marcellus of Ancyra, Baronius, Neander, Thomasius) under the principles of Origen understood the main objects of existence, i.e. God, the world, man, spirits, etc. 2) others (Eusebius, Hue, Ritter, Schnitzer, Redepening, Malevansky) understand the principles in the sense of the basic truths of the doctrine, and, moreover, the Christian one; if such a hypothesis is generally correct, then the addition of “Christian” is undoubtedly necessary, since Origen strongly emphasizes that he wants to take the point of view of positive Christianity 231; 3) the third, finally (Baur, Freppel), making a preconceived statement about the coincidence of the principles of faith with the principles of the philosophical understanding of being, make a hypothesis that combines the first two, namely, they assume that by ἀρχαὶ we mean the principles of being, which at the same time are the main subjects of Christian doctrine. – We do not need to consider this third hypothesis specifically; combining the first two, it can hold out only as long as the first hypotheses hold out, both at the same time; with the fall of any of them, the third hypothesis also falls by itself. But it is clear that an essay in which an entire “part”, and, moreover, occupying almost a quarter of the book 232, speaks of divine inspiration and the interpretation of Holy Scripture, where the most basic questions are very often resolved by a selection of texts - such an essay cannot be called an essay on principles in the sense of the first hypothesis, and therefore it cannot be called an essay on principles in the sense of the third hypothesis. So, the only answer remains to the question posed at the beginning of the chapter, what is the subject of the essay “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. This is ἀρχαὶ, that is, the fundamental principles of the Christian faith, as Origen understands it 233. The purpose of the essay “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. Having answered the question about the “quid” of the 234 essay, it is necessary to determine its purpose, the reasons why Origen speaks the way he says and not otherwise, and the form of the essay. But we will leave aside the question of the justification of those truths that Origen speaks of, that is, the question of the method and, in a certain sense, the theory of knowledge, and will only lightly illuminate it as not related to the topic. But two remaining questions need to be answered. – In the preface to his translation “On the Beginnings,” Rufinus explains that the work of his translation was undertaken by him “in order to give those who wish to provide an aid to improvement in the knowledge of things” 235. It is obvious that he also considers the purpose of Origen’s work to be proficere materiam ad scintam rerum 236. As in the title ἀρχαὶ, here we mean, of course, not res 237 in general, but some preferential res - precisely those that serve to clarify the Christian worldview. This is revealed in Origen's Introduction. Many of those, he says, who consider themselves Christians, however, cannot agree not only on particular issues - and relatively minor ones - of the Christian worldview, but even argue about the main provisions. Therefore - and this constitutes the first task of the essay - “it is necessary to first establish an exact boundary and a certain rule about each of these subjects, and then ask about the rest” 238. First of all, it is necessary to establish exactly the truth, consistent with church and apostolic tradition; It is this latter, as coming from the Truth itself - Jesus Christ - and not the teachings of the Greeks and barbarians who “promised the truth” (pollicentibus reritatem), and not the teachings of apostates from church tradition that will provide the foundation, those principles from which further conclusions can be drawn. The latter, however, are also necessary, since St. The apostles said about some objects very clearly and definitely what they are and how they are, but about others they only mentioned “what they are, but how and why? They kept silent about those types so that they could have an exercise... the most zealous and loving of wisdom from among their successors.” To explain the difference between these and other subjects, let us give a few examples from among the many considered by Origen: in church teaching the substantiality of the soul and its immortality are clarified; but the beginning, the origin of the soul is left without explanation; the devil, according to church teaching, exists, but tradition does not state clearly enough what his origin is, etc. Thus, the task of Origen, in his words (Introduction § 10), is to firmly establish the provisions that are clearly recognized by the Church, and then, using these as elements and foundations, through speculation and study of Holy Scripture, to give as complete a Christian doctrine as possible. To formalize the religious consciousness of Christians and streamline it - this is the goal that Origen sets himself. Essay form "Περὶ ἀρχῶν". The next question - the question of the form of presentation of all the basic and derivative ἀρχαὶ doctrines - can, generally speaking, receive a twofold answer. One can, firstly, propose a priori that the work “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” is a mechanical connection of individual ἀρχαὶ, i.e., a disorderly or purely externally ordered list of individual provisions - a sum of theses. Secondly, it can be assumed a priori that individual ἀρχαὶ do not represent a disparate warehouse, but an organically unified system, a whole, something coherent and complete in itself. The author himself clearly expresses his intention to present the Christian doctrine in the form of a “single organism of truth” 239, to give a systematic presentation of ἀρχαὶ, - in a word, to use Vlad’s expression. Solovyov, Origen wants to give “the basic principles of integral knowledge”, which have as their foundation the dogmas established by the Church. The thought of a definite plan for the composition apparently did not leave Origen further; Thus, in the “second book” we find a number of references to the “plan” or “order” “proposed from the very beginning”, to the “sequence of reasoning” 240. In those cases when there is a need to examine a question that does not go directly to such a pre-planned plan or order, Origen quite consciously makes a retreat and notes his deviation to the side 241. This shows that Origen undoubtedly had the desire to give a systematic rather than episodic presentation of ἀρχαὶ throughout the entire work. It remains to be seen how successful he was. – The lack of polishing of the essay in question makes some researchers deny the presence of harmony in the essay. “Gogzachtse [op ie |e Puguet 4ez 5 gotaez 4e C6tepe says ““Lorsque l’on quitte le livre des Stromates de Clément,” says Denis, pour le traité Des Principes d’Origène, la forme si differente des deux ouvrage vous fait d’abord éprouver une illusion qui bientôt de dissipe: au lieu de questions decousues, jetées sans ordre les unes au bout des autres on même entremêlées les unes dans les autres, on pourrait croire qu’on a sous les yeux un système regulier oú les idées se deduise et s’enchainent d'après les lois de la pensée. C'est bien, en effet, ce qu'a voulu faire Origène. Mais il a, ce semble, assez mal reussi dans cette œuvre prematurée et peut-être impossible de son temps... Ce n'est pas un tout suivi, mais une sèrie de quodlibeta, comme disaient les scolastique... L'auteur va, vient, revient sur ses pas. Sans qu’on voit pourquoi il passe de ce point-ci á celui-lá... 242 Then, further, after several examples: “On voit suffisament le désordre qui règne dans son cœure... Le traité Des Principes peut bien être le premier essai d’une exposition théoljgique régulière... mais, je l'ai dit, l'entreprise d'Origène était prematurée..."" 243, etc. V. Bolotov holds a similar opinion: "... the name of Origen, he says somewhat softer, is surrounded by the traditional aura of a taxonomist, but the actual state of his works does not fully correspond to the idea to which this the glory of Origen, established over the centuries. It can be considered generally accepted that even the most systematic of Origen’s works, “Περὶ ἀρχῶν,” is quite far from the ideal of systematic construction. Origen was a writer with impulses toward systematization, but in fact he always remained not a taxonomist, but an exegete... Of course, the dogmatic view of Origen was presented to his thoughts as a harmonious whole, but it did not find a formally satisfactory expression in his writings: here the system constitutes only what is sought, and does not appear as a given...” 244 . It would be possible to cite more similar opinions, but their disadvantage (extreme) lies in the authority of the persons expressing them. It seems paradoxical, but it is true. The fact is that these people have studied Origen too much by small features, so that the general concept of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, violated by many small roughnesses and inconsistencies, disappears for them behind many details. However, if you look at “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” from a bird’s eye view, from the height of which the particulars are hidden, then the general concept of the work as a whole is revealed with certainty; and if it is necessary to indicate a flaw in an essay, then it is most correct to define it as insufficient processing in detail, and not as “lack of thought” or “immaturity” in general. We can say that the general outlines of the system were sketched with a firm hand, but the contours are filled with material from notebooks that has not been fully worked out. This is also confirmed by the fact that Origen, in his words, quoted from Pamphilus 245, wrote this work for himself personally, during leisure hours - “per sptium et quietem in secreto” (Pamph. Apol.). General plan "Περὶ ἀρχῶν". The essay “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” can legitimately [be] divided into two sections. In the first, to which the first three books of the work belong, the world process is considered from three conceivable points of view - namely: 1. from the point of view of God, who creates worlds and directs the process of all worlds, 2. from the point of view of this world, since it is directed by such influences, and 3. from the point of view of an individual person or spirit, as a moral person, since it is the last element for the sake of which and because of which the whole process occurs. The second section contains only one book 4, and is, as it were, a methodological justification of the previous section, since it establishes where and on what grounds one can draw knowledge about the works from the Holy Scripture set out in the first three books, and by what method. In a certain, conventional sense, this department can be called Origen’s theory of knowledge. – The disclosure of the plan “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” does not belong to our topic, just as the clarification of the unity of this plan does not apply, especially since it was done, for example, in the introduction to volume 1 of Origen’s works, translated by the Kazan Theological Academy 246; but it is useful for us to once again illuminate the formal unity of the work, that is, the unity of the method. Method "Περὶ ἀρχῶν". “Origène n’a point de méthode” 247 248, says Denis. But I think this statement is based on seeking from Origen what he does not want to give. Neither in Philonian allegorism, which, generally speaking, is a literary manner of expressing certain thoughts in the texts of a revered work, nor in Platonic dialectics, nor in the intellectual intuition of the Neoplatonists and the symbolism of the Neo-Pythagoreans, can one look for Origen’s method, although the “adamantite” teacher with the carefreeness of an eclectic uses one or the other. However, his own method is dressed in this diversity - the method of studying basic issues through testing one or another conceivable solution with religious experiences - a living consciousness of the goodness and justice of God that does not leave him for a second. This is the central point of Origen’s worldview and this is the scale with which a systematic comparison of individual, even randomly taken and eclectically picked out provisions creates the unity of the method. – So, the world process as a change, which from the beginning to the “end of ends” has indelible features of the goodness and justice of God - this is the main theme of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”; any worldview that rejects it is eliminated by natural incompatibility with Origen’s religious consciousness because for Origen it is an unconditional criterion of worldview. A list of possible ways to think about a given question, one-by-one comparison and comparison of each of them with the said criterion and discarding all incompatible ones - sifting through possible hypotheses - this is the main method of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. Using the text “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. The doctrine of God underwent, in all likelihood, the greatest “change for the better” on the part of the translator Rufinus, since here Origen could especially clearly demonstrate his non-Orthodox views. In addition to directly changing the meaning of the phrases, Rufinus used, as researchers of the text “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” (Thomasius, Redepenning, etc.) believe, a special technique, which, according to Bolotov 249, “casts a shadow of doubt on very important places where all three persons of the Holy Trinity are listed.” The fact is that the difference in the hypostases of the Holy Trinity received such predominance over the unity of the Trinity in the consciousness of Origen that he almost never talks about the one three-hypostatic God, but always about one or another person of the Holy Trinity; the very word “God” in Origen, as can be seen from the general meaning of his reasoning, is a term equivalent to the post-Nicene “God the Father.” To hide this circumstance and “give more common sense” to Origen’s thoughts, Rufinus - there is reason to think so 250 - replaces the word deitas with Trinitas in many places or adds “i.e.” to the word Deus. e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit." “Of course,” says Bolotov, it would be too bold to say that every place where the word Trinitas occurs is inaccurate. Origen could have used it in “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, because in the Greek text of his original works the word Τριάς is used. But we must not forget that in all the writings of Origen that have come down to us in Greek, the authenticity of which is not questioned, the word Τριάς appears only twice, while in only three (three, since the content of book 3 does not give rise to talk about the Trinity) de principiis books, the word “Trinitas” is used twenty-one times” 251. That is why it is natural, in all places where the word "Trinitas" occurs, to put a critical caute lege 252 and take into account that all such places can have a value either when the word "Trinitas" is an attested translation of the Greek Τριάς, or when substituting in place of Trinitas or Τριάς the suspected words Θεότης or ὁ Θεός, i.e., in Origen “God the Father,” does not change the value of the place under study in the respect necessary for quotation. Using these critical remarks, we will briefly outline the metaphysical side in Origen's theology. The concept of God. The concept of God consists of a number of characteristics; but so that these characteristics do not turn out to be accidentally captured by definitions placed in random relationships, it is necessary to indicate the central and initial characteristic, which itself establishes the organic unity of the others. For Origen, such a sign is a sign of primacy. “God who serves as the beginning of everything,” God is the “Father of all creatures,” “God as that which serves as the beginning of everything,” as “the source from which every rational nature or mind begins” - this is Origen’s starting point 253. Ориген разъясняет этот пункт иначе, говоря, что «субстанция Троицы есть начало и причина всего, что из неё – всё 254 , через неё – всё, и в ней всё»: «Троица есть виновница всего» 255 . Ontological predicates of God. From this main attribute - the initialness - of God follows His uncomplicatedness, as a negative definition, and simplicity, as a positive definition. We must say that He is something absolutely simple. In fact, if this is not the case, if God is not simple, that is, there is something complex, then He must be divided into parts; but then the parts will already be prior to Him, and it cannot be said that He is the beginning 256. Without complexity, God cannot contain diversity: “He has nothing greater or lower in himself,” “has no gradualness or retardation,” “i.e. because that which serves as the beginning of everything should not be complex and different: - that which... should consist, so to speak, of only one type of divinity, cannot be many, not one” 257. So, God is in every respect μονάς, tsoubs, or, to note that his unity and his simplicity are higher than the uncomplexity and simplicity of the part, Origen calls Him genada, ἑνάς. The definition of the being of God as one and simple leads to the concept of God as non-temporal, from which His properties flow - immutability and eternity, and non-spatial. The last two signs, i.e. eternity and non-spatiality, are revealed by Origen with special subtlety and love. The sign of immutability is derived from eternity. – The applicability of the category of time to the essence of God is denied by Origen in two senses – conditional and unconditional. The first negation, conditional, from the point of view of creation, subject to the category of time, gives a negative definition of the Divine. This definition says that God, as the beginning of everything, cannot Himself have the beginning of its existence; as a simple being, He cannot have the humiliation of being, that is, He cannot have an end. Consequently, the existence of God is not limited to any period of time - thinking about God and not being able to renounce the form of contemplation of time, we must move beyond all designated boundaries 258. The second negation is unconditional; it is from the point of view of God taken within himself, and says that for God there is no time. It would not even be accurate to say about God that he always was, because the word always implies some relation to time: “when we say “always”, “was”, or allow for some other designation of time, then this must be taken simply and in a figurative sense, because all these expressions have a temporary meaning, and the objects that we are talking about only in words allow a temporary designation, but by their nature they surpass any thought about time.” 259 “The Trinity, and She alone, surpasses every concept not only of time, but also of eternity; everything else that exists outside the Trinity must be measured by centuries and time” 260. This independence of God from time is due to His essence: being unconditionally simple, a genad, God cannot have any change or slowdown in His manifestations 261: He is unchangeable 262. Similar reasoning applies to the non-spatiality of God, and this definition of Him has a double meaning, one is conditional, from the point of view of creation, subject to the laws of space and defining God negatively, and the other is unconditional, from the point of view of God in itself and defining Him positively. The first definition is that God is not limited to any particular place or position, but embraces everything with Himself 263 . – The second definition characterizes God in himself as standing outside the laws of space, as certainly not subject to them; God is omnipresent not in the sense of infinite extension in parts or movement; no, everywhere and everywhere He is all 264. – Further determination of the being of God occurs through the decision of the alternative, whether God is a material body or incorporeal 265, ἀσώματος, that is, is not a body and is not in the body - does not reside in the body 266. In Scripture, God is called fire, light, spirit (spiritus - in the sense of a material “breath”); but these expressions should be understood as figurative. God is a “consuming fire,” for He destroys evil thoughts of minds, shameful deeds and sinful desires, just as fire cleanses; He is called light because of his power, through which is all knowledge of God; spirit (spiritus) It is called to highlight immateriality 267. In this sense, God is invisible to any “nature,” for His invisibility lies in His being. Even the Only Begotten Son does not see the Father, but only knows. “It’s another thing to see and another thing to know. To be visible and to see is characteristic of bodies, but to be known and to know is characteristic of the mental nature" 268 ; “God is invisible by nature” 269; “We must completely reject and despise those old women’s fables (aniles fabulae) that inexperienced people come up with about the “front” or “back” of God 270. Those who assert the possibility of the opposite will come to the “dark doctrine of the corporeality of God. In fact, an object can be visible only through shape, size and color, which constitute the distinctive properties of bodies. But if God, according to their teaching, is a body, then it means that He consists of matter, since every body consists of matter.” But all matter is perishable, and then, that means, God is also perishable. In addition, there is a difficulty in deciding whether this matter was created or not created: if it was created, then God was created; He is no longer the beginning; if it is not created, then God constitutes one part of this matter, and the world another, and God again does not turn out to be the beginning 271. So, God is completely incorporeal. “His nature [in the original “Trinity” – “Trinitas”] is one and incorporeal” 272. – The result obtained here, for Origen, is something more meaningful than a negative definition of the essence of God. “Incorporeal” for Origen is a word equivalent to “spiritual” 273. God, therefore, can only be a spirit, an intellectual or “smart” being, a mind 274. But, as it is said, God is a genada. An absolutely unified intellectual nature is a living, thinking and self-conscious being, i.e., in modern terminology, a personality 275 or a personal spirit 276. But, having self-consciousness, God thinks of Himself, His powers and His actions; to think, by the very nature of thinking, only that which is limited and complete is possible; everything that has an element of uncertainty (ἄπειρον) is essentially unknowable. And if so, then God cannot but be limited, as well as His works 277. – In this teaching about the personality of God and especially about His limitations, in the elimination of ἄπειρον, Origen sharply breaks off with the Eastern and Neoplatonic tendencies of contemporary philosophy and, with the first position, joins the monotheism of Judaism, and the second - with the direction of ancient thinking, which was so afraid of ἄπειρον and saw in it the beginning of evil 278 . However, being complete, defined in and for himself, God is not therefore complete for the created mind. Therefore, “we affirm, in accordance with the truth, that God is incomprehensible and invaluable” 279. This is not because He is essentially incomprehensible to the mind as such, but because any idea we have about Him will be insufficient, because our mind is “enclosed in the bonds of flesh and blood” and, as a result of participation in such matter, remains relatively motionless and dull when delving into the incorporeal and, even more so, into a being “inexpressibly and incomparably superior to all spiritual beings” 280 - in God. “Even if we were given the opportunity to know or understand something about God, we still must necessarily believe that He is incomparably better than what we have learned about Him,” 281 just as a person who can see only a spark of light or the light of a candle must think that the brilliance of the sun is incomparably and unspeakably brighter than any light visible to him. Therefore, “the nature of God cannot be comprehended and contemplated by the power of the human mind, even if it were the purest and brightest mind” 282. Catharsis among the Neoplatonists and Origen. Here it is important to pay attention to the apparent similarity of Origen’s views on the unknowability of God with the views of the Neoplatonists and to the significant difference between the two. Both Origen and the Neoplatonists point to the rejection of possible positive definitions of God as a method of negatively defining His being, with the result that in both cases God is defined as "unknowable and inestimable." However, for Neoplatonists this unknowability is a fundamental unknowability, essentially; God as such is unknowable. For Origen, the unknowability of God is unknowability, so to speak, quantitative and is determined not by the thoroughly knowable essence of God in itself, but by our (i.e., the subject of knowledge) inability to possess this knowledge otherwise than through the unlimited extrapolation of our ideas. Closely related to this difference between the two systems is the difference in the methods of negative determination 283 . For Neoplatonists, this path is the path of discarding any definition: “God is not this” - this is the diagram of the Neoplatonic path. But it is clear that as a result of such discarding, nothing will result, and we will only come to the destruction in ourselves of the false idea of ​​God, but not to any knowledge of Him; and it is clear that, without having the idea of ​​God in advance, we cannot obtain it through any catharsis. Origen's path, so similar to this one in external approach, differs significantly from it in essence. We do not come from emptiness to completeness, not from complete ignorance to knowledge, but only from ignorance to knowledge, from possibility to the reality that realizes it, from vague knowledge to clear knowledge. The knowledge of God is already present at the very beginning of the cathartic process, but in order to clearly recognize our knowledge, in order to reveal knowledge, we must clearly recognize what does not apply to it, and the knowledge of the creature does not apply to it. So, Origen’s method is the clearing of an idea, the Neoplatonists’ method is the imaginary creation of an idea. If the Neoplatonists say: “God is not this,” then Origen says, “God is not this.” Moral characteristics of God the Father. The idea of ​​God, which was established at the beginning of this chapter, is an ontological idea, and it can be obtained through successive negations in the field of ontology. But the ontological concept of God “has as its counterpart” 284 His definition from the moral side. One can assume (although I don’t remember that this was stated anywhere in “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” directly) that such a definition is obtained as a result of a series of denials in the field of ethics. God is the existent beginning of everything; He is the Good One. In God “goodness is present substantially” 285. This means that for Origen the originality of God and His goodness are not something different, some two different definitions (otherwise one of them would be accidental in relation to the other), combined in one being. No, “substantiality” means that both definitions of God are expressions of the same fact, but from different points of view. The essence of God is goodness, and this goodness = originality; God as “the author of everything,” eo ipso 286 and good, on the contrary, He is the author of everything, because he is good. “All other beings have goodness as a contingent property that can cease, and are in bliss only when they participate in holiness and wisdom and the Divinity itself.” By refusing such participation in Goodness - God, the creature loses its definition of goodness. God is good because He is the One. In the proper sense of existence, God is in the proper sense of good; unchangeably existing, He is always good 287; He is goodness itself. Everything else is good in relation, conditionally; He is unconditionally good, simply good 288 – ὁ Θεός αὐτὸ αγαθόν 289 . The goodness in Him is identical with His being and essence; being an unconditional being, He is also the unconditional Good, substantial, and therefore immutable. – The goodness of God is revealed and manifested in two definitions of it – namely, kindness and justice. Kindness and justice (or righteousness) constitute one and the same “virtue”, the definition of “good” is inseparable from the definition of “just”, as the Gnostics thought, wanting to establish a difference and even opposition between the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament and defining the First as good, the Second as just 290, and saying that “one thing is truth, and another is goodness” (kindness) 291. “They [the heretics, i.e., the Gnostics] consider goodness to be some kind of disposition, by virtue of which goodness should be shown to everyone, even if the one to whom the benefit is shown was not worthy and did not deserve to receive it,” and “justice is such a disposition that rewards everyone according to their deserts.” But it does not in any way follow from this that “a good being cannot cause sad and severe things,” for both sad and severe things can be a good deed; and a just being, rewarding according to deserts, should not at all because of this do evil to the evil, and good to the good; it does not follow that a just being did not wish good to the evil and treated them with hatred 292 . Next, Origen points to a number of biblical examples that the understanding established by the Gnostics does not stand up to criticism, and tries to find out that it leads to insoluble difficulties or to positions that no one will agree to admit, such as, for example, the position that injustice is a virtue. – This is the most important thing in Origen’s teaching about the goodness of God; this teaching constitutes, as we will see later, the center of his entire system, and therefore we should dwell on it, on its general character. Here, as in the ontological definition of God, there is a great similarity with the teachings of the Neoplatonists, but even here this similarity is only apparent. “Goodness,” says Bolotov, “for Origen has an undoubtedly ethical meaning; for Plotinus, on the contrary, it has a metaphysical meaning. But the coincidence of the views of both in detail is very remarkable: according to Origen, being is the same as good, according to Plotinus, one is the same as good; both of them deny that the first principle is good only in some respect” 293. It would be inappropriate to develop and prove this idea in detail here; but we can point out its connection with the above-mentioned difference in the ontological definition. For Plotinus, God is not something created; for Origen He is the cause of all created things; in the same way, for Plotinus there is a single good, because it has no relation to anything, because it is self-sufficient 294; for Origen, the Beginning is good because it relates to everything, determines everything. In this regard, when comparing the highest manifestation of non-Christian philosophy (Neoplatonism) with the initial one - Christian, since Origen’s system could not but be affected by his religious consciousness, the difference in the moods and basic ideas of Christianity and non-Christianity is especially clear. Birth of the Son. The definition of God as good, and therefore desiring good, leads to a further definition of Him as the Father. The act by virtue of which God is the Father and, in accordance with this, by virtue of which the Son has existence, is birth. “The birth of the Son is something exceptional and worthy of God; for him no comparison can be found, not only in things, but also in thought and in the mind, so that human thought cannot understand how the unborn God becomes the Father of the only begotten Son” 295. But, if the quomodo 296 of this inexpressible act is hidden from us, then it is still possible to establish some conditions for it, negative definitions derived from the definition of God. – First of all, this act is non-temporal, and this property is due to the immutability of God. Since God is unchangeable, then He always, in the eternal “now,” possesses in actu all His definitions and properties. If God is the Father, then He is the Father from eternity, He must have a Son from eternity 297. The same can be easily proven by contradiction. God is supposed to have begotten a Son who did not exist before; then we must come to the absurd conclusion that God previously did not want to be born, but then did, or that He could not give birth to Him, but then was able to. Both require a change that is impossible in God, and the reluctance to have a Son is incompatible with the goodness of God, since it is good for God to be the Father of such a Son. Origen also does not admit the validity of the term “premature onset of birth,” seeing in this an evasion of the question. It is possible to speak about the beginning of the Son only in the sense of the causal dependence of the Son in existence from the Father 298. “But that’s not enough to say.” The birth of the Son cannot be something accomplished, pre-eternal. This is an eternal act, always real, generatio 299 not only aeterna 300, but also semper aeterna, sempiterna 301 302. – Just as the timelessness of God requires the timelessness of the act of birth, so the spacelessness of God excludes the spatial definitions of this act, its emanative character. “Being indivisible and indivisible, God becomes the Father of the Son, without singling Him out, as some think; for if the Son is an excretion [προβολή, prolatio = emanation] of the Father and is born of Him, like the children of animals, then both the one who produces and the one produced must necessarily be a body” 303 . It is extremely “crazy”, “absurd” and “impious” to assume in this birth any processes, such as: the division of the essence of the Father, its diminution, etc. 304 In view of this, Origen rebels against the expression “birth from a being”, seeing in it an emanative lining and a desire to explain the image of the birth of the Son from the Father, quomodo of this incomprehensible act, and losing sight of what Orthodox writers wish for by this the expression emphasizes not the image of birth, but the result, the consequence of birth - the unity of the being (ὁμοσύσιος), the closest relationship of the Son to the Father. – This is how this act of birth is determined by its negative relationship to the conditions of space and time; its positive definition is that the Son has his existence from the Father as the single beginning of everything, and not from anything else - he stands in immediate and direct dependence on the Father 305. – But this is birth to be neither sensual nor passionate 306. Consequently, birth can be explained by an analogy not from the realm of physical phenomena, but from the spiritual realm; indeed, the comparison of the Son with the word, favored by the Neoplatonists, is barely hinted at in Origen, but another analogy is developed instead. – A word is not only a concept, but also a sound, a certain material process. In order to completely eliminate such an emanative connotation of analogy, in order to depict the mysterious act of birth lying deep within the Divine life, Origen compares it with the origin of will from thought. “This image contains an indication of the unity of the nature and essence of the Father and the Son. In fact, if everything that the Father does, the Son does in the same way, then the image of the Father in the Son is imprinted precisely in the fact that the Son does everything in the same way as the Father, from Whom He was born, as if some kind of His will, arising from thought... Just as the will comes from the mind and at the same time does not separate any part from it and is not itself separated from it, in the same way - you need to think - and the Father gave birth to the Son - this is his image; therefore, just as He Himself is invisible by nature, so He gave birth to an invisible image. In fact, the Son is the Word - and therefore one should not think of anything sensual in Him. The Son is Wisdom, and in Wisdom one cannot think of anything corporeal..." 307. Birth and creation. To elucidate Origen's metaphysics it is important, although not to the same extent as to evaluate his system from the point of view of orthodoxy, to find out how he understands the relation of the birth of the Son to creation. - Ancient writers, such as Epiphanius, Jerome, Justinian, Photius 308, claim that Origen recognizes the Son of God as created; indeed, formally, this is so: Origen calls the Son “creation” (κτίσμα) 309, “happened” (γενητός) 310. However, in order to understand this point in essence, we must first clarify one circumstance. Wisdom. In the first books of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν,” when Origen says “Word” (or “Son”), he almost always adds: “or Wisdom,” and one might think that he confuses these terms and considers them synonymous with each other. But in the further presentation, “or” is replaced by “and,” clearly distinguishing Wisdom from the Word and showing that Wisdom is always with the Word, although it is different from Him. Particularly characteristic in this regard is the expression: “God alone knows with the only begotten Word, and with His Wisdom, and with the Holy Spirit,” 311 where Wisdom is clearly distinguished from the Word and from the Holy Spirit and is placed alongside them as something independent. As a result, using texts from the “Book of Wisdom”, he, imperceptibly for himself, constructs phrases that formally and grammatically relate the definitions of Wisdom to the Word; so, for example, the expression of Wisdom “The Lord created Me (ἔκτισε με) as the beginning of His ways,” which gives full right to call Wisdom-Sophia a “creation,” κτίσμα, leads Origen to designate the Son as a “creation.” In view of this, we can say that it is not the Son, as such, who is called a creature, but only according to the Wisdom contained in Him, that is, according to the ideal world 312 - the system of Divine thoughts - contained in Him 313. But it must be admitted that in many places Origen is confused in terminology and simply calls the Son Wisdom 314. – As for the word “happened”, γενητός, it in its own sense often refers to Wisdom, and sometimes is simply confused with “born”, “γεννητός” 315, in addition, γενητός does not mean “created” at all, but only “one that has the beginnings of its existence in friend." – However, by eliminating the formal data that speaks for the creatureliness of the Son, we do not yet eliminate the internal necessity, arising from the spirit of Origen’s system, to consider the Son a creature, no matter how Origen calls Him, unless such a need really exists, as some of the newest researchers of Origen’s views think. Justinian cites fragment 316, which says that the Son was born from (ἐκ) the will of the Father. This way of expression could strongly prove that Origen thinks precisely about the creation of the Son, and therefore it is important to understand what, in fact, Origen emphasizes with this “from the will.” It cannot be assumed that the logical emphasis here is on the word “will”; this would indicate the dependence of the Son on the free will of the Father, and thus the existence of the Son would become, as it were, accidental. But Origen, as has been pointed out, sees in the Son the true revelation and manifestation of the Father, and as such it cannot be accidental. If so, then the emphasis is on “from”. “The formula “birth from will,” says Bolotov, “is dear to Origen precisely because it expresses the idea of ​​a completely spiritual process, does not contain any shade of something material, sensual; but in itself it has no value for Origen” 317, since Origen does not at all support the thesis “The Son was born only from the will” and does not want to exclude formulas like “The Son was born from the mind.” This birth from will differs significantly from creation by will, because the Son, unchangeable by nature, did not receive being from nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), but the world received from nothing, although in a pre-temporal beginning 318. Therefore the world is the Son of God by adoption, and the Son by nature 319. “This difference in the result,” says Bolotov, “points to the difference, so to speak, in the process of the acts of creation and birth, to the difference in the form of detection of the Divine will, as creating and as giving birth. The creation appeared as if outside the sphere of the Divine; the creative wave of the will is directed towards the carrier, but this is “nothing”, external in relation to God. On the contrary, the Son does not have His existence outside the Father; the birth of the Son is an immanent act in the strict sense; the will that gives birth acts within the sphere of divine life; the object on which the generating will acts is not nothing, not outside the Divine, but in Him Himself, or, better to say, there is not even any object, and the will itself is objectified, hypostasized, receives being in its particularity from God, like His Son... Thus, the power in which all the power of the Divine is concentrated, the entire fullness of His life, in a word - the complete manifestation of the Divine, gives evaporation (ἀτμός, vapor) - the Son. He is the evaporation of all the whole power of the Divine, He is the very essence, the vigor of all that power, qua Deus viget 320; therefore, if we translate Origen’s language into modern, then we no longer have the right to talk about the Son as a product of Divine power, no, the Son is this very power in its activity, a moment of Divine energy” 321. Bolotov very successfully illuminates this issue by quoting from Plotinus (Plot. Enn. 5.4, 2; 1:72), who says that “there is the energy of the essence, and there is the energy from the essence of each (individual). The energy of essence is the individual himself, taken in his actuality; the energy from the essence must absolutely necessarily be different in relation to the essence itself... The One completely retains its own character, remains invariably integral, with its inherent energy; but the energy born from this latter, having received a hypostasis, as it were, of the greatest power, develops into being and essence: for that, the one, was higher than the essence ... ". Thus, we can say that God the Father has potential energy, but in its actual form it becomes a hypostasis and a second principle. The Son is power derived from power, virtus ex virtute 322. – As a genad and an absolutely simple and united principle, God cannot contain any diversity. Definitions of God as the beginning of wisdom, truth, life, etc. - “these properties for thought seem, of course, multiple, but in fact and in essence they constitute one, and it is in them that the fullness of the Divinity lies” 323. But in the Father all these definitions are not given in their disclosure. God directly reveals himself in a single and immeasurably great power 324, a power that must be adequate to the essence of God. If so, then the objectified power of this force, its vigor, can be a single hypostasis, “the shine of eternal light” 325, “the image of God” 326; The Son is “the imprinted image of the Father’s hypostasis” 327. In Him (the Son) there is a variety of creative thoughts, in Him there is an ideal world, Wisdom. In this sense, the Son is the omnipotence of God 328 objectified, or, more precisely, eternally objectified in an act - “the purest outpouring of the glory of the Almighty” 329 and His omnipotence. – Thus, the Son is the very hypostatic action of the Father’s power, His objectified will. As the direct source of wisdom, truth, life, etc., the Son is called by Origen by all these names, especially by the first. But Origen at the same time warns the reader that the Son is not some kind of abstraction - a quality or state inherent, for example, in all the wise. “Let no one think that by calling the Son the Wisdom of God, we do not recognize Him as something not substantial, as if we, for example, consider Him not to be some kind of rational being (animal), but some thing that can make (people) wise and communicate to the minds of those who become receptive to the properties and understanding of it... The Only Begotten Son of God is His Wisdom, existing substantially” 330. Subordinationism. Ultimately, Origen's general idea of ​​the Son contains two main points: 1. The Son is an animal; hypostasis, independently existing and distinct from the Father; 2. The Son combines in Himself all the Divine perfections of the Father, and the existence of the Son is necessarily presupposed by the very essence of the Father. – If so, then a natural and very complex question arises: how did Origen think about the relationship of the Son to the Father? This question of Origen's subordinationism cannot be considered in detail without other works of Origen, so only general instructions can be made here. – The difference between the Father and the Son can be based, of course, not on their common nature (οὐσία), but on the individual difference of their hypostases. This difference can, generally speaking, be thought of in two ways, either in the form of formal subordinationism, or in the form of real subordinationism. The difference between the hypostases of the Father and the Son is based - and Origen emphasizes this - on the fact that the Father is not born, but the Son is born. This undoubted circumstance can, however, be interpreted in two ways. We can, firstly, say that the “unbornness” of the Father is His individual difference; one can, secondly, see in this a generic sign - a sign of divine nature; in other words, the sign of “unbornness” in the concept of “God the Father” can be attributed to either the “Father” or “God” as such. In the first case, the birth of the Son in no way deprives us of the opportunity to assert that the Son is equal to the Father in reality, for example, in power, in holiness, etc., although formally He, of course, differs from the Father. This is formal subordinationism. In the second, we can no longer say that the Son is really equal to the Father; He is not God in the sense in which He is the Father, and then we will have real subordinationism. Thus, the whole matter comes down to what meaning to give to the sign of unbornness - essential for the concept of the Divine, characterizing His essence, or not essential for the essence and characterizing the hypostasis, but not the essence. In the latter case, the Divine hypostases are equal in dignity, in their essence and content, but different in the form of being, in what makes them irreducible hypostases to each other, and each of the persons is a perfect God. – Origen thought so, but the question of subordinationism, in addition to its abstract formulation, also has a psychological moment, depending on the general makeup of the philosopher or theologian analyzing it. This circumstance is due to the possibility of giving two formulas that are identical in content, but opposite in form: 1. “The Son is born from the Father - his cause, and since everything that is in the Father is also in the Son, then He is equal to the Father.” 2. “Whatever is in the Father is also in the Son; but since the Son is born from the Father for His own reason, then the Father is greater than the Son...” The choice of one formula or another is determined by what the philosopher sees as a more important point: the difference in hypostases or the identity of essences. Origen chose the second formula, and, although logically the choice of one or the other is indifferent, the historical tradition, according to which “what is born is always lower than the one who gives birth,” led Origen to recognize the real inequality of the Father and the Son, since this is especially favored by the expressions of the 2nd formula. “Origen,” says Bolotov, “deliberately selects a series of expressions in which subordinationism clearly shines through” 331. The Goodness of the Son. Having considered the mode of being of the Son, we would have to deduce the definitions of His essence; but the identity of this essence with the essence of the Father and the very conditions of the act of birth (timelessness, non-spatiality, eternity) sufficiently characterize the existence of the Son that there is a need to talk about this specifically, although Origen does this 332. However, we must consider the definitions of the Son as goodness and truth. Regarding the goodness of the Son, the tendency of the preserved text “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” and Rufinus’ translation of “De principiis” diverges very strangely, and, according to Bolotov, “this difference is to the contrary of their tendencies; if we believe Rufinus, all the efforts of Origen are aimed at indicating the perfect unity of the goodness of the Father and the Son; meanwhile, from the fragment (transmitted by Justinian) it is obvious that Origen meant to show as energetically as possible the difference between the goodness of the Father and the Son” 333. - This is how the question of the goodness of the Son is dealt with in the Rufinus translation 334. – The Son, as the image of the Father in everything, is also “the image of his goodness” (procul dubio bonitatis Patris imago). “The image of a person looking in the mirror reflects with complete accuracy all the movements and actions performed by this person” 335. If so, then “in the Son there prevails no second grace other than that which exists in the Father... and there is no dissimilarity or distance between the goodness in the Son and in the Father.” If so, then the text “no one is good, except one God the Father” (Origen trustingly assimilates Marcion’s reading in the text of Matt. 19–17; Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18, i.e. with the addition of the word “Father”) must be understood in the sense that no one is good by original, unproduced goodness, except the unborn Father, and that goodness The Son and the Holy Spirit “borrow the nature of goodness inherent in the source” from which they originate. But their goodness cannot be an accidental goodness and not essentially inherent in them, not substantially 336, since everything accidental, not lying in nature (that which is “non substantialiter vel naturaliter”), presupposes the possibility of its existence or non-existence, therefore presupposes the changeability and, consequently, the complexity of the nature to which it belongs. If so, then “good is essentially found only in Christ and in the Holy Spirit and, of course, in the Father, for the nature of the Trinity, as shown, does not have any complexity and, therefore, good cannot be a random property in It.” The above passages show that the difference between the goodness of the Son (and the Holy Spirit) and the Father is only formal and logical, based on the derivativeness of goodness, but not on its quality (neque... dissimilitudo), and not on its quantity (neque... distantia). However, the Rufinus fragment seems to say something quite different. “So, I think,” Origen declares in it, “that it can be perfectly said about the Savior that He is the bearer of God’s goodness, but not goodness itself. Perhaps the Son is good, but not just good. The Son is the image of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ) invisible and therefore He is God (Θεός), but not the God about whom Christ himself says: “Let them know You, the only and true God.” In the same way (the Son) is an image of goodness, but goodness is not immutable (ἀπαραλάκτως) like the Father” 337. Jerome’s letter to Avitus 338 says the same thing: “Origen calls God the Father almighty good and (God) of perfect goodness; The Son, in his opinion, is not good, but is only a spirit and image of goodness, so He cannot be called good unconditionally, but with the addition of “a good shepherd, etc.” “The meaning of the expression: “The Son is not like the Father ἀπαραλάκτως, invariably good” is that the goodness of the Son is not identical, not indifferently similar to the goodness of the Father.” But, probably, in addition, this indicates that the goodness of the Son is not just goodness, that is, it is not given when considering the Son in himself, but when considering His relationships, His activity in relation to others for Him, to the world. Thus, the unconditional unity - genada - or the Father - is simply good, good in Itself; The Son, as an active and varied manifestation of the will of the Father, is good not simply, but in his varied and living activity. This doctrine of the goodness of the Son constitutes a natural development of Origen's views on the mode of being of the Son, and therefore the combined testimony of Jerome and Justinian should give more faith than the testimony of Rufinus. Knowing the Son. The Son as the realizing thought of the Father, as a “pure mirror of the energy of God” 339, as a hypostasis characterized primarily through wisdom, the Son must, apparently, have knowledge, both in content and intensity, equal to the knowledge of the Father; Apparently, it must be that the Son knows everything and with the same perfection as the Father. But, however, Origen limits the knowledge of the Son and persistently points out that the Father’s knowledge of Himself exceeds the Son’s knowledge of Him. “If the Son recognizes the Father,” argues Origen, “then, it seems, by the very fact that He knows Him, He can comprehend (comprehendere) - in the case in which we say that the spirit of the artist knows the measure of art. And there is no doubt that if the Father is in the Son, then He is comprehended by Him in Whom He is. If we call comprehension what He who knows not only comprehends in thought and wisdom, but also contains with power and might everything (that He knows): then we cannot say that the Son comprehends the Father. The Father comprehends everything; but the Son is also among all, therefore He comprehends the Son also... in knowledge the Father is greater than the Son, because... He knows Himself more perfectly and purer than His Son knows Himself” 340. – We will not point out the explanations that were given to this passage in order to reconcile it with the understanding of the Son as Wisdom. It is not difficult to see from the above quotation that Origen points here to the knowledge of the Son, as knowledge that is only perceptive, passive, and to the knowledge of the Father, as knowledge that creatively shapes the object of its knowledge; This is the main difference between both, but the details are much more difficult and complex to explain. – Comparison of the Father with a dazzlingly brilliant light, which weak human vision cannot bear, and the Son with the radiance of this light, with its soft and quiet brilliance accustoming the vision to the contemplation of the ineffable light of the Father 341; comparison of the Father with a statue of immeasurable size - a statue that occupies the entire universe and therefore inaccessible to the eye, and the Son with a reduced copy of this statue, a copy that allows a person to get an idea of ​​the first statue 342 - these comparisons of Origen once again sufficiently emphasize the subordinationist way of thinking of Origen, his understanding of the Son as an agent, intermediate between God and man, as a mediator between Father and creature, and thus bring Origenism closer to Plotinism. – Despite the lack of stability of Origen’s views, “it remains to be recognized,” says Bolotov as a result of his research, “that Origen’s subordinationism, not only in form, but also in meaning, is not purely hypostatic” [i.e. e. formal] 343 . Holy Spirit. It remains for us to consider Origen’s teaching about the Holy Spirit, but here we must note the very invisible role played by this hypostasis of the Holy Trinity in his system and the very little metaphysical validity of the necessity of the existence of the Holy Spirit. “This task - to give a speculative justification for the fact of the existence of the Holy Spirit, to indicate the logical necessity of the Trinitarian existence of the Divine - was not completed by Origen” 344. This, however, is impossible, according to Origen, to do through philosophical construction, since knowledge about the Holy Spirit is obtained only through the study of Holy Scripture, why this knowledge and faith in the existence of the Holy Spirit constitute a characteristic ingredient of the Christian worldview, a specific feature that separates it from the philosophers of Greece 345. But if so, then after this it seems especially strange why Origen paid so little attention to clarifying the most essential questions about the Holy Spirit and sometimes simply evades a definite answer with the interrogative form of his presentation, and sometimes even seems to forget about the existence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the most characteristic feature of Christianity, in his own words. To justify such a phenomenon, as Denis does 346, by the primary interest of the time in clarifying the doctrine of the Son and the Father, or by reference to the fact that at the “great councils” of the 4th century the same doctrine of the Holy Spirit was developed relatively briefly, is to justify Origen in this way is completely illegal, and this is precisely because he realized the importance of this point in the Christian doctrine and expressed it quite clearly, although it is possible to doubt whether it is true that the Holy Spirit is an exclusive property of Christianity 347. The only excuse that can be given is that Origen intended to expound his views in detail elsewhere; This opinion, at least, is held by Bolotov 348, but one cannot help but see here new confirmation of the previously expressed opinion about the splitness of Origen’s personality - splitting from the simultaneous aspirations for Christianity and non-Christian philosophy that were not united for him. The Origin of the Holy Spirit. The act that gives existence to the Holy Spirit is procession. The Father plagues, profert the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit proceeds, procedit, from the Father, which is why “procedens” is His constant epithet as “ingenitis” is for the Son. But by what distinctive features Origen defines the act of procession and how he distinguishes it, on the one hand, from creation, and on the other, from birth, it is quite difficult to understand from the confusing presentation of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν.” We can say, first of all, that this act is eternal, and this is proven by the immutability of the Holy Trinity 349. If so, then the Holy Spirit is co-eternal with the Father and the Son and, one can assume, co-substantial with them. Origen further points out that there is only one Holy Spirit - the singularity of the Holy Spirit - so that even the heretics who invented two Fathers and two Sons did not invent two Holy Spirits. Origen, however, even doubts the possibility and conceivability of such an assumption, since he doubts the possibility of somehow characterizing the Holy Spirit, and if this is so, since it is really impossible to characterize the Holy Spirit, then it is all the more impossible to indicate the differences between the two Holy Spirits, even if they are invented. “What difference could they (the heretics) point out between one Holy Spirit and another? - if at all it is possible to find any definition or description of the Holy Spirit... I think that they cannot find anything to prove any difference” 350. Psychological characteristics of the Holy Spirit. Being one and united, the Holy Spirit contains in Himself the fullness of grace-filled gifts - in Him - omnis natura donorum 351 - so that “for everyone who can receive the Holy Spirit, He Himself becomes that or is known in that respect in which and in which the person who deserves participation in Him needs” 352; To one He gives the word of wisdom, to another - knowledge, to the third - faith. Thus, He “teaches more than can be expressed in words, which, so to speak, is inexpressible” and which is not appropriate to express in speech. “Whoever is worthy of participation in the Holy Spirit, having learned the ineffable mysteries, without a doubt, receives consolation and heartfelt joy,” will not be sad or afraid. That is why He, “who opens the understanding of spiritual knowledge,” is called the Paraclete, the Comforter 353. – However, the opportunity for many to participate in the Holy Spirit at a time should not arouse the thought that He was divided into parts and was thus something material. He is a “sanctifying power” (virtus sanctificans est), and in order to understand the possibility of it sanctifying many without dividing into parts, one should pay attention to the example of “medical science”. “Many people take part in medical science or in the medical art, but is it really necessary to think that all those participating in medicine, located in the middle of some body called medicine, disassemble its parts and thus take part in it? Isn’t it better to understand this participation in the sense that everyone, by preparing and educating the mind, comprehends the very meaning of this art and science? But this analogy cannot be taken too strictly, because “St. The Spirit is immeasurably different from medicine both in essence and in doctrine: in addition to the fact that the Holy Spirit is a spiritual essence, He exists and abides in the proper sense of the word; Medicine is nothing like that.” But, be that as it may, “what many participate in should not necessarily be considered a body” 354. – We deliberately dwelled in more detail on this psychological (and not metaphysical in the proper sense) characteristic of the Holy Spirit through His influence on the human spirit, because otherwise, without giving an impossible, according to Origen, metaphysical characteristic, we would risk being left with the empty word “St. Spirit" without any content. The way of being of the Holy Spirit. The question of the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit was predetermined for Origen by the following two axiomatic provisions: 1. The Holy Spirit is a hypostasis, distinct from the Father and the Son; 2. Only the Father is ἀγέννητος 355, why the Holy Spirit is either γενητός 356 or γεννητός 357, and He has his existence a) either directly from the Father as the beginning b) or from the Father through the mediation of the Son. But the immediacy of origin from the Father is precisely what would force him to be recognized as γεννητός. It would, however, be impossible to recognize the Holy Spirit as begotten, since then the Father would have two Sons. In this case, apparently, it is necessary to recognize the Holy Spirit as having originated from the Father not directly, but through the mediation of the Son, which is why the Holy Spirit is included in the category of τῶν γενητῶν in a closer sense than the Son. However, Origen avoids calling the Holy Spirit a creature and declares that in Scripture he does not find a place where the Holy Spirit is called a creature, even in the sense in which Wisdom is called a creature. But despite this phenomenon, Origen makes the Holy Spirit dependent on the Son. Without going into consideration of all these intricate questions about whether it is possible to harmonize various passages about the Holy Spirit in the writings of Origen - questions that cannot be resolved without using all of Origen's writings, we will now point out a characteristic feature of the Holy Spirit that determines His position in the Holy Trinity. – If the Father is primary goodness, the Son is wisdom, then the Holy Spirit is the bearer of holiness 358. In this regard, the concept of the participation of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity in creation is established: the Father as Being (ὁ ὤν) influences rational beings, giving them wisdom; finally, the Spirit, as the Holy One, influences the perfect, giving them holiness. Thus, each of the hypostases is apparently “smaller”, because the circle, the sphere of its activity, is narrower. But this sequence in the creation of an all-integral, complete creature - a saint - does not yet say anything, contrary to the opinion of ancient writers (Justinian, Jerome), about the introduction of inequality into the Holy Trinity. Firstly, this sequence characterizes the “special action” (operatio specialis), corresponding to the special “work” (opus) of the hypostasis, and Origen himself declares that all three moments in creation are equally necessary: ​​“he who is reborn through God to salvation needs the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; he can receive salvation through the whole Trinity; finally, it is impossible to participate in the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit” 359. “Just as through participation in the Son of God someone is adopted and through participation in Wisdom becomes wise in God, so through participation in the Holy. In the Spirit he becomes holy and spiritual. Moreover, taking part in the Holy Spirit is the same thing as taking part in the Father and the Son, because the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal” 360. “So, beings have their being from God the Father, intelligence from the Son, holiness from the Holy Spirit” 361. – As for the difference in spheres of action (because the action of the Father extends to all beings, the action of the Son - to rational beings, and the action of the Holy Spirit - to holy beings), then this difference is only an apparent difference. The fact is that, according to Origen, only rational beings (minds) possess true reality (as we will see later), and all of them are destined for holiness. If so, then all three hypostases of the Holy Trinity equally act on creation 362, and therefore to apply the words of Basil the Great that “Origen is a man who had not entirely sound concepts about the Holy Spirit” 363 would be appropriate, in any case, not in relation to this place of Origen’s teaching, which reveals the influence of hypostases in three moments of the existence of creation. - “St. The Trinity is the source of all holiness" 364. Therefore, one must be baptized in the name of the whole Trinity, and not one or another of Her Hypostases. IV. Cosmology and the world process (Origen's Doctrine of the world, rational beings and its teleology) The reason for creation. As an absolute good and, moreover, in an ethical and not a metaphysical sense, as a Person - the Good or the Good Itself, God cannot be good only in and for himself; He is morally forced to become a benefit for others. From here the moral necessity of the act of creation is deduced 365. “God, being good by nature, desired to have those to whom he would do good deeds and who would rejoice when they received His benefits; It was precisely as a result of this desire that He created worthy creatures, that is, those who could worthily contain (capere) Him” 366. – Further, as an absolutely unchangeable Being, God must possess all of his properties and definitions actually, actualiter. The most “remarkable application of the concept of the immutability of the Divine” 367 was made by Origen in the doctrine of the revelation of the Divinity, the disclosure of its internal definitions and their detection externally. How to understand the world: finite or infinite? As a good Being and the beginning of good, it is fitting for God to be Almighty and Creator; but, if so, then He is the Almighty and Creator from eternity; if He determined to create the world - and to determine this in accordance with His goodness - then He created it from eternity. However, this world was created in time and will have an end 368; You can even calculate the age of this world based on Scripture. After all, God must comprehend the world, and that which has no beginning at all, although it is in time, is incomprehensible. Origen does not present this argument in this place, but it is a simple reproduction of what he says in other places, for example on page (omission in the text - Note from the publishers). But one can rightly object to the previous one - and this was done by the heretics - what did God do before the creation of the world? “After all, it is wicked and at the same time absurd to call the nature of God idle or motionless, or to think that goodness did not do good, and omnipotence once had no power (over anything)” 369. Origen thinks to eliminate this antinomy by recognizing that before this world there were other worlds, as well as there will be after its end - “not all together and not at the same time, but one after another” 370. But this is hardly the teaching of Origen and Clement about the worlds before Adam - “τερατολογούμενα”, which forced in the 9th century. shudder Photius” 371 – can be considered satisfactory. Origen's error. The difficulty into which Origen falls is not actually eliminated by this solution to the problem; non-recognition of the idea of ​​actual infinity makes this series of worlds (mundi) or centuries (saecula) nearby potentially infinite, and this is precisely what Origen wanted to avoid, and even moreover, potential infinity is only an auxiliary concept, but not a way of being, so to attribute potential infinity to being itself is absurdity. Another mistake of Origen is that he forgets the unconditional super-temporality of God that he indicated; if Origen had taken it into account, then the question “what did God do before the creation of the world?” would not seem worthy of an answer to him, since for a timeless being, real time (not in abstraction) with all its moments can only be given as a whole, complete in itself, and therefore not representing an indifferent environment of phenomena, but, on the contrary, something internally harmonious, with its parts definitely coordinated. Then for Origen the question should have been posed like this: God does not create the world in time, but for us, living in time, the act of creation refers to a certain moment in time (at least lying on an actually infinite interval from the present time, but in any case quite definite) 372. The question arises: why is the act of creation projected for us precisely at such a moment, and not at any other? Yes, precisely because real time is something internally organized. It is in abstract time that its moments, while maintaining their position, lose their specificity due to distraction. But in real time, this is not the case, and the projection of the act of creation precisely at the moment on which it is projected is due to the specificity, the certain quality of this particular moment of real time in comparison with all other moments. Confusing real time with abstraction from it and transferring the properties of the latter to the former is a frequently made mistake, which in this area often leads to difficulties. Origen did not avoid this mistake either. - But, be that as it may, Origen recognizes the world (not this world, but the world in the sense of the totality of all worlds - world phases) as beginningless and co-eternal with God 373, since the opposite would require recognition of progress in God or change. The existence of God as a beginning only logically precedes the existence of the world. But the creation of the world as a result of the will of God requires preliminary (logically, but not in time) objectification of this will, that is, it requires the birth of the Son, through whom and in whom God creates the world. “The eternal existence of the world postulates the eternal existence of the Son” 374, although the Son exists not only for the world, but primarily in himself and for himself, being a necessary revelation of the eternally willing Father. – If so, then the eternal, and not just the pre-eternal creation of the world must, apparently, from the Origenian point of view of time, be a natural conclusion from the eternal birth of the Son. However, we do not find that Origen anywhere in "Περὶ ἀρχῶν" actually made such a conclusion; on the contrary, wherever the creation of the world is spoken of, this creation is depicted as a single pre-eternal act, but not as the eternal activity of God. The First Created World. By the act of creation, the ideal world - plurality as a set of Divine thoughts - is translated into reality and receives independent existence. The form of being of the first-created multitude is determined entirely by the “truth of God” (Dei justitia) and its justice. Therefore, the individual units that make up this set cannot be conceived otherwise than as completely equal and identical to each other. All of them are “of the same nature” (unius naturae) 375, equal and similar - aequales omnes acsimiles: “diversity is not the initial state of the creature” - ista diversitas non creaturae principium 376, because this would be injustice, injustitia, and Origen points to this many times. All things were created through the Son and in the Son; but He is not only Wisdom, but also Truth. “In other words, in created things one should not see anything unfair, nothing accidental, but in it everything exists as required by the rule of impartial truth” 377. “If God the Creator is not deprived of either a desire, or a higher, or good deed, or the ability to accomplish it, then, one asks, for what reason, creating rational beings... He created one creature as superior, others as secondary or tertiary, and others as low and inferior to many degrees” 378. Just as a potter deals with clay of one nature, so “God, when creating spirits, deals with souls of one nature and, so to speak, with one mixture of rational essences (ὑποστάσεων).” To think this way is a “rule of piety” (regula pietatis) 379 because the opposite is unthinkable for a pious person; For someone who directly perceives the goodness and justice of God, the task of speculation is to show that all the imperfections, all the evil of the world is something not inherent in the original state of things, that evil is not from God. The task of speculation is almost identified with theodication; If so, to deviate from the solution proposed by Origen is obvious absurdity and impiety, because this solution is the only one by which the justice of God can be “defended” - per quod solum Dei justitia defendi potest 380. Therefore, those who recognize the difference between created beings and nature “fall into absurd and impious fables” 381. Origen thus does not recognize in the first-created monads any difference other than a purely numerical one, a difference in number or in subject. But, however, in order to be a plurality, the created world must have at least a numerical difference in its monad-elements, and therefore the question arises about the number of such monads, called by Origen “minds”, “rational beings” or “reasonable spirits” (νοῦς, φὺσι Λογική, φὺσι νοερά). Here again a very characteristic feature of the Origenian system appears, which we have already had occasion to point out - this is precisely the desire to renounce the concept of infinity. “In the intelligible beginning, God, of his own will, established such a number of rational beings as could be sufficient. For, it must be said, God’s power is limited, and under the pretext of glorifying God one should not reject the limitations of His power. In fact, if the power of God were limitless, then it would necessarily not know itself, because by nature the limitless is unknowable. So, he created as much as he could know and hold in his hands, and manage his Providence...” “God created everything by number and measure, for with God there is nothing without boundaries and without measure” 382. From here it is clear that the number of created “minds” or “intelligent beings” (νοερῶν οὐσιῶν), according to Origen, is finite. This statement can apparently be contrasted with the quotation: “we can say that we [in the real world] have countless souls, and these souls have an unlimited number of characters, a multitude of movements, dispositions, intentions, aspirations...”; but this contradiction is only apparent, because in the above quotes we were talking about infinity, and this word was taken in its strict sense; because it was a matter of numbers, and not of souls; there is a logical emphasis on “souls,” and the word “countless” is put in a hyperbolic meaning, as “very large.” This is also evident from the translation: in the first case, Rufinus renders the word ἄπειρον by the Latin infinitus, and in the second, the same word is rendered by the Latin innumerabilis; “infinitus” has an objective character (“indefinitely greater in itself”), and “innumerabilis” is subjective (“for me so great that I cannot count”). Summary of the previous one. In order to finally record what has been said, we will cite two quotes summarizing what was stated earlier: “We have often proved with the arguments that we could (use) from the Divine Scriptures that God, the Creator of the universe, is good and just and omnipotent. When He at the beginning created what He wanted to create, i.e., rational beings, He had no reason for creation other than Himself, i.e., except His goodness. Thus, He was the cause of the existence of creatures. But in Him there was no diversity, no changeability, no impotence, therefore all whom He created He created equal and similar (aequales acsimiles), because for Him there was no reason for diversity and difference” 383. Moreover, the number of these creature-minds is finite. “So, every creature is distributed by Him within the boundaries of a certain number and measure, whether this be the number of rational beings or the measure of corporeal nature.” As created in and through the one Son, this multitude of beings was originally created in “unity and concord” (initii unitas atque concordia), in “one principle” (“unum pricipium”) and the “bliss” (beatitudo) corresponding to this “unity” (unitas). The center of this unity of existence - God - was "all in all" (omnia in omnibus), and individual minds "were one spirit with Him." The primordial minds “were one, just as the Father and the Son are one” 384. The nature of the elements. This is the external characteristic of the first created world; the characteristic of its internal nature is essentially based on the disclosure of the nature of the individual units of this set, and only it can be understood what exactly their unity consisted of. – God, as a good one, wanted to provide the created world with the fullness of being that he could bestow with his power. The highest nature is the nature of the Divine itself, the absolute spiritual nature. But since the concept of the world and its units or monads, as creatures, eo ipso excludes the possibility of being God, God himself, then they receive the highest good that they can receive by being created - namely, the “image and likeness” of the Divine; thus created beings are “divine beings” 385; they are minds, “intelligent natures or beings”, “intellectual beings”, “spirits” - in a word, they, these first-created creatures, have “one nature” with God in the sense explained above. Origen points out the doubts of “some”, “whether the essence of corporeal nature does not contradict the dignity of similarity or the property of unity... after all, corporeal nature, it seems, cannot be called similar to the divine nature and cannot be recognized as truly and truly “one” with the divine nature, especially since, according to the true teaching of faith, the unity of the Son with the Father should be attributed precisely to the property of nature” 386. But this objection loses its force if we remember what content Origen put into the “unity” of the Father and the Son. Indeed, in his polemic against emanation, he went so far that, while denying material unity, he imperceptibly began to deny real unity, reducing unity to the community of certain qualities and to the moral solidarity of the Hypostases. Real unity for Origen, at least in some places “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, was replaced by the unity of nominalistic essences and the unity of moral wills of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity - in a word, a secondary and derivative phenomenon, and not an original fact. And such unity of the creature with the Creator could not be denied by Origen’s opponents, those “nonnulli” of whom he speaks. - Origen proves this unity of minds and God and a posteriori, based on the position that “everyone who participates in something, without a doubt, has the same substance and the same nature with the one who participates in the same “thing.” For example, he says, all eyes see objects - through illumination they “participate in light”; Everyone’s hearing hears sounds, “participates in sounds,” and therefore all hearing is of the same nature, as is all vision. Similarly, the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, the angels, the “inner man” “feel within themselves an intellectual (spiritual) and rational nature.” “From this it follows that God and these beings are in some way of one essence (substantiae)” 387. This affinity 388, the basis of which is the possibility for a person of “contemplation of the spiritual” (intellectulium contemplation) - this “affinity with God” (consanquinitas ad Deum) is reflected in the opportunity for a person and for spiritual nature in general to achieve likeness to God, gradually acquiring and strengthening the virtues given to him in the possibility, and to God - actually, achieving the most perfect knowledge, ascending from the small to the greater and from the visible to invisible, intelligible and supersensible. So, having become convinced of the spirituality of the first-created world, we can return to the expression: “God was all in all” (omnia in omnibus), which characterizes the structure of the first creation. “God was all in all” means that in each individual being He was all. “To be everything” for a conscious being, “mind,” means to constitute the sole and exclusive content of the consciousness of this being, to completely determine it. But because... God cannot be given sensually to consciousness, so it is a natural consequence that He can fill with Himself only that area of ​​consciousness that is directly aware of (and perceives) the existence of God - the area of ​​mystical experiences. So, the first-created creature was in complete mystical communion with God. “In every individual being, God composed everything in this way: everything that a rational spirit can understand or think, cleansed from the leaven of all vices and completely cleansed from the cloud of evil - all this was composed by God, and, besides God, this spirit no longer saw anything else - except God, did not remember anything else - God was the limit and measure of all its movement; and thus God made up (in Him) everything. Then there was no difference between good and evil, because there was no evil at all. God made everything, and with Him evil could no longer exist; and he who always abides in goodness, for whom God is everything, did not want to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... this was a state when rational nature did not yet want to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...” 389. The possibility of the fall of the primordial world. But... these were created spirits, and the concepts “created” and “spirit” entail consequences that show the instability in the state of the first-created unity of spirits and the easy possibility for it to fall away from its center - God, and therefore decompose into diverse and unrelated units. The indicated consequences from the concepts “created” and “spirit” are precisely: “the capacity of creatures for evil” and “free will”. – The non-substantiality of the goodness of creatures. Being only “in the image of God,” being “divine nature,” but not God Himself, i.e., the Good Himself, creatures eo ipso cannot possess goodness substantially, precisely so as to be absolutely unable to accept evil into themselves. Only the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity have goodness, truth, wisdom, life, holiness as their nature - they themselves are all this, and are not involved in it, are not determined by them as predicates; creatures are not good, but have goodness as a definition. If so, then creatures cannot unconditionally and simply exclude evil; it is unconditionally excluded only by the Good Itself, just as non-truth is unconditionally excluded only by the Truth Itself. Every subject that has goodness as a predicate in some respect is not certainly deprived of the possibility of receiving unkindness as a predicate in another respect, and we actually see that even people who achieved holiness fell and, conversely, those who were fallen subsequently rose. “In our opinion, there is no rational creature that would not be capable of both good and evil... every being can accept evil, but this does not mean that every being has already accepted evil. In our opinion, even the devil was not incapable of good... He was once good, precisely at the time when he was converted in the paradise of God among the cherubim... In a word, there is not a single creature that would not perceive good or evil. The only exception is the nature of God... If any being (except the Holy Spirit) is holy, then... it does not possess it (holiness) by nature, but as an accidental property, which, as accidental, can cease. In the same way, anyone can have righteousness, but only accidental, which can cease. You can have wisdom, but it’s accidental” 390. Origen repeats this idea about the non-substantiality of the goodness of creatures in many places “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. Apparently, he is not only theoretically convinced of its importance, but also psychologically so accustomed to it and so accustomed to it that he is ready to speak out on any convenient occasion. It would, however, be unnecessary to summarize all these places, which are very similar to one another; Let’s limit ourselves to a few quotes: “Everything that is possible,” says Origen, “can be taken away and cease.” - “So, rational nature, as we said, is changeable and perverse due to its very createdness, for what did not exist, and (then) began to exist, then, for this very reason, is distinguished by a changeable nature; therefore, it has both virtue and malice - not substantial, but accidental” 391, and “the sum of the virtues that are inherent in God substantially can exist in man through work and imitation of God” 392. – Self-determination of minds. This is the consequence that follows from the concept of the createdness of minds; However, the non-substantial character of created goodness was not revealed in any way, and the possibility for a creature to accept evil into itself would have remained an empty possibility, never turning into reality, never being realized, if created spirits did not have within themselves a real capacity for self-determination, a power that allows them to translate this potential into reality. Therefore, not allowing the possibility of attributing the realization of the evil that potentially lies in the creature to the good God, Origen is forced to postulate it (realization) as the creature’s own act, falling entirely on its responsibility. Free will is the formulation of such a postulate and this is the second (after the goodness of God) factor in the world process. This is what “the justice of God can be justified by.” – From the point of view of the basic principle of Origen’s system of this postulation, the requirement is completely sufficient for the recognition of free will; but this still does not at all determine the relationship of those freely intelligent creatures (primordial ones) to those known from experience. To identify both, Origen proves: 1. the immateriality and spiritual nature of the human mind, as we know it from introspection, and 2. the free will of such a rational being. The Spiritual Nature of the Human Mind. If the mind were material, then mental processes would need a “place” and would, like everything material, be determined by the location of the thinker. “And that the mind, in accordance with its nature, does not need a place to move, this is undoubtedly shown by observation of our mind. Indeed, if the mind is in a normal state and does not experience any crime for any reason, then the difference of places will not in the least hinder it in its activities, 393 and, on the other hand, from the quality of the place it does not acquire any multiplication or increment of its activities. “If someone considers the mind and soul itself to be a body, then I would like him to answer me how the mind perceives concepts and evidence of such great, difficult and subtle things? Where does the power of memory come from? Where does the contemplation of invisible objects come from? Why is it inherent in the body to understand incorporeal things? How does the corporeal nature go deeper into the study of arts, into reasoning about things, and into the knowledge of causes? Why can he know and understand divine dogmas, which are obviously incorporeal? 394 Apparently, Origen here points to the activity of the mind in cognition, its ability to act according to goals, memory and the ability for the mind to rise above experimental data to the intelligible (intellectualia) through the “divine sense” (sensus divinus), as properties that do not allow us not to recognize the active power of the mind, and therefore its spiritual nature. As new data tending towards the same recognition of the spiritual nature of the mind, he points to the impossibility of giving the mind sensory predicates (color), to the impossibility of allowing heterogeneity in the content of the mind (for example, dogmas are something incorporeal) and the mind itself 395 . – Free will. Having proven the spiritual nature of the human mind, we can move on to proving the free will of man. Free will, as we have seen, constitutes one of the main problems of Origen's metaphysics; but despite the fact that this section is set up in him in a very unoriginal way and, worst of all, unsatisfactory for the purposes of Origen himself, so that the corresponding place “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” (III book, 1 chapter) in conjunction with a place from Origen’s treatise “On Prayer” both in terms of the grounds of evidence and in the way of expressing these evidence represents, in the words of Denis, “sheets, torn from some stoic physics." To establish the existence of freedom as a unique form of the law of causality, Origen considers four forms of connection between cause and action, among which only freedom can be sought. These four possible forms in which the object's response, the object's reaction, i.e. a change that occurs in him or with him under the influence of an external cause influencing him - these four forms are the characteristics of four essentially different types of being for Origen. 1. Non-living being (τὰ φορητὰ, sine vita), such as, for example, logs and stones. This type of being is material, and matter in it constitutes a unity and has a “material or bodily form” only due to the “connection of individual parts,” cohesion (ἔξις). This ἡ ὑπὸ ἔξεω (cohesion) μόνη συνηχομὲνη ὔλη “receives movement only from the outside” 396, i.e., in other words, only external forces are capable of bringing such a being out of its inert state. - The other three types of being, - being, denoted by the word τὰ ἄψυχα, “have the cause of movement in themselves”; such are plants, animals and intelligent beings - everything that has φύσις and ψυχή, that ὑπὸ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς συνέχεται, i.e. whose unity is not purely external, physical unity of parts, but which has, so to speak, an internal structure, an internally determined unity; this also includes fire and, “maybe,” springs (fonts aquarum, πηγάι). – Τὰ ἔμψυχα are divided into types that need to be specifically characterized, namely: 2. Plants (φυτὰ), i.e. creatures whose principle of unity – ἡ φύσις – i.e. simple organization in them, move “out of themselves” (ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, ex se). 3. Animals (τὰ ζῶα), i.e. creatures whose principle of unity is in their soul, move “from themselves” (αφ’ ἑαυτῶν, a se). This happens when an “image” (idea, φαντασὶα) of some kind, that is, an external impression arouses the activity of instinct (ὁρμὴ) in them. Φαντασὶα, i.e., representation evokes, as it is said, striving, “and the ability of expression directs the striving in a strictly defined way. Thus, a spider has an inherent idea of ​​​​the fabric of a web, and this idea is accompanied (in him) by the desire to weave (a web), because the ability of imagination necessarily encourages him to do so. But apart from the ability to imagine, an animal probably has nothing else..." 397. 4. Finally, the next and final stage consists of intelligent creatures. “A rational animal, in addition to the ability to imagine, also has a mind (λὸγον), which discusses ideas (φαντασὶας) and rejects some (of these ideas), while accepting others, so that the animal acts in accordance with them” 398. – Summary of what has been said about freedom. Before we go further, we will repeat again what has been said about free will. – The four worlds considered by Origen differ from each other in that in them the effect of a certain cause is gradually separated from direct connection with the cause and intermediate links are introduced between them. In the inorganic and lifeless world, the cause directly causes movement (effect), so to speak, it itself turns into an effect, which is conditioned only by the cause. In the organic world - the world of plants - this consequence takes on a special character depending on the organization; the cause evokes the internal activity of unconscious forces, a dark and uncertain attraction. In the animal world, cause acts through representation, but it completely fills the entire psyche of the animal at any given moment, and the animal impulsively reacts to the cause, mediated by the activity of representation. In the rational world, this cause finally branches out, so to speak, into several separate streams, gives rise to several ideas, and these latter provide the opportunity for choice, since they are subject to the highest court of reason. Experimental Evidence of Free Will. That a real being actually has the ability to choose between ideas and the ability to follow one of several presented impulses, this, according to Origen, follows from moral consciousness, which forces one to distinguish between good and bad, and from the presence of a decision to use the evaluated ideas in one way or another; the existence of evaluation of one's own and others' actions shows the same thing. Everyone’s inner experience shows that a firm decision to act restrains immoral impulses and allows one not to give in to them. Experience also shows that rude and intemperate people became temperate, pure and meek, and vice versa; This means that the presence of a bad or good deed is not predetermined by a person’s organization, but is determined by his initiative. Finally, the presence of many religious and moral rules and commandments shows that there is freedom, because there is an opportunity to fulfill them; because otherwise they would turn out to be absurd and unfair; however, coming from a good and just God, they cannot be such 399. Discussion of Origen's views on free will. The text “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” shows that the first three types of the law of causality (when something moves ἐξῶσεν; when something moves ἔξ ἑαυτῶν; when something moves αφ’ ἑαυτῶν) were not distinguished by Origen, since he adds, that this is what everyone “says” (φασι); the fourth type of the law of causality (when something moves δι’ ἑαυτῶν) is established by himself - Origen - judging by the “I think” (οἶμαι) added by Origen. This is not at all “une subtilité distinction qu’on ne sait traduire, don’t on n’apercoit pas le porte”, it is not at all “une subtilité maleureuse”, as Denis claims: after all, this is the given with which Origen wants to justify “free will” (αὐτοεξούσιον, arbitrii libertas), which is of decisive importance for all of his systems; if one must reproach Origen, it is rather for the lack of thoroughness of the distinctions, and this insufficiency will become clear from a further discussion of Origen’s views. For greater persuasiveness, we will cite his true expressions: “... a rational animal,” says Origen, “in addition to the ability of imagination, also has reason (λὸγος), which discusses ideas and rejects some (of these ideas), while accepting others, so that the animal acts in accordance with them. In the nature of the mind there is the ability to contemplate the good and the shameful - that ability, following which, we perceive the good and the bad and choose the good, while avoiding the evil...” Here the circumstance that is characteristic of Greek philosophy in general is striking - this is precisely the non-recognition of will and actually volitional acts as having independent meaning; Rufinus very characteristically conveys the word αὐτοεξούσια through arbitrii libertas, that is, freedom of decision, freedom of sentence, because for ancient philosophy it really seemed that the whole point was that reason should correctly pronounce the sentence. Avoluntarism - this is how one should characterize such a worldview, which reduces volitional processes to intellectual ones, and volitional acts of choosing good or evil to intellectual acts of distinguishing between good and evil, judgment and sentence - a worldview that identifies good deeds with good knowledge, and will with reason 400. A General View of Origen. This is the fatal legacy of Greek philosophy for Origen, and it gives his entire system, so to speak, a false character - the character of a split between what Origen wanted to achieve in his theoretical constructions, and what he felt and experienced as a Christian, what he said, and what his thought should have led to, starting from his principles, if it had moved, always remaining true to itself. – It is known what fierce and silent enmity haunted Origen during his lifetime; it is known how even after death his memory did not remain calm. It is characteristic at the same time that the reason for it (hostility. - Note from the publishers) was not Origen's subordinationism, but his teleology, cosmology and anthropology - τερατολογούμενα, which horrified in the 9th century. Photia. The muted murmurs and harsh outbursts against the great “adamantite” Alexandrian clearly showed the incessant hostility with which so many treated this fiery zealot of truth, the “hardworking” enthusiast, who expressed his touching hopes that in paradise they would “feed on theorems.” People who apparently so incomprehensibly and unreasonably disliked Origen, people who almost hated him with all their souls, him who died several centuries before their birth - these people sometimes stood immeasurably lower than Origen, perhaps not only in their knowledge, in their outlook or mind, but also in the purity and severity of life; The motives for hostility were sometimes presented as the most inappropriate, irrelevant to the point, but... perhaps, despite all this, they were not as wrong as it seems when they first became acquainted with the persecution of the memory of the ill-fated teacher; perhaps, in the depths of the church consciousness, Origenism was constantly aching with a weak, but incessant and internal pain; perhaps, an instinctive desire to identify this dangerous, but not clearly recognized, not precisely localized disease, this desire forced one to rush from side to side. And have these throwing ups completely gone now? – Saint Methodius of Patara, who died in 311, in the heat of controversy called Origen a “centaur” - κένταυρος. With this apparently strange-sounding epithet, he gave Origen the most accurate, although not clear enough, diagnosis that had ever been made. A centaur, a theromorphic man or an anthropomorphic animal, a centaur as a creature that unites two kingdoms, a higher kingdom with a lower kingdom, a centaur as a creature that does not satisfy the characteristics of either a horse or a man - this is perhaps the most suitable designation for Origen. Origen wanted to be and was himself a Christian in his personal life, and the center of his personal life was undoubtedly the Risen One. This, however, is not yet enough to build a Christian philosophy, because the latter requires special data from the individual and from his environment. This simple truth could not have had a more pronounced impact on Origen. If his system is consistently built from the premises he accepted, then the basic and specific facts of Christianity will turn out to be incomprehensible, superfluous and in any case unimportant: the Fall, original sin, redemption, the world process as a complete, becoming, and not a constant existence, finally, salvation and restoration of the world forever in fact, from the point of view of Origen - moments that are either not needed for anything, or are unacceptable, which are nothing more than mechanical insertions, interpolations in the system. Origen's system is not a Christian system, and therefore Origen's plan to build a Christian system cannot be considered a success. This would have been a half-hearted disaster if, on top of everything else, it had not also been a Christian system. Origen was a metaphysician, but he was not one only in his theoretical studies; his Christian mood burst into the metaphysical system from all sides, incredibly distorted its true meaning, confused the ends and beginnings, and made interpolations unexpected for the spirit of the system. Origen's system is therefore not a purely metaphysical system. – From the distorted pages of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” two faces look at us - two Origens, mutually exclusive of each other. Origen alone is a Christian yearning for metaphysics; the other Origen is a metaphysician invariably attached to Christianity. Christianity and metaphysics, mechanically combined, and not organically fused - this is the reason for the weakness of both 401. The attempt to pour new wine - the wine of Christian “madness” - into old wineskins - the wineskins of Hellenic “wisdom”, as one might expect, could not be successful. “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” is a combination of broken wineskins and spilled wine. “Although Origen,” says Vl. Solovyov, was both a believing Christian and a philosophically educated thinker, but he was not a Christian thinker or Christian philosopher. Faith and thinking were connected to a large extent only externally, without penetrating each other” 402. Mechanical connection instead of organic penetration is what St. probably meant by the word “centaur.” Methodius. – Creation of the world. Having clarified, as far as it was appropriate, the main weakness of Origenism - whether it is understood as a metaphysical system or a theological one is indifferent - we will now move on to a further review of this system, namely to the question of the emergence of this, our world. The word “composition”, constitutio, which usually denotes the act of organizing this world, is considered by Origen to be an unsuccessful translation from the Greek καταβολή (Matthew 24:12; Mark 13:19; Eph. 1:4); in his opinion, καταβολή should be translated by the word “overthrow” or “overthrowing down,” rather than “addition,” since the word καταβολή, apparently, indicates the reduction of all beings in general from a higher state to a lower one” 403. This descent or overthrow is the result of the fall of minds and has as its consequence the creation of this material world 404. Materiality of minds. Therefore, we need to find out first how Origen looked at the corporeality of “minds” - a question that is hardly amenable to a final and strict solution. Using Origen’s above-mentioned axiom about the identity of the beginning and the end, we can bring to the solution not only the very few passages that speak of the corporeality of minds at the beginning, but also the passages that speak of the corporeality of minds at the end, after the restoration of all things. Then the following results will be obtained: in some places Origen expresses the idea that the first creatures, minds, will be incorporeal, will “live without a body” (sine corpore) and that “all corporeal nature (omnis natura corporalis), once created from nothing, will be destroyed and turn into nothing” 405; Origen considers the victory over death here as “the destruction of all corporeal nature (corporea natura), in which only death can act” 406, that material substance is needed for the diversity of the world and, after the need for it has passed, will return to the non-existence from which it originated. Indeed, the creature submitted to the light; “...let us see what the vanity to which the creature has submitted is. I think that this vanity is nothing more than bodies; for, although body-connected (?) and etherically, it is still material...". The general conclusion of these in other similar places is that the corporeality of creatures is the result of the Fall and takes place if and only then until the original state of unity with God is not completely restored; once restoration occurs, corporeality will disappear, and vice versa, corporeality can appear again if there is a new fall. “In other places the situation seems to be exactly the opposite.” “Intelligent nature needed to use bodies. After all, this nature, as we know, is changeable and perverse due to its very creation, for what did not exist, and (later) began to exist, is therefore distinguished by its changeable nature; therefore it has both virtue and malice - not substantial, but accidental. So, rational nature, as we said, was changeable; therefore, she had to use different clothing of the body of one quality or another, in accordance with her merits. But because... God knew in advance the future differences of both souls and spiritual forces, then He necessarily had to create bodily nature so that, according to the will of the Creator, it could change through a change in qualities into any states that circumstances would require. This corporeal nature must necessarily exist as long as there are those creatures that need bodily clothing. But intelligent creatures in need of bodily clothing will always exist. Consequently, there will always be a corporeal nature, the clothing of which creatures must necessarily use. The meaning of this place is clear, and it shows that for Origen, corporeality is a necessary sign of every created mind, its necessary foundation, forcing the mind to be an individual and, perhaps, a personality, remaining identical to itself in the flow of time. The impossibility of a creature being without a body is confirmed by the following thoughts: “Is it possible for rational beings, after they have reached the highest degree of holiness and bliss, to remain completely incorporeal? - this seems to me very unlikely and almost impossible...” 407. – “If it is in no way possible to prove that any being other than the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit can live outside the body, then consistency and reason necessarily force us to recognize the idea that rational beings were originally created (principialiter), while material substance is only separated from them in imagination and in thought and only seems to have been created either before or after them; in fact, rational beings have never lived and do not live after without it (bodily nature), for living an incorporeal life is characteristic, of course, of the Trinity alone” 408. Quite close to these views on the identity of spirit and matter, reminiscent of the theories of the Stoics and modern psychophysical parallelism, come Origen’s views on spiritualized matter, on matter so imbued with spirit and so subordinate to it that it itself has become a “spiritual body” (corpus spiritale). “As far as our mind can understand, we think that the spiritual body in its quality is such that it is fitting for it to dwell not only for all holy and perfect souls, but also for all creation that will be freed from the slavery of corruption...”, “the invisible, not made by hands and eternal (body) is incomparably superior to all those bodies that we see both on earth and in heaven - visible bodies, made by hands and not eternal. Based on this comparison, one can assume what beauty (decor), what splendor (splendor), what brilliance (fulgor) the spiritual body will have... There should be no doubt that the nature of this body of ours, by the will of God, who created it as such, can be elevated by the Creator to that quality of the subtlest, purest body, which the dignity of rational nature requires. When things begin to strive to make them all one, just as the Father and the Son are one, then, of course, there will no longer be diversity where everything is one.”409 “We who believe in the resurrection of the body understand that death only produces a change in the body. Its substance, of course, continues to exist and, by the will of the Creator, will in due time be restored to life and again undergo a change, so that the body, which was originally from the earth, and, moreover, as a result of death, decomposed and turned back to dust and earth... will again rise from the earth and after that will achieve the glory of the spiritual body in accordance with the dignity of the soul that will dwell in it” 410. “All of our bodily substance will be brought into this state, one must think, when everything will be restored to its original unity and God will be all in all...” 411. “When, through long purifications, all rational souls are restored to such a state, then the nature of this body of ours will be elevated to the glory of the spiritual body... The body that we will use in incorruption, in power and glory, will be no different from that which we use now, in humiliation, in corruption, in weakness; but the same body, freed from the infirmities in which it now exists, will change into a state of glory and become spiritual, and thus what was a vessel of dishonor will, when cleansed, become a vessel of honor and a dwelling place of bliss. In this state, one must believe, the body will always remain unchanged, according to the will of the Creator... Now the body serves the soul and therefore is called spiritual. But when the soul, having united with God, becomes one spirit with Him, then this very body will serve the spirit and, thanks to some improvement, will achieve a spiritual state and quality.” - “...corporeal beings will be destroyed or at the end of the whole body they will be such as the ether and the sky are now or some other, even more subtle and pure body that can be imagined” 412. – We have provided typical examples of quotes about the body; Similar quotations belonging to one or another of the three classes indicated here could be given more, but they would not give anything new and the general conclusions would be the same as with the presence of the given material. The following conclusions can be drawn from it: 1. Only God alone is incorporeal, and every creature is corporeal. 2. Initially (and subsequently) spirits did not (and will not have) a material body; God created him especially from the most “intelligent” nature, in time. 3. What God created cannot essentially perish. It just changes. Corporeality therefore has always been and always will be. 4. Corporality will perish and be abolished. These mutually exclusive positions, generally speaking, can be considered from two different points of view, relating the contradictions either due to the form of expression or due to their conceivable content. In other words, we can assume that Origen thought contradictorily in this case, but expressed his thoughts accurately, or, conversely, that he thought in this case consistently, but unsuccessfully put his thoughts into words. Of course, it is impossible to make a choice of one hypothesis or another with absolute certainty, but since it is still necessary to choose, very understandable psychological motivations force us to take the side of the more probable hypothesis, namely the second, which imposes the obligation to show how Origen should have expressed himself and what his thoughts were, expressed precisely. The undoubted contradiction in the theses presented, given the presence of the hypothesis made, shows that in a certain respect, Origen turned qualities and properties into unrelated qualities and properties through his unsuccessful formulation; By putting the irrelevant “bodily nature” in place of some terms that were narrower in scope, he introduced inconsistency into judgments. Consequently, he somehow distinguishes between “corporeal nature.” - First of all, it is clear from provisions 1, 2, 3 that there the word “body” simultaneously means the substance of the body, a principle that, in essence, every creature necessarily has, and which later, when Origen’s views were more fully formed, received from him in his doctrine of the resurrection the name Λόγος σπερματικός. This is what distinguishes this “intelligent nature” from another “intelligent nature” that is only numerically different from it, - what individualizes and introduces discreteness into the indifferent unity of the spiritual principle of the creature - what, affecting the body of a given specific person, makes it, so to speak, a personal body, the body of a given individual, i.e. something original, characteristic, unicum - in a word, something for which one can love the individual human body. In a word, this “spiritual body” is the principium individuationis. This principle of individuality and corporeality is connected with the created spirit as inextricably linked as physiological and mental processes seem to be closely connected according to the views of modern psychophysical parallelism, or as subjectivity and objectivity are inextricably linked in Schelling’s “system of identity.” – Secondly, the word “body” means the phenomenal discovery of this principle - its discovery in the world of phenomena. This is flesh and blood, which “will not inherit the kingdom of God” - the form of being, or, more precisely, the existence of that body, when it is polluted by sin and corruption, when it has not been cleansed and enlightened from the Fall; Since the degree of sinfulness and the direction of the sinful will are different, then these bodies are different and of different quality. This body is needed only for the duration of this life and as a form of existence it will pass away with it in order to return again to the “smart nature” if it falls again. – Finally, there is also “bodily nature” - these are the “bodies” of the inorganic world and, perhaps, the animal world. This is matter, as physics and chemistry know it, something that does not have true reality, created after the Fall in order to contain the disintegrating unity, created in a finite quantity, precisely in such quantity, “which God could contain with his power and decorate with his Wisdom.” It, as not substantial and having only a temporary purpose, will also pass away with this world, because “God will be all in all,” and He cannot be “in stones, plants, animals,” etc. In a word, this “corporeal nature” - matter - was created as an impersonal environment for fallen spirits, in which they could come to their former unity through the process of consistent purification. – Although there are no direct indications, one can think from indirect considerations that this matter in Origen is an echo of the Platonic-Aristotelian μὴ ὄν - such a characteristic and widespread idea of ​​the Hellenic world, one might say, formulating the very essence of the Hellenic popular view of matter. – The Fall. The first-created world could not but consist of minds that were identical in their substantial core and were in unity. But in our world, we see diversity and fragmentation. “First of all, it is obvious that the world is very diverse and diverse and consists not only of rational and divine beings and of various bodies, but also of dumb living beings, such as beasts, animals, cattle,” 413, etc. This diversity could not, as has been said, come from the just Creator of the world. If the substantial, first-created grain was identical for all “minds” and did not depend only on the Creator, then this or that revelation of the internal potentials of the “minds” was their own affair, depending on their free will. The difference in the mental movements of these “minds” therefore determined the diversity in the world that emerged through these amateur activities of “minds”. - “If the world is extremely diverse and contains such diverse rational beings, then what else should be called the cause of this diversity if not the difference in the fall of beings who have not equally fallen away from unity?” 414 – “Indeed, was it not the reason for the diversity of the world that beings, having become indignant and deviated from the original state of bliss and being excited by various spiritual movements and desires, transformed the single and indivisible good of their nature into various spiritual qualities in accordance with the diversity of their intentions” 415. “You need to know that every rational being who violates the boundaries and laws of reason, as a result of a crime directed against truth and righteousness, undoubtedly becomes a sinner” 416. Sin is not something unconditionally inherent in one creature and unconditionally not inherent in another, so that some are completely incapable of virtue, while others are incapable of sin: sin is the result of the self-activity of a creature that has “fallen away from a single principle” 417 . – Having non-substantial good, creatures, naturally, could preserve it only by directing their will in accordance with law and truth, for the Creator provided the minds He created with voluntary and free movements, of course, so that the good would be their own good in the event that it would be preserved according to their own will. But laziness and disinclination to work in preserving the good, as well as aversion and disregard for the better, marked the beginning of a retreat from the good. To depart from good means nothing more than to do evil (effici in malo): for it is known that evil is a lack of good. From this it follows that to the extent that someone fell away from goodness, to the same extent he indulged in evil. Consequently, every mind, neglecting good to a greater or lesser extent, in accordance with its movements, was drawn into the opposite of good, which, without a doubt, is evil” 418. – Thus, here again the specific feature of Origenism is reflected, which greatly distinguishes it from Christianity; for the latter, the Fall is not just lack of will, not weakness of the will, but self-affirmation of the will, evil will; for such a worldview, sin is not simply a “moral decline”; it cannot be said from its point of view that the fallen world has simply “morally fallen”; no, because sin is something active that attacks the Good. The world for Origen has its beginning in καταβολή, in the overthrow; however, this must be understood in the sense that the world has “morally descended”, not being able to maintain the height of its original position; and if so, then in the future there is no perverted nature and will, but there is only a weak nature and will, degraded, but not evil. This is quite typical. – The necessity of creating the visible world. As a result of the movements of creatures from the Good that occurred in this way - as a result of this fall into sin of the primordial world, the decomposition of its original unity into a disorderly multiplicity of “minds” that disagreed with each other began. To prevent further decay and to return the world to its original unity, the Divine forces, prompted by the goodness of God, entered into interaction with the free will of the fallen first-minds. This interaction had to be such that, without depriving the spirits of their freedom, that is, their essence, it would encourage them to voluntary activity in building a future unity. Therefore, this interaction was expressed in the creation of a situation or environment for the activity of “minds”, an environment that so directed their ideas, their desires and their activities that, while remaining free, they, regardless of the consciousness of the ultimate goal of the world process, began to act towards the restoration of the original unity. Creation of the visible world. Such a situation was this material and visible world, which became possible and necessary only after the Fall and the decomposition of the original unity, since diversity is necessary for this world. From the moment of the creation of the world, a world process began, the doctrine of which constitutes Origen’s teleology and which has as its ultimate goal ἀποκατάστις τῶν πάντων - “restoration of everything” - (or “all”, which is indifferent for Origen’s views, since for Origen only “everyone” has true reality “minds”), because only under these conditions, that is, under the conditions of general restoration, is the highest good, summum bonum, which constitutes the ultimate goal of philosophical searches, achievable. “Therefore, the highest good, towards which every rational nature strives and which is otherwise called the end (finis) of everything, is defined by many philosophers in this way: the highest good consists in becoming as similar to God as possible” 419. Origen considers this understanding of the highest good so important that, in his opinion, the said philosophers “did not so much find this definition themselves as borrow it from the sacred books” 420. The goodness of God, which did not want the destruction of the world (“God created everything for being; but what He created for being cannot but exist”), had to bring something new into being, introduce new aspects in order to begin the world process. But His justice could no longer treat all “minds” identically, because the minds themselves had ceased to be the same. The changed objects required, in fairness, a change in attitude towards them. Thus, due to the difference in the movements of spirits, “the Creator received some seeds and causes of difference and diversity, so that he created the world different and varied, according to the difference of minds, that is, rational creatures - the difference that these creatures received, we must think, for the above reason.” – A purely spiritual difference in “minds” could not but cause, during the creation and structure of the world, a corresponding difference in the conditions of the material life of these “minds” - in the conditions that were created by the good God to adapt to the characteristics of the “minds”. This was reflected primarily in the difference in the bodies in which the minds were clothed after the Fall. This new introduction of inequality seemed to compensate for the inequality created by the Fall: if previously there was a real unity of “minds” and their identity, now an ideal unity and equality of them before the moral law has appeared, according to which the fate of each creature is arranged in accordance with its merits and punishments without any partiality, according to which each creature, through its activity, can create for itself this or that environment. The abuse of freedom, which led to inequality and decay, was compensated by a new act of God's goodness, which was revealed as justice, as the equality of creatures before the law, because only such goodness could lead to a new unity and restoration. “God, by the ineffable art of His Wisdom, turns everything that happens in the world to the common benefit and directs it to the general prosperity of all (being); those very creatures that have become so far removed from each other due to the diversity of souls, He brings to some agreement in activity and desires, so that they, although with different movements of their souls, still work for the completeness and perfection of a single world, and so that the very diversity of minds serves to achieve one common goal of perfection. A single force connects and contains all the diversity of the world and forms one whole from various movements; otherwise such a great world cause would disintegrate due to the discord of souls... God... so governs these personal beings that all individual spirits or souls - in a word, all rational substances, whatever we call them - are not forced by force to do, contrary to their freedom, that which is not in accordance with their own motives - and thus the ability of free will is not taken away from them. Otherwise, of course, the very quality of their nature would have been changed. At the same time, various movements are directed towards the harmony and benefit of a single world...” 421. “So, although there are different positions in the world, there should not be any discord or disorder in it. Just as our body, being one, is composed of many members, so, I think, the whole world should be considered as if it were some immense and huge animal, which is contained, as it were, by a single soul, the power and mind of God” 422. – First of all, this diversity of positions relates, as stated above, to the native quality of bodies, “because the diversity of the world cannot exist without bodies” 423. Theory of Matter. It was necessary to form bodies for the “minds,” and, moreover, different bodies, depending on the properties of the mind itself. To understand how it was possible to form different bodies from the same matter, it is necessary to clarify in a few words Origen's theory of matter. – Everyday experience shows that “wood turns into fire, fire into smoke, smoke into air, and oily liquids into fire” 424. Food is assimilated by us and “turned into the substance of our body.” Thus, “it is clear that the bodily nature undergoes various and varied changes.” This comes from the dual, so to speak, composition of “corporeal matter” - from primary matter, i.e., a substratum without quality in itself, ὕλη, which underlies every body, and from four qualities: heat, cold, dryness and moisture, although in the fourth book (IV, § 33) Origen no longer speaks of four, but of six main qualities. The ability for these qualities to enter into various combinations with each other gives matter the property of “transforming from everything into everything,” which is why it can “obey and serve the Creator for the formation of all forms and species, since it takes into itself the qualities that only God wants to give it” 425. – If, however, we are forced logically, in abstraction, to distinguish the qualityless ὕλη of matter from the non-substrate qualities that determine it, then it does not at all follow that there is really formless, qualityless and unformed matter. “You need to know that substance never exists without qualities: reason alone agrees that matter is what underlies bodies and can take on (this or that) quality” 426. But if the result of one abstraction from matter - ὕλη - does not really exist in its isolation, if the corporeal substance is not only a qualityless ὕλη, then the result of another abstraction from matter - qualitas - does not exist in isolation, matter is not only a substratum combination of qualities; it is not, as some people think, a combination of opposite qualities - hardness and softness, warmth and cold, moisture and dryness - devoid of any substrate. If these “empirio-criticists” of the 3rd century were right, then, according to Origen, it would directly follow that all matter was entirely created by God, since everyone recognizes, says Origen, that qualities were created by God. Origen agrees with the last conclusion, but thinks that it cannot be substantiated so simply, because the said “phenomenalistic” point of view is opposed by another; namely, with the indicated doctrine of matter, which exhausts all existence by its opposite qualities, other philosophers do not agree, who argue that, on the contrary, it is possible to abstract from the qualities of the same body in its different states, as from random signs, and that then we must necessarily think of their substrate, a substance without quality. “When our mind, having abandoned the thought of every quality, contemplates the very, so to speak, point of substance alone and holds on to it, not paying any attention to the softness and hardness, warmth or cold, moisture or dryness of the substance, then through such an artificial method of thinking it seems to contemplate matter free from all these qualities” 427. Although Origen does not add, one can guess that in this last case, matter, or, more precisely, its ὕλη does not necessarily need to be recognized as created ex nihilo 428, it can also be recognized as co-eternal with God, and on the basis of this one place alone it is very difficult to decide which side Origen leans towards. But in the “second book” (II, 1 §§ 4-5) he speaks quite clearly for creation ex nihilo. There, as indicated above, he recognizes the existence of ὕλη and qualitates, and, however, considers it “impious” to consider ὕλη “unhappened” (ingenitam) and “co-eternal with the unborn God” (Deo ingenito coaeternam), because then “such a great cause of the world exists apart from the Creator or Provider” and becomes conditioned by chance (in relation to God’s being) existence of matter. After all, if there were no matter, then, according to supporters of the uncreatedness of matter, God could not “create anything and would have to remain idle,” because he would not have that matter, which, in their opinion, appeared completely independently of His will. Then God would have to create matter Himself, and since... the form of matter, in the opinion of such persons, was created by God, then in this case He would have given it exactly the form that, in their opinion, He actually gave to matter that existed independently of Him; He could not give either a better or a worse form, for from the very beginning He arranged everything in the most wise way. “So, would it not be wickedness (impium) to call unhappened (ingenitum) that which, being created by God, turns out, without a doubt, to be the same as that which did not happen?” – In his other works, Origen very persistently dwells on creation ex nihilo, so that some researchers see in this one of the most important innovations that Origen gave to philosophy. This was all the more important because only here was the possibility of avoiding pantheism indicated. “Only on the assumption of creation ex nihilo (otherwise one will have to admit emanation, because matter coeternal with God cannot be retained in any case, as a second absolute principle, completely independent of the first) makes it possible to recognize not only the logical, abstract, but also the real, substantial difference of the world from God, its Creator, to recognize that the world is not only a mode of Divine substance, but is an action of the will and, therefore, a real creation” 429. Classification of creatures. Having constructed such a theory of matter, Origen thereby explained how different bodies and “minds” were possible during the creation of this world. “When matter is attracted to lower beings, it forms coarser and denser bodies and thus distinguishes all these visible kinds of beings of the world. When she serves more perfect and blessed beings, she shines with the radiance of heavenly bodies and adorns with the clothes of the spiritual body either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection” 430. In other words, due to the difference in bodies, the internal differences introduced into the “minds” by their independent activity are revealed, and this circumstance makes it possible to divide all beings into three categories with special clarity, since external signs are in accordance with internal ones. The first category, namely, includes the angels, thrones, principalities, powers, powers listed by Paul the Apostle, and “some others named in this age, but not numbered by it and unknown to anyone else” 431 . Origen examines in particular detail the stars and planets, in which he sees animate beings - angels, imprisoned with their consent in bodies and thus “submitting to vanity” in order to serve a common goal in the world process, and eagerly awaiting the end of their service. “It is absolutely clear,” says Origen, “that neither the movement of a body can occur without a soul, nor can animate beings be at any time without movement. And the stars move in such order and so regularly that there is never any confusion in their movements; In view of this, it would, of course, be extreme stupidity to say that such order, such observance of correctness and measure is carried out by irrational beings or is required of them” 432. “The luminaries are animate and rational beings” 433, but their bodies were not created together with souls, and later, after the fall of the primordial world (probably, here Origen by “bodies” means “visible bodies”), while their souls, like all minds in general, pre-existed. – As for other angels, they also have their own purpose, their positions and their responsibilities in the world order, and this or that nature of activity is determined fairly by their own merits and spiritual movements. – The beings most distant from the celestial beings are the “opposite forces” (contrarii potestates) or “demons.” And they also have different positions according to the movements of their will, but not at all due to any evil nature; “having received the place and position of rulers, or powers, or rulers of the darkness of the world, or spirits of lasciviousness, or spirits of malice, or unclean demons - they all have these positions not substantially and not because they were created such; on the contrary, they received all these degrees of malice for their motives and the crimes that they achieved in crime” 434. A special variety of demons is “another order of rational creatures, who have already given themselves over to evil so much that they rather do not want than cannot be restored: the fury of their atrocities has turned into lust, which they enjoy” 435. – The third category of spirits consists of “minds”, standing in the middle between demons and angels. These are the souls of people who must subsequently be born on earth and must incarnate. – We will not dwell in more detail than this on the interesting, special questions of Origen’s demonology and angelology, nor on his unoriginal and very confused psychological theories. Origen's Doctrine of the Soul. Is it only worth adding the following to what was said earlier: according to Origen, man consists of body, soul and spirit. What body and spirit (or “mind”) are has been said quite previously. As for the soul (ψυχή, anima), here in Origen three different opinions are found together. “The soul,” he says, “is a substance φανταστική and ἡρμητική, and this in Latin, although not entirely accurate, can be expressed in the words: sensibilis and mobilis, that is, feeling and mobile” 436. The last words, starting from “and this ...”, probably belong to Rufinus. Translating the definition of the soul given by Origen (he himself, according to him, borrowed it from some philosophers) into modern language, we must say that “the soul is a substance with the ability to will and imagine.” Origen recognizes such a soul not only in humans, but also in all animals. Here it is impossible not to note the striking coincidence with the definition of Leibniz, as well as the entire system of Origen with the system of the Great Optimist - a coincidence based not only on the similarity of the systems in content, but also on the general spirit of the systems and their creators. – Next to such a theory of the soul, which obviously considers it as an independent principle and intermediate between spirit and body, Origen introduces another theory, which considers it as a vital force, more precisely, even in general as a vital principle, perhaps material, located in the blood. He recognizes such a soul in animals and humans and even asks whether angels have it, to which he is ready to give a positive answer. – In these two theories, soul and spirit are clearly distinguished. But along with them, in the same chapter, Origen expresses another new theory, in which the soul is considered as a spirit in a state of falling away from the Divine. He substantiates this theory with the “dubious” etymology of ψυχή from ψύχειν – to cool; “from the very meaning of the name of the soul, which (this name) has in Greek, an important idea can be extracted, as it seems, at least to some more attentive researchers. The Word of God calls God fire; also angels... So, just as God is fire, and angels are a flame of fire, and just as all saints are on fire in spirit, so, on the contrary, those who have fallen away from the love of God, without a doubt, have grown cold in their love for God and have become cold...; everything that is in the Holy Scripture with contrary power is always called cold, just like the devil himself, colder than whom, of course, nothing can be found... So, if everything holy is called fire, light, flame, and the opposite is called cold and it is said that love grows cold in many, then, one asks, why is the soul called by the name of the soul, ψυχή? Is it because she has cooled from a divine or better state? Is it not because this name was transferred to it that it apparently cooled from that natural and divine warmth and, as a result, was expressed in its present form and with this name... So, we need to consider whether the soul is not called ψυχή, that is, soul, because it has cooled to the zeal of the righteous and to participation in the divine fire - as is clear, we said, from the name itself [cf. II, 8, 3 ([Origen. On the beginnings]. K[azan, 1894. S.] 141)]; Moreover, however, she did not lose the ability to restore herself to the state of fervor in which she was at the beginning... All this seems to show that the mind, having deviated from its state and dignity, became and is called the soul; and that the soul, if restored and corrected, will again become a mind” 437. – It is hardly possible to understand these individual theories of the soul, and this is understandable: “We,” says Origen, “rather offered the readers thoughts for discussion, rather than gave a positive and definite teaching” 438; - this shows that here, as in many other things, Origen does not want to express a definite opinion or, perhaps, does not have one, 439 so there is nothing to be surprised at the contradictions and inconsistencies in such details. - This is the classification of creatures according to Origen. The universality of salvation. But their division is not something unchangeable and established forever. Since a being falls into one or another class not because of its nature, which is identical for all “minds” - it makes no difference to all rational beings - angels, people or devils - but because of its activity, then each being can develop one or another activity and, accordingly, move to another class. The human race serves as an intermediate authority - like a breeding ground for spirits. As later for Swedenborg (see his “De coelo etc.”) 440, so for Origen there is no significant difference between all three classes of beings; but if for Swedenborg only man is an unstable form, capable of generating himself into an angel or a devil, then for Origen all three classes, all three types of being of free-rational creatures are unstable. This is understandable psychologically. All of Origen's teaching about the creature has in mind the highest good of this creature; world history has the ultimate goal of restoring everyone, and one of the “corrective” means is the torment of hell, which lasts for the sinful “mind” in the period between incarnations in two successively successive worlds, and the punishment of people, that is, “minds” embodied in one of the worlds. Origen does not recognize, as everyone knows, the eternity of torment, and this, from his point of view, is quite understandable, since otherwise universal salvation would not have been achieved, which, in his opinion, is a necessary consequence of the most basic attribute of the Being of God - goodness. Universal salvation is for him such a necessary end of universal and cosmic history because it is completely possible; in fact, if sin is only a lack of good, as Origen thinks, if the fall is actually a mistake, and not the result of an evil, actively evil will, then no fall, no sin can pervert the nature of a spiritual being and always remain something completely unaffected by the being 441. “In any case,” says Origen, “both during these visible and temporary, and during those invisible and eternal centuries, all existing beings are distributed in accordance with the rank, measure, type and merits of their merits: some of them will achieve the invisible and eternal (being) at the very first, others only later, and some even in recent times, and then only through the highest and most severe punishments and prolonged, so to speak, centuries-old, the most severe corrections after being taught first by angelic forces, then by the forces of higher degrees, in a word, through a gradual ascent to heaven... Each rational being, moving from one rank to another, can gradually move (from its own rank) to all the others and from all to each individual rank, because each creature achieves all these various states of prosperity and decline through its own achievements and efforts, which are determined by the ability of each (being) to free will" 442. – The identification of knowledge and virtue, introduced by Origen in the main position of his doctrine - in the doctrine of free will, could not but impose a unique character on his entire system; the recognition of evil as insufficient good, the possibility of universal salvation, justified by the voluntary correction of everyone, even the devil, the plurality of centuries or worlds as a condition of sufficient time for all beings to come to their senses, and finally, the self-salvation of each creature, since salvation solely depends on its will - all this makes it quite clear why Origen, as a metaphysician, had no need for the incarnation of the Son of God and for His redemption of all creation. Having introduced these concepts purely mechanically into his system, he deprived it of its internal completeness, but, of course, he had not yet made his system Christian, because redemption for Origen’s metaphysics, and even more so the person of Christ, is still not the center, but only an accessory, and even that does not fit well with the general tone of the rest of the system. But to complete the review, we still have to consider these ingredients in Origen’s metaphysics. This is how Origen tries to introduce the above concepts into his metaphysics. - One of the minds “from his very creation”, “before he knew evil”, “so loved goodness and truth, so hated lawlessness that he united with the Word of God; this mind or soul, “one of all souls became incapable of sin, because it completely and completely received the Son of God. Therefore, she is one with the Son of God and is called by his name, just as He, through whom, according to the word of Scripture, all things were created, is called Jesus Christ” 443. “Having been substantially filled with God” and therefore not participating in the general fall, Jesus Christ is set as an example for everyone: “Through imitation of Him we will become, as far as possible, partakers of the divine nature” 444. “God the Father is an incomprehensible light... Christ, in comparison with the Father, is a weak radiance, which, due to our weakness, seems great to us.” “The Son, who is the image of the invisible Father, in comparison with the Father is not truth; but to us, who cannot perceive the truth of the omnipotent God, He seems to be the image of truth, because the height and greatness of the Most High is perceived in some way limited” 445. Therefore, Christ, by his incarnation, gives us a model that, so to speak, does not hurt the eyes with its dazzlingness, “makes them capable of perceiving the glory of light and thus becomes, as it were, some kind of mediator between people and the light.” Christ is like a “soft radiance”, gradually accustoming the eye to the contemplation of the light itself; Origen compares Him with a smaller copy of a statue that occupies the whole world, a copy that we have the opportunity to look at in its entirety and from which we can form an idea of ​​the model statue. – Elsewhere the purpose of the incarnation is explained as mediation [between] the world of invisible creatures and God. The invisible world is contemplated only by faith, “because human frailty cannot see everything with its eyes and comprehend with its mind due to the fact that we humans are the weakest and weakest animal of all rational animals, while those beings, heavenly or higher than heavenly, stand much higher (us). Now, therefore, we are left to wonder about the mean between these creatures and God, that is, about the Mediator, whom the Apostle proclaims to be the firstborn of all creation... We are frozen in the greatest amazement at the fact that this superior Being (the Son), humiliating Himself from the state of His greatness, became a man and lived among people... Before this appearance in the flesh, He sent prophets as forerunners and messengers of His coming..." 446. – But the most wonderful and incomprehensible of all is that the Word Itself and Wisdom Itself were “within the limitations of man who appeared in Judea; that the Wisdom of God entered the womb of the mother, was born as a baby and cried in the likeness of crying babies,” that the Son of God suffered, died and then rose again. High Christian pathos is heard in these words and the actual experience of the (mystical) incarnation; but we must admit that for Origen’s metaphysical system, all the facts described are not at all essentially necessary and are very incomprehensible from the point of view of this system. – But let’s go further in presenting Origen’s views. – Everything that has been said about the incarnation shows the duality of nature in Jesus Christ: “We saw in Him, on the one hand, something human, in which He, apparently, did not differ at all from the general weakness of mortals, on the other hand, something divine, which is not characteristic of any other nature besides that first and ineffable nature of the Divinity. This is where the difficulty arises for human thought: struck by amazement, it is perplexed where to bow, what to hold on to, what to turn to. If she thinks of Him as God, then we see Him as mortal; if she considers Him a man, then she sees Him trampling down the power of death and Rising from the dead with spoils” 447. To separate what belongs to humanity and what to divinity, and to determine the truth of both natures “exceeds even the measure (of the abilities inherent in) the holy apostles; and perhaps the explanation of this mystery is inaccessible even to all the creatures of the heavenly powers.” – One can think about the combination of such opposites only by taking into account the intermediary link - the “soul of Christ”, since it was “not unnatural” for it either to receive God into itself or to have a body. But we must remember that “the nature of this soul was the same as that inherent in all souls; otherwise, if it were not truly a soul, it could not even be called a soul.” However, as a result of the ardor of her love, she turned goodness into her nature through exercise and was filled substantially with God, just as iron, constantly heated by fire, cannot accept cold, although iron itself is capable of both heating and cooling. – The end of the world process. We examined individual aspects of the global process. In order to clearly outline the further course of Origen's thought, it is necessary to give a general outline of this process. The world process has a definite goal or “end”, and, according to Origen, “the end or accomplishment is the announcement of perfect things” 448. Evil is happening in the world. If so, then “the end or completion of the world will come when everyone, for his sins, will be subjected to punishment according to his deserts” 449, which will consist of a series of torments due to separation from God 450. – But this is only one position, arising from the demands of God’s justice and from the need to save everyone, at least through torture. “The goodness of God through Jesus Christ calls all creation to one end after the subjugation and subjugation of all enemies” 451. This submission is the voluntary submission of the creature 452, so to speak, its reconciliation with God. A deep consciousness of the universality of salvation and the axiomatic position that “the beginning is born from the end, and the end from the beginning,” i.e. that the end is necessarily identical with the beginning - these two data force Origen to admit that the end described above is not the final end. – If God set the goal of the world process to restore the beginning, then the end, the real end, cannot but be brought to the beginning, the first-created unity of creation cannot but be restored in the end. God created everything to help being, and, therefore, everything will have completeness 453. As is the beginning of creation, such is undoubtedly the end to which the creation of history calls for creation 454. – Probably this circumstance, precisely the demand for the universality of salvation and the need to restore everything, on the one hand, and on the other, the consciousness of the impossibility of achieving such an end during one world history, prompted Origen to imagine many “ages or worlds” - separate phases of one world process, phases ending with the “ends of the world”, perhaps even with the destruction of matter and judgments 455 over those who lived in the lost world. As a result of each phase and subsequent torment, some of the spirits submit to Jesus Christ, and the rest are again drawn into the flow of history. Since “souls are governed by free will,” and not by external movement (cursu), and since, as a result of this, their movements cannot be periodic, “which return to the same circles after many centuries,” it is absolutely impossible to assume that identical phases are encountered in the alternation of world phases. To assume “that the world will be restored a second time in the same order, with the same births, deaths and actions” is just as implausible, “as if someone began to assert that if a measure of bread is scattered on the ground, then it may happen that the second time the fall of the grains will be the same and exactly the same (with their fall the first time), so that each individual grain, having spilled out the second time, can lie next to the same grain, next to which it was once the first time, and that the whole measure the second time can crumble in the same order and form the same figures as the first time. With countless grains of measure (bread), this, of course, absolutely cannot happen, even if it were scattered continuously for many centuries” 456. – There are completely isolated phenomena in the world. This is, for example, the incarnation of the Son. The idea of ​​the universe as a great educational institution that directs everyone to the true highest good - to unity with God and likeness to God; faith in the possibility for every rational being, even for the spirit of malice, even for the devil, to improve and ultimately submit to Christ; a firm, living and unceasing consciousness that salvation is not the salvation of individuals in their particularity, but is the salvation of all things in their unity - the salvation of the world in its integrity, in its organic coherence; an intense “cosmic feeling”, a feeling that allows you to feel the pulse of world life, with a sensitive ear to listen to the inner fluttering of all existence, making you see in the world a “huge and immense animal”, the members of which are people and other beings; a deep perception of the solidarity of all existence, imbued with high poetic fervor; religious experiences - knowledge of the influences of the Holy Spirit and Christ and attunement to them; finally, “longing for the homeland” - a thirst for God, a thirst to be with Him again, as before, - to be completely filled with Him again, as before - these are the characteristic features of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, which most vividly reflected the great personality of its creator, his intimate religious life, his innermost aspirations. We have already had the opportunity to point out how these features, interfering with the situation, interrupting the train of thought, sometimes broke through those forms into which Origen wanted to put this alien content. But we will not dwell yet on the shortcomings of Origenism, but will try to finally characterize Origen’s personality, traces of which—perhaps the most valuable thing in “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”—sprinkle this book with sparkling gold dust. For this purpose, we will quote several Origen lines about the Sun - lines worthy of competing with the famous “Hymn to the Sun” of St. Francis of Assisi. – It has already been said that, according to Origen, the heavenly lights are the bodies of angels who voluntarily agreed to submit to vanity in order to serve the purpose of the world process 457. “Look now,” Origen cries in prayerful ecstasy, “look now, to these beings who have been subjected to vanity, not voluntarily, but by the will of the One who conquered, and who are in hope of the promises, - is it possible to apply the following exclamation of Paul: their desire to be resolved and to be much better with Christ (Phil. 1:23). At least, I think that the sun could say in a similar way: “I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ, for this is much better.” But Paul also adds: if you are in the flesh, it is most necessary to eat for your sake (Phil. 1:24). And the sun can really say: “It is more necessary to remain in this heavenly and bright body for the sake of the revelation of the sons of God.” The same thing should be thought and said about the moon and stars. – Now let’s see what freedom of the creature and freedom from slavery are. When Christ hands over the kingdom to God and the Father, then these animated beings, as having come before the kingdom of Christ, together with the entire kingdom will be transferred to the control of the Father. Then “God will be all in all; but these beings belong to everything; therefore God will be in them, as in everything.” Origen paid tribute to his time and made many mistakes and many sins against Christianity in his theoretical constructions. But could a person who did not know Christ in direct communication with Him say such words? Outline of the article “On the Resurrection of the Body” (according to experiences) 458 1. Egyptian mummies. Anticipation of the joy of resurrection 459. To bury = to bury and hide, to preserve is obviously very expensive. Impression of mummies in the Rumyantsev Museum. Funeral: from here to bury and store. 2. Relics of St. Sergius and other relics. The impression of quiet joy from them. There is revolution and turmoil all around. Fat monks. But from them there is grace and quietness. 3. Christian catacombs in Rome. Coolness and calm joy. “Rest in peace, dear dust, until a joyful morning.” 4. “For you are the resurrection, life and peace...” “Eternal memory” - that is, God must remember the dead so that they come to life. Eternal memory = endless life and eternal existence 460. For without this we plunge into oblivion. (Into outer darkness.) My dream about the second death. 5. Imago, shell and their immortality. The body, Λόγος σπερματικός and their mortality and resurrection. The leitmotif of the funeral rite is “rest your soul.”] Dogmatism and Dogmatics 462 Sergei Semenovich Troitsky 463 I apologize in advance for the chiseled tone of real thoughts, a tone that is too inconsistent with the author’s ignorance... I had to give the formulation of questions a certain stylization, to outline the issues raised with sharp contours. The reason for this is not self-confidence, forgetting about the shades and half-tones of thought, but the fear of blurring into “although” and “on the other hand.” Lack of time pushes the author, therefore, to formulations that are harsher than he would like... You don't know what you're bowing to... But the time will come and has already come when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth... God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth. Worship of God “in spirit and truth” - this is the requirement of the twice-born. The renewed creation is no longer satisfied with the simple givenness of God, but also demands His justification. Man wants to worship God not only as a fact, not as an all-breaking force, not even as his Patron or Master; – this Power, this Patron can only be an object of worship in its Truth, in its righteousness, like the Father. Before the justification of man, the justification of God is sought: before anthropodicy, theodicy is sought. Anthropodicy and Theodicy! These are the two points that make up religion, because at the heart of religion is the idea of ​​salvation, the idea of ​​the deification of the entire human being. The first of these moments is primarily a Sacrament, a mystery, that is, the real descent of God to humanity, the self-abasement of God, or kenosis. But in order for humanity to accept this saving and purifying (cathartic) self-abasement of God, a self-abasement that justifies a person in the face of God, he needs to fulfill the second of the mentioned moments, the justification of God. This side of religion is primarily a teaching, a dogma, and therefore a contemplative ascent of humanity to God, the exaltation of humanity or deification, theosis (but only contemplative). But now we are talking only about the last moment, about the necessity of God, about the dogma establishing the right of God to demand the justification of man 464. Neither out of fear or self-interest, nor out of gratitude will he bow who can say: My days have become golden (V. Ivanov) 465 - or who has been hit by at least the repeatedly reflected radiance of this Sun. He will bow only out of pure reverence before the shrine. “The Trisagion,” adopted from the powers above, is the most characteristic chant of the new man: the cry “Have mercy!” he turns to a Being who is recognized by God as a Holy Being, who is strong in his holiness and therefore immortal, again through that which is holy. “Holy,” added at each address, is not a sign equal to the others; it is much more central, more fundamental in the characteristics of the Good and determines the possibility of the rest for consciousness. Whether God is a punisher or God is a benefactor, they will not bow their knees before His unjustified power, before a power not recognized as the other side of holiness, and, not bearing His justification within Himself, He necessarily submits to the dictates of an inexorable Fate: such is the fate of everything non-absolute 466. And then the god-fighter Prometheus, the god-rebel Titans and the entire host of God-defying heroes for the sake of Truth and Goodness become infinitely close to everyone enlightened by the “Light of Christ” and blessed by the “Good News”. The apparent fight against God is revealed before the healed eyes as the bearing of God, and the transformer Prometheus, a sufferer for the love of the human race, a god crucified with his side pierced, in his rebellion against God turns out to be a pre-modern Christian 467 . But only through the aspirations of the coming Christ can this prematurely awakened consciousness be refreshed in the languid heat of the fever and break the circle of delirious haze; only the self-proving ray of Tabor will illuminate the gravitating darkness 468 469; Only with the warmth of Emmaus will the heart “burn.” The power of the ghostly celestials burns and scorches the Martyr; but the more magnificently the demand for truth rises with divine and God-given flames. Who is the God-bearer? who is the god-fighter? Scary, oh, scary, the approach of the gods, their kiss! Having declared God, he fights with God; The one who declared the flame, chosen by the flame, drowns in the flame of the daring spirit - the dust is burned! (“Tantalus”. V. Ivanov) 470 Let us remember the idea of ​​deification, like the polar star - a motionless guide in the spiritual sky of the Christian ascetic - an idea that took possession of the ascetic and, like a magnet, attracted his iron will to itself. Let us remember the titanic challenge to Caesar from the Great Cappadocian: “I have a command to become divine myself and cannot bow down to the creature” 471. Do not the god-fighting thunders roll here with a menacing roar, similar to the thunders of the long past, which brought Prometheus to the shore of the deep-flowing Phasis 472, to the gray cliffs of the multi-peaked Caucasus? Isn’t there also the roar of Peleus and Ossa collapsing into the mountain cliffs, raised and piled one on top of the other?.. 473 But what was lawlessness for the mythological consciousness has become an obligatory requirement, a duty of the Christian consciousness. This is the great revolution of the spirit brought into the world by Christ; this is the legitimation of man in his Jacobian relationship to God 474. A new demand appeared in consciousness - the demand to worship God “in spirit and truth.” No matter how people of modern times relate to Christianity, this demand has entwined and sprouted every soul with such profound roots that there is no and cannot be a return to the past. Whoever went to Damascus, whose eyes were blinded by a sudden lightning of renewal 475, is no longer organically able to recognize God as a simple reality. The new man has become Prometheus and, until he is convinced of the identity of God, until he sees Him with his own eyes as a Saint, until then the reborn consciousness will remain completely without God. Modern man will be tormented by the illusory nature of Sheol 476, will fall endlessly and unceasingly in the “outer darkness” 477 - will, straining, “cry out from the depths” 478 to the Lord, Whom he does not know, but he will not be able to bow before the One who, perhaps, only has the right of power, who, perhaps, is an idol and a usurper. Is it not precisely this depth of Christian consciousness that sometimes produces the most zealous Sauls and gives birth to the most cruel Atheians? With Christ, the “Unknown God” becomes the Great contradictio in adjecto 479, the Despot, the Strong Destroyer of the divine in man. A Christian church can only be dedicated to the “Known God,” as it is written above the portal of one Cathedral 480. “To the Known God” - God, known to us as God, as Unconditionality, as Spirit, as Holiness and Truth - this is the initial formula of Christian worship. The demand for “information” is an imprecise and irresistible demand of the redeemed person. “You do not know what you are worshiping...,” Christ says to the pagans, “but the time will come and has already come ([Ἀλλ’] ἔρχεται ὥρα, καὶ νῦν ἐστιν) when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth... ([ὅτε οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ πατρί], ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ)..." (John 4:22–23). And, as if revealing that this prophecy had already begun to come true, in his farewell conversation He notes a change in consciousness. “I no longer call you slaves (Οὐκέτι ὑμας λέγω δούλους),” the Lord addresses his disciples, “for the slave does not know (ὁτι ὁ δούλος οὐκ οἶδεν) that his master does; but I have called you friends, because I have told you everything that I heard from My Father (ὅτι "(John 15:15). True worship of God is inaccessible to pagan consciousness, because paganism does not know the Object of its veneration, perceives it slavishly, externally, unfreely and, therefore, does not have the power to penetrate into His inner essence - into the person of God: “No one has ever seen God” (1 John 4:12). On the contrary, the mysteries of God are revealed to the Christian consciousness; it knows the Father, to whom it bows, and therefore relates to the Father as a friend and son, and not as a slave; penetrates into the personality of God and is not limited to the manifestations of the Powers of God alone. “He who has seen Me,” says the Son of God, “has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The ancient fight against God could not be satisfied with the contemplation of the Powers of God, immanent in the world and therefore alien to the divine principle of man. Christianity raises consciousness above everything immanent in the world and puts us face to face with the most transcendent Person of God. And thus the basic given of Christianity turns out to be the main sought-after extra-Christian theomachism. This request - to worship God as Truth - is satisfied in the direct experiences of God by man, because in them only God can be given as reality, and in the latter only, in reality itself, and not in a concept created by us, the essence of God is revealed, implicite 481, containing in itself the data for His justification. Only by standing face to face before God does a person comprehend the truth of God with an enlightened consciousness in order to bless God for everything. “But the great thing is that there is a mystery here - that the passing face of the earth and the eternal truth come into contact here together. Before earthly truth the action of eternal truth takes place” (F. Dostoevsky) 482. And when this “touching other worlds” has happened, then suddenly the stunned heart will tremble and burst with unspeakable joy. And it will sing a burning, jubilant hymn to its Lord, thanking, praising, and weeping for everything and about everything - for that, even mainly for that which seems terrible and nasty to an unenlightened consciousness: “For God has locked everyone in disobedience in order to have mercy on everyone.” Oh, the depth of wealth and wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His destinies and unsearchable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who was His adviser? Or who gave Him in advance that He should repay? For everything is from Him, by Him and to Him. To him be glory forever, Amen” (Rom. 11:32–36). God will then pierce the foggy miasma of unredeemed consciousness with a luminous ray, and a refreshing wind will carry the suffocating mara of the ancient myth... somewhere. God will look like a clear, clear sun, like a Father - he will look in a washed atmosphere through the torn clouds. The imaginary fight against God will turn out to be father-seeking, and Prometheus will bow his knees before the found Father. “You are holiness and goodness, our Father. Behold, I humble myself before You, wounded in my heart by Your love. Behold, I desire what You desire, for I know that my own will and my own thought will give worse than Yours, my Father. I submit to You - but because You are strong, not because You pressed and broke me. But I see Your truth, O Lord, I see Your truth. It is not You who demand from me trust in Your will, but I myself give myself in joy. I hesitate and pray that the cup of my earthly humiliation, my earthly kenosis 483, may pass by me. But, having made an effort over my weakness, I say again: let Your will be done, and not mine, because I know Your truth and Your holiness.” So say Prometheus. What previously could not be wrested from him by either the horror of God-fighting, or the thunder of Zeus, or the all-powerful torture of the crucifixion, now he himself, like a child, will give to the Heavenly Father, having learned His truth in the prayerful experience of purified consciousness. However, both history and everyday experience testify to the insufficiency of the experiences of prayer alone, these unsteady and uncontrollably flowing elements of consciousness, for the whole of life. Even in the aesthetic field, where the external matters so much, this is true. This is what the poet-philosopher 484 says: I reread it again - and I didn’t recognize you. So here are my poems - here is the fruit of a sleepless night! Are you really that old? My eye does not believe you; You were born in my heart, but my ears are amazed Today he listens to you as if for the first time. Oh, poor poems, a poem of my love, - What charm in you died so quickly? Or is the heart dumb today for yesterday’s feelings? Where is their freshness? Was it in me? How everything has changed, how the topic has cooled!.. But you, readers: you are from my poems A hundred times far! What a pale shadow They will flash for you, unknown, strangers!... What do you need my poems? The sigh of the breeze is without a trace; I'm afraid you've already forgotten about them... Nothing awoke in response to their call! My aspirations remained alien to everyone... But in these echoes a living heart beat! But in you my love, in you my life was hidden, Oh my poor yesterday's poems! 485 But this needs to be repeated even more so about entirely internal religious experiences. “I caught this thought on the road and took advantage of the first bad words and quickly tied it with them so that it would not fly away. And now she died in these cruel words: she hangs and dangles in them, and I can hardly remember, looking at her, why I was so happy when I caught this bird” (Nietzsche. “The Gay Science”, 298) 486. What is clear today is often unclear tomorrow! What was decided irrevocably and with absolute clarity in the experiences of the moment is posed again as an eternal question in the hours and minutes of another day, when the heart darkens. The experiences of prayer are too volatile, too fluttering, and this applies not only to relatively ordinary people, but even to the highest ascetics. It is necessary to formalize the experiences, to give them to the living flesh a backbone of concepts and schemes that restrains it. This is where reason comes into its own. A concept that has no value in itself acquires conditional value through its connection with the experiences it schematizes, just as an unstable experience is dissected, shaped, fixed and made stable through the concept that schematizes it. Direct handling of experiences is replaced by operating on concepts, and this achieves the same benefit as with the introduction of writing in the realm of thought or paper money in economic life. Experiences are reduced to one denominator and made comparable to each other. The uncontrollable flow of the past is delayed, so that experience accumulates and grows, becomes richer and more diverse. Finally acquired orientation in the radiating bends of spiritual life - the presence of a geographical map for experiences and the ability to reproduce past experiences, to firmly keep boundaries in memory - all this makes a system of concepts and schemes absolutely necessary for us. History tangibly allows us to feel the same irreducible need - the need to schematize experiences. The entire history of science and philosophy, both theological and general cultural, lies in the satisfaction of this need. What, in fact, is the history of councils, if not a stubborn, unrelenting attempt to create a system of schemes and concepts that would stylize, outline with clear and confident contours the proper experiences of spiritual life and, moreover, in the most economical way, with the least number of separate terms that cannot be reduced to each other. To combine the greatest completeness of schematized material with the least complexity of diagrams united into a single building - such was the task facing each of the saints. fathers One or another figure in the great era of dogmatic controversy is trying to build such a system; but inevitably a one-sided construction necessarily turns out to be too narrow to cover the entire circle of the spiritual life of the Church in its entirety. Hence the need to turn to the conciliar mind, to the supra-individual collective consciousness and supra-personal organization of the Church. The corresponding completeness of experience allows us to avoid one-sidedness and create a system of concepts that most simply, most economically embrace the entire totality of spiritual life, spiritual needs and spiritual aspirations of the Church of a given moment. Truly, one can be amazed at the purely mathematical precision and expressiveness of Christological formulations, which do not allow changing a single concept. The system of schemes is built so integrally that if we touch one thing, we will certainly bring down the entire architectural mass. And in the same way, what is, from a formal point of view, the whole history of science and philosophy, if not an incessant attempt to develop a circle of concepts that most economically unites known scientific material? Dogmatics is necessary, using this word in the broadest sense - as a system of basic schemes for the most valuable experiences, as an abbreviated guide to eternal life. First of all, this relates to the religious field in a narrower sense. With greed and deep yearning of spirit, modern consciousness seeks formulas. “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “when I will send a famine on the earth—not a famine of bread, not a thirst for water, but a thirst for hearing the words of the Lord. And they will walk from sea to sea and wander from north to east, seeking the word of the Lord, and will not find it” (Amos 8:11). The throat dries up, the insides burn, the languid thirst for dogma flares up more and more unbearably. But... instead of dogmatism we have dogmatism. “Well, what about “Sylvester”, two “Filarets” and “Makariy”? 487 - they will tell me. – What else does a reviewer need? Is he looking for new dogmas? I hasten to reassure all orthodox and unorthodox listeners: I accept the content of this dogmatism and am not talking about the creation of new dogmas, but I complain about the ignorance of the old ones, about the almost insurmountable difficulty of knowing them as religious truths. To the list of the above-mentioned authors, I will answer with the same question: “What do you think of our dogmatics, for example Macarius?” Let my listeners stop delaying all immediate movements for a moment. Then in response I would hear - I foresee - a variety of overlapping yawns, non-Orthodox and Orthodox - mainly the latter. Let's not look into who is to blame here. But we are forced to admit the fact: the highest damage that can be caused to a spiritual value has now been brought to the system of religious doctrine - it has been devalued for consciousness. The salt overwhelmed, the light faded. The hearth stopped warming the consciousness, the center of life found itself outside of life. The only thing necessary seems superfluous and unnecessary to the modern majority. Our dogmatic system seems boring, so boring that they don’t even find time to argue with it; the one who praises it admits that dogma is good, but not for him, but “for someone else.” In a word, it does not exist for life, not for people, but is being prepared for future use, but for whom is unknown. Slight yawns in response to questions about dogma are just a carelessly thrown cover; beneath it are the gaping holes of modern consciousness, and the shrines and greatest treasures of the spirit have disappeared into the echoing abysses. But out of carelessness, we don’t even notice this, just as we don’t remember our own task. “Sanctify them by Thy truth (Ἁγίασου αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου) (“in Thy truth,” according to the Slavic translation), Thy word is truth” (John. 17:17), - Christ prays for us. “Yes, they know You, the only true God,” 488 - He says about us. And if it were not for Love Itself, they would sound like an unbearable mockery to us: do we perceive religion as Truth? Do we know God as true, as the basis of all truth and all authenticity? Let us not bury our heads in the sand of neglect, hiding from danger like an ostrich. Now more than ever, it is timely to find out how we feel about the Christian worldview. It seems that the hour is approaching when it will no longer be possible to remain half-Christian, half-atheist, “neither cold nor hot,” but only “warm,” lukewarm, when, willy-nilly, you will have to decisively come out and stand either for or against true freedom 489 . They point out – and quite rightly – various shortcomings in the “dogmatism” of “domestic fabrication”, and especially the Rev. Macarius. These instructions, of course, must be used, but to satisfy them would mean pouring two or three spoons of water onto a building engulfed in fire. True, the indicated annoying defects violate the architectural integrity of dogma. But is it worth crying about this when a more important question is raised: do students of dogmatics see this integrity and harmony? Do they see how individual links interlock, why another is placed after one? Do students think about the mathematically precise tenets that weave the lace fabric? And don’t they rather see this fabric as “woven from mistakes and dreams”? Do they understand the unity of the plan, the interdependence and interdependence of individual concepts and provisions that serve, like the organs of a single organism, one planned whole? As far as I know, all this remains completely in the fog, and dogmatics appears not as a system, not as a structure made up of diagrams, but as a bunch of piled-up texts and words. Following this amendment, it is necessary to introduce this more important one. But even that is not enough. We have a system of Orthodox dogmas, but we need to present Orthodox dogma as a truly living religious worldview; in other words, propaedeutics is needed to complement the system of dogmas. To repeat: neither the replenishment of the particular shortcomings of dogma, nor the recognition of it as a coherent whole are sufficient in themselves. There is something more serious. Life goes on outside of our creed, and religion goes on outside of life. Here, of course, by life I do not mean any economic or political movements. No, even much deeper layers of the spirit - the most intimate disturbances in the vast expanse of the spirit - turned out to be outside this creed. Another question is whether the currents of life can avoid spilling in this way through the swamps of false mysticism and the sands of sterile positivism. But the fact is that even purely internal moral and religious life has dug its channels in other areas. The furious waves of an unsteady flow hit the shores, lash against the roots, washing away thousand-year-old oak trees. And rushing swiftly, it carries with it logs of falling buildings, household utensils and family shrines... Having been torn away from everything living, from everything intimate, from what is close and infinitely sweet, what grabs the heart with aching longing for the distant, having exhaled the aroma of personal religious experience, the system of religious concepts has ceased to be convincing for those who reject it and attractive for those who accept it. There is no need to talk here about believers and non-believers as synonyms: Orthodox and non-Orthodox. After all, today there are Athean believers, just as there are Orthodox non-believers. To the extent that the latter, having no religious content, in stupid indifference, are ready to accept any scheme of a well-known brand, just so as not to bother themselves with mental work, and in advance profess everything that is inscribed: “Avec approbation et privilèges du Roi” 490, be it the Creed or someone else’s gag, so are the former, tormented by the painful need to give shape to the flames of spiritual life and completely unable to use it for this purpose. schemes that have already been developed, they do not want and cannot accept them slavishly, without seeing their truth. And if from an “Orthodox” one can sometimes hear, directly or indirectly, a cynical statement: “I don’t care about God, but only the cult is important,” then from the lips of the “atheist” sometimes a bashful confession will come out that he needs God and only God, and everything else seems tinsel and rubbish. But there is no God in our dogma. And L. Tolstoy rightly noted that many do not believe in dogmas, but in the fact that they must be believed: a dead, empty form does not carry inner truth and therefore is an idol. Neither the filigree decoration of dogmatic concepts, nor the depth of the content of the system, nor tradition helps here. The system has become hopelessly boring and hopelessly unconvincing to the majority and often even to those who sincerely accept the whole Gospel. However, it would be too hasty to blame those who honestly admit to their falling away. It is more correct to look closely to see if there are elements of the same mood in many others who are not disappearing, and, having admitted the sad truth, find out the reason for the coldness. Only by eliminating the cause will we be able to relate vitally to the system of dogmas - this lace fabric of crystals, which for many centuries have been united from the most tender and fragrant exhalations to the sky of the soul in the cleansing cold of the mind. Dogmatics gave way to dogmatism - this is the key to our coldness towards its beautiful, but for us lifeless forms. Dogmatics in modern consciousness has ceased to be associated with living feelings and living perceptions. the body and soul of the religious worldview were separated. We cared only about ourselves, not wanting to leave our point of view even for a minute, and as a result we ourselves forgot how we got to it. No wonder that others do not find the entrance to the grandiose Gothic cathedral, beautiful in general and in parts, but without a porch and without steps. Countless windows covered with cobwebs turn gloomily black, and a passer-by, fearfully side-eying, passes by into his home chapel. And the faithful, not knowing the way out of their own church, pale and lifeless, walk between the majestic columns, look into the lancet windows and instead of prayers with helpless lips mutter anathemas to those who walk along the street, perhaps (and this happens so often) and wanting to go to pray in the church. Instead of mutual assistance in identifying our own soul, instead of joint spiritual work, we sulk at someone who cannot crack our petrified nuts and, left to the mercy of fate, goes his own way. Or we ourselves turn our backs on the countless treasures collected by previous generations - we turn our backs, instead of taking upon ourselves the accumulated sin and, with the true heat of knowledge of God, melting all the ice that has bound the great buildings of the saints. fathers 491, our predecessors, who had the holy boldness to inscribe over the portal: “To the Known God.” Yes, the traditions of the holy dogmatists are forgotten, the precepts of the ancient Russian philosophers who built the churches of St. Sophia - the Wisdom of God and those who sought to worship the “Known God”. But what should that passerby do? Where are the church ostiaries? Where are the keys? What secret word will open the doors of the majestic portal for him? Let us first be understandable and convincing to people of other camps, we will not pleasantly fall asleep on the assents of only our like-minded people, and even then often accompanied by Augur smiles, we will discard the absurd habit of starting research with dogmatizing positions. After all, not only are these provisions not at all obligatory until they are proven in one way or another (understanding the word “prove” in the broadest sense), they are also absolutely incomprehensible, since they consist of terms that, when presented in such a way, do not have any real content. Before talking to someone, you need to not only define the terms (this is the last thing), but explain them, that is, fill them with living concrete content, turn to what the interlocutor has experienced, or help him experience something new, infect him with your personal experience, give him some of your fullness. Otherwise, you end up with a construction made of words, an argumentation with words, which ends with pushing against the wall... in words. And while, sweating profusely, you celebrate your victory and imagine that you have done something, proved something to the enemy, pinned him to the wall in some way, he remains completely calm. being more than indifferent to his defeat. The walls he was pinned against were made of smoke for him. Let us leave empty talk about the benefits of such an influence on society, an influence that boils down to self-gratification, and look at the matter practically. An argument not connected with experiences, not transparent to intuition, not psychologically convincing, for all its evidence, will certainly be a special modification of argumenti baculini 492. We must not forget that a person first lives in spirit, and then makes abstractions from what he has experienced; theoretical positions are only diagrams, signs, outlines of actual experiences, and in the latter - the source, life and goal of the entire theory. Can we forget that an argument in the field of religion and morality has full force only when it is convincing, that is, when its proven truth is seen intuitively on specific material, when the general position is embodied in a single sensation of truth by the whole being. Separated from the life of the spirit, theories and systems hang in the air, and the rainbow colors of experiences fade, just as the colors of some sea animals washed ashore from their native elements fade, leaving behind a gray, boring mass of fallen schemes. The relationship of concepts, their relative topography, easily visible in the living organism of the worldview, becomes entangled in felt-like lifeless remains; This is how crystal jellyfish flowers, pulled ashore, melt on the coastal stones. What would you say about mathematical calculations that have neither beginning nor end? If you mechanically carry out a certain sequence of actions, without knowing what the whole work is aimed at, what data it comes from, what these or other signs mean, then the whole work seems infinitely unconvincing to you, although at no point do you find the strength to object to the course of the calculations. As a matter of fact, you not only cannot show their falsity, but you also do not see their truth at all. At best, this is the state of modern dogma, mechanically based on the authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and (under the most favorable conditions) giving no reason to object to itself; but the truth of it is not visible to the majority. The persuasiveness of an argument is precisely its evidence, never becoming merely a formal “backing against the wall”, always moving from point to point due to the solid ground of what is experienced, and not making aerostatic journeys through the realms of the arbitrarily invented - only imaginable, but not really experienced at all. It is precisely this kind of persuasiveness that dogmatics lacks, and the result of this is before our eyes. Often, as it turns out, even those who have just had their throats pierced by arguing about an insignificant dogmatic or ritual difference - about some unleavened bread or the folding of fingers - are far from convinced of the essentials. And how many basic ideas that were once a matter of life have become alien to the consciousness of the majority and are preserved in dogmatists only to receive bad marks for them (this is when we are at school) and to be accused of unorthodoxy (when we go out into life) - they forgot to mention this. The concept of evil, for example, has disappeared from the spiritual horizon, and the idea of ​​it as a lack of goodness sets up the entire worldview in a Pelaginian way, although in conversations this hidden semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism of the majority is covered up by a meaningless repetition of church teaching 493 . With even greater confidence, we can say that the entire cycle of eschatological ideas seems to the majority to be suitable only for denouncing socialists of all persuasions - for exposing the impossibility of an ideal order on earth... There are any number of such examples that could be given. But now it’s not about them. Without our own psychological foundations, we find ourselves completely helpless in the face of the childishly naive, but convinced pressure of other worldviews, not to mention the complete powerlessness to influence others. “Advice,” says V.V. Rozanov somewhere, “can be stupid: these are those that arise from the mood of the person giving the advice, and smart ones, arising from the circumstances of the person who asks for advice... The first advice, which we called stupid, stems from mental pettiness, boundless egoism, deaf to everything, and from the instinct of boundless, so to speak, soul expansion: the adviser would like to expand with his soul and displace all other heterogeneous souls. The second advice, wise, stems from the adviser’s extraordinary vigilance, his soul-searching and boundless interest in the myriads of other people’s souls, other people’s lives...” 494. Any system of concepts has the goal of regulating the flow of experiences, formalizing and dividing it, introducing order and stability into it. In this it is similar to advice, and dogmatics is also advice. Rozanov’s words about advice and advisers are highly applicable to dogmatics, and, according to his terminology, our dogmatics will have to be called a system of stupid advice. Our dogmatics are of no use. But it would be impossible to distort my thought any more than by changing “not useful” into “unsuitable.” On the contrary, we do not know how to use the countless treasures collected by generations, we do not know how to transform the concentrated creativity of many centuries into our flesh and blood - yes, we do not know how, because we have forgotten how to approach the enchanted treasure that we see, but which is not given into our hands. I am not offering a new truth in the old place, but I am demanding a new place for the old truth, because the place of consciousness where this truth should be placed is cluttered with rubbish. We know, perhaps, that in a dogmatic system each part supports the other; maybe we even know how this mutual support occurs. But, knowing how dogmatics speaks, we did not recognize why and why it says this; The main thing is that we don’t know what she says. However, for its vitality in the consciousness, it is necessary to know its what, its why and its for what, and without this knowledge, dogmatics turns into a scholastic, cunning game of conventional symbols, in no way superior in value to a chess game. But from the meaning of the previous one it is clear what exactly is needed for the vitality of dogmatics. The secret word is to saturate theological schemes with psychological content, to connect them with what is directly experienced, to transform them from a drug in alcohol into the nerves and bones of living life. Here we come across a difficulty to which we so often retreat. “The essence of science,” says the great Georg Cantor, “is its freedom” 495. The essence of our work, we say, is in its freedom κατ’ἐζοχὴν 496. The processing of a religious worldview, the creation of a propaedeutic for it, is possible only as free creativity, proceeding from what is directly observed in the spirit and not stopping at any conclusion that arises on the road, not afraid of any pain, when an operation is necessary, when it is necessary to break away from all traditions, conservative or progressive, when the duty is to be ready to renounce everything dear and close and remain for a moment in absolute emptiness, absolute disconnection. Go towards the goal and, apparently, move away from it; to work for the Truth and to be merciless towards the Truth, which is not fully recognized as such, to lose in order to gain 497 - this requires such faith in the Truth and such love for It, for which you need to muster all your courage so as not to step back on the path. However, it certainly does not follow from this that we have no right to use anything other than what is directly observed in the spirit. We may well be guided by ready-made schemes, but only as preliminary constructions, scaffolding, allowing us to process the raw material more quickly and efficiently. To put it figuratively, let’s say: what is ready, in this case dogmas, should not have a decisive vote, but only an advisory one. The role of ready-made schemes is at first only probabilistic, 498 and the value is conditional, even if we individually consider it unconditional. This is similar to the mathematical method of successive approximations, with the only difference that here the inner feeling makes us foresee the result of the work. The material (controlled by Holy Scripture) for the latter should be our own experience and the experience of others, since it was expressed in ascetic and mystical literature, in elegant literature, in the visual arts and in music. And besides, a complete revision of patristic literature is necessary, but not with a hunting sniffing out for “confirmations,” but in order to determine the psychological data that force the author to speak this way and not otherwise. These direct data in connection with the auxiliary data of the natural historical sciences (the study of the physiological basis of the phenomena of spiritual life) will form the basis of future convincing dogmatics. They will say to me: “But is it possible to prove dogma? Isn’t this excluded by the very concept of revelation? Please note: I am not talking about proof at all, by which I mean formal-logical proof; the demand expressed is that the dogma should become intuitively transparent to a religiously inclined consciousness, and that it should be indicated exactly how to approach such a consciousness. Accepting or rejecting a dogma is a matter of an act of will, but it is necessary that it be quite clear what, in fact, we accept or reject, because it cannot be a matter of will to accept or reject words. Nowadays, people so often believe not in the content of formulas, but in the formulas themselves, in the words. Only then will there be truly faithful sons of the Church when they are not tied to the Church, but are free every minute to mentally descend to the beginnings and motives of their faith and, having descended, return back again, because the truth demands it. Only then will the time come, prophesied to the Samaritan woman 499, when every citizen will be able to survey the entire creed, from its black soil to the complex peaks of supreme conclusions and aspirations. For greater clarity, we will again characterize the peculiarity of the future persuasive dogmatics, while at the same time outlining some immediate tasks. “In the eyes of a philosopher,” says N.M. Minsky 500, - the whole world seems to be an equation with one unknown, which is God. The first part of the equation is the visible world of sensory phenomena (understood in the broadest sense), as the world of the created, conditional, perishable, the second part of it is the world of mental phenomena hidden in us, while determining the unknown is the task of the life of all humanity. With many or at least two unknowns, with polytheism or ditheism, the solution would be indefinite, but an equation with one unknown, a universe with a single unknown god, gives us an exact and definite answer.” With this understanding of the matter, “not God, but the knowledge of God” is dependent on the world. There are two methods of research: fortune-telling, going from the unknown to the known, and true, going from the known to the unknown. Since the known is the world, and the unknown is God, then in religious creativity one can follow either a fortune-telling path - from God to the world, through determining the essence of God, his attributes and properties, or the true path - from our human nature to God, through the only fruitful study of what we know about God and how this knowledge arises in us. The fundamental law of religious creativity can be expressed as follows: all judgments leading to true knowledge of God have as their constant addition the absolute deity.” This is the beginning of dogmatic work, going from man to the divine. But we would repeat the unforgivable mistake of all subjectivists if we wanted to limit the work only to such a beginning. Indeed, for a philosopher, since he is a theorist, the object of religion is always only a predicate under the conditional self of the philosopher himself. Such a philosopher can really only talk about the divine - not about God. However, once living mystical experience brings him into the sphere of transsubjective reality, then man and God will change places, and God, as well as all objects of religious consciousness, will become the subject from the predicate. At the same time, dogma from subjective and conditional will become objective and unconditional. The epistemological dependence of the knowledge of God on man will be replaced by the mystical dependence of man on God. But where exactly is the bridge for such a crossing? To quickly [outline] a map of the path to the transition point, let us pay attention to the following: we say that the basis for the construction of dogmatics should be directly experienced, and it is clear that first of all these are the individual experiences of the dogmatist. But the universality of the task requires further expansion of the range of experiences. It is necessary to answer the question again: from what and from whose experiences is dogmatics built? The construction must be generally valid. All people should have access to it. This is where serious confusion arises. If dogma should ideally be common to everyone, then the experiences that ground it, apparently, have to be taken as common to everyone, common to everyone, and are the bargaining chip of spiritual life. But who doesn’t know that the wider the area of ​​common experiences, the more meager, colorless and banal its spiritual content; The more current a coin is, the more worn it is. But not only that: let us settle contentedly on some fairly wide range of experiences - one that is not denied by any person known to us. However, even then we did not provide ourselves with anything, that tomorrow there would be no new faces who would be blind to these experiences. Thus, being dependent not on the merit of experiences, but on the number of those experiencing, determined by statistical and, therefore, external conditions, dogmatics could never imagine itself as something solid, not unshakable with the slightest breeze, and this is not in the sense of evolutionary change and development on the basis of what already exists, but simply in the sense of the constant possibility of a complete “no”, where there was just a “yes”. There is no middle way to be found between willful relativism, which boils down to absolute nihilism, and slavish legality, which, as before, replaces living life with a dead formula. And this middle path is unattainable for philosophy outside of religious experience. The path that turned out to be unsuitable is the universal path - the method of the greatest common divisor, which can be reduced to 1, that is, to the indifference of empty unity in the purely formal data of spiritual life, which does not express life itself at all. But we need a pan-human path - the method of the least multiple for all experiences in all their diversity 501. That path was the path of sifting out everything heterogeneous, everything dissimilar. This path is the path of synthesis, the path of gathering all the fullness of spiritual life. But this gathering cannot be a mechanical putting together: spiritual life, by its very essence, is thoroughly permeated with personal character. And therefore, if on the pan-human path it would be necessary to study the most vacuous person, who bears a minimum of spiritual life, then on the pan-human path the Bearer of the maximum of spiritual life must be studied. This is the Son of Man, ὁ νιος τοῦ ανυρῶπου, the Bearer of ideal humanity. Having experienced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of Man, as the universal Man, we thereby move into a new phase of work. His experiences constitute the true foundation of dogma. The experiences of Jesus of Nazareth are a bridge along which dogmatics can pass from earth to heaven, from psychology to metaphysics 502. But this transition does not occur immediately. At first, the universal Man Jesus is only the universal subject of dogmatic consciousness: we deal not with what He is, but with what He has. At the same time, dogmatics, invariably leaving the divine only as a predicate, receives the right to assert the universal validity of its judgments, although these judgments still do not have a metaphysical character. From now on, it turns not to a person, but to humanity, and therefore can touch the heartstrings of everyone, radiate a bright reflection in every soul. It relies [addresses – ?] not on the idola 503, not on the isolated, not on the whims, random associations or selfish calculations of this or that individual, but on the eternal, all-human, holy and selfless of every person. Не к тому, что лишает человека образа человеческого, но что делает его истинным человеком. In a word, dogmatics begins to use argumenta ad humanitatem 504 instead of the previous argumenta ad dominem 505, and the moment of the psychology of religion is replaced by the moment of New Testament theology. But this is only the first change – in form. But from the coincidence in Jesus of self-consciousness with God-consciousness 506 a new change in dogmatic judgments follows. The conventional human self, which hitherto served as the exclusive subject of all judgments, is supplanted by a new subject - God, due to which everything divine in man becomes only a predicate of the new Subject. Judgments are made metaphysical and related to transsubjective reality, and the moment of New Testament theology is replaced by a new one - the moment of mystical gnosis. Here the construction of dogmatics in its own and true sense only begins. The sequence of individual moments can be expressed approximately as follows: Here is just an approximate plan for the work ahead of us all - the construction of experimental dogmatics 507. Only when there is a convincing dogma, only then will everyone quite consciously answer the “either-or” dilemma in relation to Jesus Christ, “who came in the flesh” (2 John 1:7); then only will it be possible to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. The concept of the Church in Holy Scripture 508 Ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην - “Our teaching agrees with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, in turn, confirms the teaching.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Iren. Haer., IV, 18, § 5) 509 List of manuals and reference books for this work 510 Ι. Monographs on the Church and dogmatic courses 1. E. Akvilonov. New Testament teaching about the Church. Experience of dogmatic-exegetical research. St. Petersburg, 1896. 2. I. Mansvetov. New Testament teaching about the Church. M., 1879. 3. F. Turner. Church (philosophical and historical essay). M., 1885. 4. A.S. Khomyakov. Complete set of works. T. II. Theological works. Prague, 1867. (See especially pp. 3–23. “The Experience of a Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church.”). 5. Priest Andrei Svetlakov, teacher of the law at the Nizhny Novgorod gymnasium. An exposition of the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Church, church hierarchy, grace and sacraments. Nizhny Novgorod, 1878. 6. Archimandrite Sylvester, professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy. The doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries of Christianity (Historical sketch). Kyiv, 1872. 7. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Conversations between the Examiner and the Confident in the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1815. 8. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Words and speeches. T. IV, 1836–1848 M., 1882. 9. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Words and speeches. Part II. M., 1844. 10. Prof. I. Korsunsky. Definition of the concept of the Church in the writings of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. St. Petersburg, 1895. 11. I.A. Ivanov. About the Heavenly Church. Theological Bulletin. 1906, 4, December, p. 343–356. 12. A.I. Bulgakov. The Church and its attitude to progress. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, year XLIV, 1903, book. IV, p. 548–573. 13. Vladimir Solovyov. Russia and the Universal Church. Translation from French. Krakow, 1904 511. 14. Vl.S. Solovyov. Collected works. The concept of the Church runs like a red thread through all the works, and the Church is especially definitely spoken of in: vol. III “Readings on God-Humanity”, p. 1–151; vol. III “Spiritual foundations of life”, part II, chapter. II, p. 347–368; vol. IV “The Great Controversy and Christian Politics”, p. 1–95. Especially: ch. IV, p. 44–56, ch. V, p. 57–69, ch. VI, p. 70–95; vol. IV “History and future of theocracy”, book five, §§ IX-XXIV, p. 542–582; Vol. VIII “The Idea of ​​Humanity in August Comte”, p. 225–245. 15. N. Gorodensky. New Testament teaching about the Kingdom of God in the latest Western theological literature. “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”, year 31, 1894, 2, p. 747–814 512. 16. Archpriest P.Ya. Svetlov. The idea of ​​the Kingdom of God in its meaning for the Christian worldview (Theological and apologetic study). Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1906. 17. V.A. Kerensky. Richlean School of Theology in Lutheranism. “Orthodox Interlocutor”: 1901, part I, p. 585–622, 744–783; 1901, part II, p. 180–225, 378–422, 693–727; 1902, part I, p. 104–134, 290–303, 412–432, 593–601, 612–626, 696–722, 821–841, part II, p. 197–248, 389–416; 1903, part I, p. 288–292, 355–381, 522–534; 1903, part II, p. 200–242, 366–412, 639–681, 851–870. 18 [Seely]. Ecce homo. An overview of the life and work of Jesus Christ. Transl. from English by F. Turner. Part I, St. Petersburg, 1877, Part II, St. Petersburg, 1878 513. 19. Dr. Conningham Geikie. Life and teachings of Christ. Translated from the English priest Michael of Thebes. 4 issues. M., 1893–1894. 20. Alexander Belyaev. Love Divine. The experience of revealing the most important Christian dogmas from the beginning of Divine Love. Ed. second, corrected and significantly expanded. M., 1884 (especially see Chapter V, pp. 334–415). 21. Rudolf Som. Church system in the first centuries of Christianity. Per. A. Petrovsky and P. Florensky. M., 1906. 22. Bishop Sylvester. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). T. IV, Kiev, 1889, §§ 116–123: About the Church (pp. 224–305). 23. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov. Orthodox dogmatic theology. Second[ed] ed. Chernigov, 1865. 24. A. Westphal. Qu'est-ce qu'un Eglise? Paris, 1896. 25. T. Fallot. Qu'est-ce qu'un Eglise. Un Chapitre de Christianisme pratique. Seconde ed. Paris, 1817. 26. P. Jalaguier. De l'Eglise. Paris, 1899. 27*514. D. Grea. De l’Eglise et de sa divine constitution. Paris, 1885. 28. J. Bovon. Theoligie du Nouveau Testament. Lausanne. T. 1. La vie et l’enseignement de Jésus. 1893. N. 2. L’enseignement des Apôtres. 1894. (See especially T. 1, Seconde section, Chp. 1, “La proclamation du royaume de Dieu”; T. 2, Trois. subd., Chp. 2, L’église, pp. 227–247). 29. B. Weiss. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1868. 30. H.J. Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie. BB. 1, 2. Freiburg I B.U. Lpz., 1897. 31. R. Sohm. Kirchenrecht. Bd. 1. Die geschichtlichen Crundlagen. Lpz., 1898. (Especially Erstes Kapitel, “Das Urchristentum”). 32. O. Pfleiderer. Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichen Zusammenhang beschrieben. Zweite, neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Bd. 1 und 2. Berlin, 1902. 33*. C.B. Stevens. The Theology of the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1901. 34*. The rev. John M. King. The Theology of Christ's Teaching. With an introduction by the rev. James Orr. London, 1902. 35. P. de la Grasserie. Des religions comparées au point de vue sociologique. Paris, 1899. 36. His Eminence Anthony, Bishop of Ufa. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church. “Faith and Church”, 1901, vol. II, sec. 1, p. 369–390. 37*. J. Gottschik. Die sichtbare und die unsichtbare Kirche. Worauf beruht diese Unterschied und was lehrt die heilige Schrift darüber? "Theologische Studien und Kritiken", Jahrgang 1873, erstes Heft, SS. 3–77. 38. S. Smirnov. Philological remarks about the New Testament language in comparison with the classical one when reading the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians. M., 1873. 39. D. Bogdashevsky. Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Ephesians. Isagogical-exegetical study. Kiev, 1904. 40. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul. M., 1882. 41. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Colossians and Philemon. M., 1880. 42. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians. M., 1882. 43. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the first eight chapters of the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans. M., 1879. 44. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of chapters IX-XVI of the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans. M., 1879. 45. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. M., 1882. 46. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the Second Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. M., 1882. 47. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation of the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians. M., 1875. 48. M. Golubev. Review of the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. T. I. First message. St. Petersburg, 1861. 49. N.N. Glubokovsky. The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Galatians. St. Petersburg, 1902. 50. N.N. Glubokovsky. The Gospel of the Holy Apostle Paul according to its origin and essence. Biblical and theological study. Book 1. St. Petersburg, 1905. 51. Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea. Translation from Greek. Second edition by Hieromonk Anthony. M., 1894. 52. Oberlen. Prophet Daniel and the Apocalypse of John. Translation by Archpriest A. Romanov. Tula, 1882. 53. Collection of articles on interpretative and edifying reading of the Acts of St. Apostles and Apocalypse, with bibliographic index. Compiled by inspector of the Simbirsk Theological Seminary M. Barsov. Simbirsk, 1894. 54. (Gericke). Introduction to the New Testament books of Holy Scripture. Translation from German, edited by Bishop Michael. Ed. 2nd. M., 1888. 55. F. Dumsky. Church and Christ. Exegetical analysis of Eph. 1, 23. “The Wanderer”, 1900, May, p. 26–51. 56. Khomyakov's translation of the Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians. (Complete collected works, Vol. II, Theological works, pp. 379–396). 57. B. Weiss. Die paulinischen Briefe im Berichtigten Text mit kurzer Erläuterung zum Handgebrauch bei der Schriftlektüre. Lpz., 1896. 58. Chr. W. Müller. Über Matthäus 18, 15–20. "Theologische Studien und Kritiken", 1857, Erster Bd., SS. 339–351, esp. 347. 59. E. Engelhardt. Der Gedankengang des Abschnittes Eph. 4, 7–16. "Theologische Studien und Kritiken", 1871, Erst. Bd., SS. 107–145. 60. H. Cremer. Biblisch-theologische Wörterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Gräcität. Zweite Aufl. Cotha, 1872. 61. S.Ch. Schirlitz. Griewchisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testamente. Von dritte verbes. u. vermehrte Auflage. Giessen, 1868. 62. Carolo Ludovico Wilibaldo Grimm. Lexicon Graeco-latinum in libros Novi Testamenti. Lipsiae, 1868. 63. Ioh. Caspari. Suiceri Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, e patribus graecis etc. …Amstelaedami, 1682. 64. Greek-Russian dictionary according to Benzeler. Publication of the Kyiv branch of the Society of Classical Philology and Pedagogy. Kiev, 1881. 65. Gvilielmi Gesenii Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae hebraeae et chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. Lipsiae, 1893. 3 T. 66. Fr. Blass. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1896. 67. Novum Testsamentum graecum cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionium aliarum, Versionum et Patrum nec non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis Historiam et vim verborum illustrante opera et studio Ioannis Iacobi Wetstenii Tomus I. Continens quator Evangelia. Amctelaedami, MDCCLI. 68. Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud. Ausgebreitet von Dr. J.Hamburger. Neustrelitx, 1870. 69. Handwörterbuch des Biblischen Altertums… Herausgegeben von Dr. Eduard. C.Aug. Riehm. Bielefelf u. Lpz., 1884. 2 Bd. Other benefits will be indicated as needed. The publication Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Text without critical Apparatus was adopted as the main text. Published by the Britisch and foreing Bible Society, 1904. The text was revised by Eberhard Nestle, who took into account the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Gort, Weiss. In addition, in addition to the above-mentioned Weiss publication, for reference I used the publication. Tischendorf. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Iren. Haer., IV, 18, § 5) 515 Chapter one. Methodological notes At the beginning of the study, the outlines of the concept - the concept of the Church - that we have to figure out are vague and confused. But whatever they may seem to us, one thing must be put in advance: the Church is not a purely human matter, it stands above each of the believers and therefore requires not just discussion, but certainly reverent discussion, with awe of the “great mystery” of the Church (Eph. 5:32). This reverence, this awe in the field of science is expressed with a peculiar shade - characterized as great caution. “We must,” says Jalagier (26:69–70), “surround ourselves here with the protection of prudence, because we are in a supernatural order. No matter how reliable the given (fait) subject to discussion may seem in itself, the inductions emanating from it - obvious and reliable when they are immediate - gradually lose these properties as they move away; These are paths that cannot be completely trusted, except under the condition that they should not be continued arbitrarily. With religious care, one must be careful not to remain on this side of the biblical data and not to go beyond it, without taking anything away from it and without adding anything there: the work is delicate. Gifts: both here and there the Divine is embodied in the natural, and here and there is the transubstantiation of the natural (words in one case, bread and wine in the other) into a new creation 516. Chastity in dealing with “texts” is a fundamental requirement of theological work. But the difficulty of this work becomes even stronger, and caution in it should only increase if we remember that neither the Lord nor the Apostles gave an abstract logical, scientific or philosophical concept of the Church (1:7-10) (this concept has to be developed independently), and in addition the very words like ἐκκλησία, σῶμα, ἅγιος 517 and others were used in a special, hitherto unheard of sense, sovereignly putting new content into them: thus, “every scribe taught in the Kingdom of Heaven is like a master who brings out from his treasury new and old” (Matthew 13:52). “In every line of the Word of God there is light, in every sound there is wisdom (9:49). To collect individual features found here and there in the Holy Scriptures, to combine them into one systematically harmonious whole and at the same time not to distort what is being combined - such is the task of science in this case. “The kingdom of science,” says one researcher (1:8–9), “is part of the Kingdom of God, which is taken by force,” and only “those who use force take it” (Matthew 11:12) 518. But how is this possible? The last question brings the thought to some methodological considerations, and we have to get a little ahead of ourselves. The Church has the task of establishing the Kingdom of God in creation, that is, to associate the finite and temporal with the infinite and eternal. As desiring to bestow eternal and endless life, the Church herself must possess it; as one who wishes to bestow this life on finite and temporal creatures, she herself must be in their midst, participating in their finitude and temporality. Hence the duality of the Church: the absence of one of these sides would make the Church inappropriate for its purpose. But speaking in advance about the duality of the Church, we can at the same time predict that purely philological research cannot detect this duality: philological analysis will always reveal only the earthly, finite, temporary side of the Church, and it is clear that it cannot be otherwise. After all, words themselves generally refer to the finite and temporary and cannot capture the eternal and immortal. Philologists correctly assert that every word taken literally, subjected, so to speak, to chemical analysis, that is, reduced to its primary roots, certainly means something sensual. From here it can already be seen a priori that the supersensible is not able to be conveyed adequately and tautegorically 519 520 through words, but can only be symbolically 521 . Spiritual content, therefore, is never immanent to the word, but always transcendental to it. It is necessary to transubstantiate the word in order to give it spirituality 522. But even the transubstantiated Holy Gifts for chemical research seem to be only bread and wine. This is especially true for transubstantiated words, even the simple human meaning of which is less accessible to crude experience than the matter of the Holy Eucharist. That is why we should not expect any absolutely decisive and powerful resolution from etymological research, although they can be very instructive as an illustration and explanation of what has already been clarified, or as a preliminary explanation (“in rough form”). The result, as one sees it, is a painful hopelessness: what we can accurately investigate is of little interest and passes by the main and truly living thing; and what is interesting turns out not to be precisely searched for. The important and essential disappears from words before we throw them into the philological crucible. In a word, What we need, we don’t know And we know that we might not know 523. How to escape from this trap? We tried to show (see also Appendix I, where the word ἅγιος is analyzed as an example) the insufficiency, and sometimes the falsity, of research based on a purely external anatomy of the word and not starting with its living soul. The name of the object takes over and replaces the object itself, and as a result, the latter sometimes turns out to be not only controversial, but often even distorted. Examples of such substitutions are too well known (see, e.g., 1:11–17) to be worth mentioning. For our topic, the confusion of dogmatic theology with linguistics led to obvious harm, and its highest expression was the fixation of a one-sided, earthly, decisively empirical and legal concept of the Church in the catechisms of Metropolitan Philaret (of Moscow) 524; It is clear that its definition proceeded from the idea that “the very name of an object usually gives the concept of it” (10:20); Indeed, Fioaret’s definition is derived from the name, as the late I. Korsunsky subtly shows (10, 21, next). But if the study of a name (in which one also studies a shell word, created long ago and for a completely different content) does not and cannot in itself give an undoubted comprehension of a mystical object, which, of course, is the Church, and, on the other hand, the source of our understanding - the Holy Scripture - is written precisely in words, then only one thing is conceivable: to study not the words themselves, but the experiences they excite in the spirit, that is, to see in words as if living images whose soul remains unharmed only upon direct contact with the words, naked in spirit 525. At the same time, the threefold existence of words-images, and it, as we will see, is fully justified in the future, namely: 1. Words-concepts that excite the most abstract ideas, and what is experienced by the soul, so to speak, adequately reproduces the content, the soul of the word. From these words the dogmatic-metaphysical definition of the Church is constructed in the Holy Scriptures, if only the term “metaphysical” is applied to the Holy Scriptures. 2. Words-symbols that arouse in the spirit certain specific images and ideas that are typical substitutes for a certain category of being - a certain kind of being, taken in its entirety. These words are similar to artistic types and, through their combinations, give a dogmatic-symbolic definition of the Church. What is experienced in the spirit artistically reproduces the content of a word, just as a type reproduces its genus in all its integrity—like a sample of a known substance gives a complete understanding of the properties of the entire substance. 3. Emblem words that arouse certain ideas in the spirit, but are no longer typical, but only similar in some of their qualities to the content of the word. They form a dogmatic-allegorical definition of the Church. The first two types of definitions are in the closest connection with each other and taken together they provide not a metaphor, but an exact metaphysical and mystical formula for the object being studied, in this case, the Church. Having made these preliminary methodological remarks, we can begin to directly study the concept of the Church. Let us only note that these remarks are not preconceived schemes under which we intend to summarize the data of Holy Scripture, but abstractions from the work itself that can orient the reader and are therefore preconditions for the work itself. Without prefacing these remarks, the author would risk exposing himself to questions on what basis he used the well-known words of Holy Scripture in one way and not another. Chapter two. Duality of the Church As if in response (“but I say” - κἀγὼ δὲ σοι λέγω) to the solemn confession of the apostle. Peter (Matthew 16:16), speaking on behalf of the Apostles, at least with their tacit consent, the God-man Jesus solemnly promised to create His holy Church (Matthew 16:18–19) 526. The Divine will and the human will met each other, as they met at the moment of the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. And just as the God-man was born then, so now, after the Annunciation of the Lord to Peter, the God-man was born 527. Inextricably linked with Her Creator and the divine Author and at the same time inseparable from her human condition, the Church by her very origin is of a dual nature, and her essential duality, dualité constitutive (26:63) makes itself felt in every movement of the church body (if we understand it biblically). Moreover, this duality of nature extends (albeit in a different form) even to the Founder and Head of the Church and ultimately in the duality of the latter finds its final explanation, just as in Him the dual earthly-divine nature of the sacraments finds an explanation. From a slightly different angle, the church duality of the Divine and the human is defined differently, namely as the duality of the basis of faith and its result, as the basis for the unity of people and their association, like theocracy and anthropocracy (26:64). Namely, duality, for each of the dual terms, taken one-sidedly and exclusively, or taken out of proper relation to the other, would lead to ecclesiological heresies, very reminiscent of the Christological heresies of the first centuries and the Eucharistic heresies of the Reformation and later eras (1:60-99). Moreover, the balance and unity of the two principles of the Church (the same should be said about the two natures in Jesus Christ and about the two principles in the Eucharist) is given only to direct religious experience, for a person who is in the Church, and any attempt to rationalize its content leads to an antinomian struggle between the two principles, which for reason are mutually exclusive and incompatible, while reason is required precisely in their dual unity 528. However, these antinomies are useful in that they clearly emphasize that there is no Church without the presence of two principles. Let us indicate in more detail some of these collisions. The church is a collection of believers. But in order for this collection not to be an abstract concept, for the Church to be something more than a simple sum of individuals, a simple heap, it is necessary for it first to have its own existence. “The Church is not only a collection of people (believers), but first of all that which gathers them, that is, an essential form of unity given to people from above, through which they can be involved in the Divine” (14, vol. III, p. 351). With their preaching, the holy Apostles added new members to the Church; but in order to join, they themselves had to first join the Church, and, therefore, the Church is something underlying the society of people, and not just the result of their unification (26:39). This is expressively indicated in Acts. 2:41, where it is said about those who believed that they joined (προσετέθησαν) after the preaching of the Apostle Peter. The pre-existence of the Church is also evident from Eph. 1:4, which says that God chose believers in Christ “before the foundation of the world” κόσμου). Thus, “The Church is at the same time: the expression of Christian life and the environment in which Christian life is accomplished. She is both the content and the vessel” (3:1; cf. 3:16). “The Church represents, therefore,” says Jalagier (26:29–30), “the two indicated types or two forms, two very different types, although they constantly transform into one another. It reveals to the world the origins of spiritual life, and yet it itself is born in those who are born into this life. At first glance, it is the cause, but at the second glance, it is the effect.” These two views, separated from each other, produce respectively two ecclesiological theories. According to the first of them, the Church is everything, the believer is nothing. This is a kind of ecclesiological monophysitism, ex opere operato 529 deifying the human side of the Church and destroying individual will, individual feat and individual faith. По второй из таких теорий, Церковь сама по себе – ничто, верующий же – всё, ибо Церковь рассматривается как «естественный продукт христианской веры и жизни, как простой постулат евангельских начал и чувствований» (26:30). This is “a kind of individualistic idealism” - “the fruit of that extreme subjectivism which characterizes the mental trend of our days” (26:30). It can be compared to Arianism in the field of Christology. And finally, the extreme division of the Church into the “Invisible Church” or “Mystical Church” and the “Visible Church” or “Empirical Church” corresponds to the Nestorian heresy among the reformers in the field of Christology. The only way to maintain the harmony of the two church principles in rational research is to change the point of view, now looking at the Church from the bottom up, ascending from the subjective, human principle, now - from the top down, descending from the objective, divine. Continues to trace the two sides of the Church. From below, the Church is only “the corollary of Christianity,” “the accidental product of faith” (26:54) 530 and “the revelation of faith” (26:78) 531, “an institution” and an association” (26:54). Naturally, with this understanding, the Church acquires an exclusively anthropocratic character - sometimes an aristocracy, sometimes (and primarily) a democracy. But in this abuse of the principle of human right, human freedom and autonomy (26:51), the church order necessarily turns into anarchy (26:51), the Truth of church consciousness (dogma) is fragmented into “a simple mixture of personal beliefs” (13:134) and “arbitrary opinions” (13:102), and in church life, the predominant moment of which are the sacraments, “the content evaporates” (25:70) 532 . In a word, with such a view, the Church appears to be “too human” (Fallot), and faith gives way to subjective “faith” (Khomyakov’s expression) 533. But Jesus Christ did not say: “your Church will be built by you, Peter (or: by you, the apostles; or, finally: by people in general)”, but said: “I will build, οἰκοδομήσω” (Matthew 16:18), i.e. “I, Jesus Christ, whom you, Peter, have just confessed to be the Son God,” and, moreover, “I will build My Church, μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,” and not the Church of the apostles, Peter, or people in general. This precisely indicates that the Church is a work more than human, the work of the Son of God, announced by Him at one of the most solemn moments of earthly life and therefore having a special, exceptional value for Him. Consequently, the Church is not only the result of man (26:42), not only the result of faith, but also the basis for it (26:46); not only the flower of faith, but also its root. “The teaching of the Church is not a mixture of personal opinions” (13:1), but truth, the “pillar and foundation” of which the Church is (1 Tim. 3:15) (26:46). It is said: στῦλος καὶ ἑδπαίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας ( 1 Tim. 3:15 ) 534 535 – τῆς, i.e. not one of the truths, not human particular and fragmented truth, but the Truth is complete, Divine and united. But can such a statement be the “sea” (Rev. 13:1, 21:1) of troubled human opinions? The answer is undoubted: the Church, as a purely human institution, as a “society,” can never give birth to something higher than itself, something superhuman, that is, it cannot be the bearer and support, the “pillar and affirmation” of τῆς αληθείας. But she is exactly like that, according to the Apostle, and, therefore, when looking at her from above, she appears supramundane and supermundane, divine, supernatural. However, in emphasizing this side of the Church one should not go beyond boundaries: exaggeration of the divine moment in the Church leads to pantheistic deification of it (26, 52, etc.). Таким образом, для образования Церкви индивидуальная вера необходима, но недостаточна (28, т. II, 230). Such faith - and indeed every human action, no matter how beautiful it is - is and still remains nothing more than human faith and, therefore, does not bear that character of divine absoluteness, which is necessarily inherent in the church 536 537. The dual nature of the Church leads to the need to distinguish between two elements, two sides: unconditional and relative. This establishes the possibility of understanding the history of the Church and its growth. “In terms of its deity, the Church, as a shrine protected by tradition, is something unconditionally unchangeable and immovable (a static element, στάσις of the Church); in terms of its humanity, on the contrary, the Church has a relative and practical character, it is something mobile and changeable (the dynamic element of the Church, its κίνεσις). The Church moves and changes, but this movement and change cannot be aimless and chaotic. The diverse forces of humanity unite, their actions are directed by the guiding principle of spiritual power, divine in its being, human in its manifestation and activity. На неподвижной основе церковного предания свободные силы человечества должны согласмно двигаться под общим руководством духовной власти. Thus, the second, human side - its practical moving element - in turn represents two opposite poles: power and freedom” (14, vol. IV, 49). But, being different elements and therefore unfused, the Divine and the human are inseparably united with each other in the church organism. The Lord Jesus Christ is not only the Founder of the Church, external to it and to its life, because He is at the same time the Teacher and the Content of the teaching, and the Norm of life and the Source of such life, and the Beginning of Church history and its core and vital nerve. The attitude of Christ to the Church is significantly different from the attitude of various religious figures to the religious societies they founded. While such figures, even the greatest, are always only primi inter pares, 538 Christ is an exceptional phenomenon and incomparable with his followers. The disciples of Mohammed lived by his teaching, and the disciples of Jesus Christ lived by Him Himself. “To Him,” says the Right Reverend Theophan (42:67), “the entire course of events gravitates, like the periphery to the center, all the radii of the circle of times converge towards Him.” So, the Divine and human elements are necessary in the Church. In turn, both moments of the human side of the Church - power and freedom - are not accidental to each other, and the possibility of the Church growing “into a perfect man” (Eph. 4:13) is conditioned by their harmony and balance. After all, the Church cannot be “carried away according to the elements of the world” (Col. 2:8), cannot change, just as fluctuating human institutions change. Earthly institutions are “like dust swept away by the wind from the face of the earth” (Ps. 1:4); but the Church grows organically in the highest sense of the word. The new does not cancel or destroy the old, but affirms and reveals it. This is true growth, as opposed to mere being. Consequently, the old of the Church does not disappear in the flow of the new, is not flooded by it, but is invariably protected by the authorities; and the new does not trample under the slightly budding shoots of the old, but rises, nourished by freedom. Power and freedom and their harmony make the life of the Church healthy. But in its exclusivity, each of these principles results in a painful state of that part, that organ of the church body in which such exclusivity was manifested. The principle of power, taken in its homogeneity, as the beginning of a forced unification, inevitably destroys everything new, and the local Church becomes numb in the deathly immobility of unity. The ecclesiastical organism becomes ossified, and the psychic flow slows down excessively, turning into monoideism. This is the result of the tyranny of the collective consciousness over the individual. On the contrary, the principle of freedom, taken in its one-sidedness, as the beginning of fragmentation, also violent, inevitably destroys everything old, and the local Church disintegrates into the sectarian uncontrollability of plurality. There occurs, so to speak, a softening of the bones of the local church organism, and the psychic flow becomes turbulent, so that its individual elements lose all coherence among themselves. This is the result of “the tyranny of the individual consciousness over the collective” (24:54). However, further details of these issues relate rather to canon law, the history of Western confessions, sectology, etc., so we do not consider it necessary to develop them 539 540. From all that has been said (which is somewhat preliminary), it is especially important for us that the Church is a Divine-human being, and from this follow two provisions that must be remembered. Namely: 1. The Church, from the dogmatic side, must always be considered in relation to both Jesus Christ, through whom She is akin to the Divine, and in relation to the people who enter into it, through whom She is related to the world. 2. The Church, by its mystical nature, necessarily has the indelible features of Her Lord, and by its empirical nature, the features of those people who enter Her. We will see this in the future. Chapter three. Dogmatic-metaphysical definition of the Church In order to form a correct and living idea of the Church, as the Holy Scripture understands it, it is necessary, of course, to reveal the idea of the Church with the help of all three types of definitions: metaphysical, symbolic and allegorical. Only the totality of all of them will give a clear picture, and not just contours or colored spots alone. But from what was said above (Chapter 1, § III) about the dogmatic-symbolic and even more so the dogmatic-allegorical definition, it is clear that the correctness of their understanding is a natural consequence of the correct direct attitude to the text. Where is the true center, from where the relationship between individual elements spontaneously develops into a promising whole? Where is the corrective to immediate attitude? Where is the entrance to the biblical tradition of the Church? Where to start? The answer to this is clear. The dogmatic-metaphysical definition of the Church, as the poorest in living content, but at the same time least susceptible to subjective distortions, alone can be the key to ideas about the Church in the Holy Scriptures. So, at least insofar as the known understanding of these ideas claims to be universally valid, does not want to remain purely subjective, but at the same time does not dare to refer to illumination from above (what Catholic theologians call revelatio secundaris 541), similar to what happened to many saints. In order to be able to correctly perceive the words-emblems, it is necessary to be guided by the correction in the words-symbols; the corrective for the latter will be a dogmatic-metaphysical definition. And it is necessary to start with it, in order to then replenish its abstraction with concrete content, given by symbolic and allegorical definitions. Вместе с тем ясно, что последних может быть по нескольку, но первое – необходимо одно и единственно. Otherwise, Holy Scripture could be understood ad liditum 542 - this way and that. The main question in the teaching about the Church is to find the dogmatic-metaphysical definition of Her - the beginning of the ball, after which the whole coil will unwind. But finding such a definition is not enough: one must prove that it is exactly that, and having proven it, one must then understand it. This is what we will do. On the formal side, the full definition of the Church is found in Eph. 1:23. But before citing the text, let us establish the sequence of the previous thought of the Apostle (Eph. 1), in order to facilitate the further task. The Holy Apostle blesses God for His work of salvation, which has the ultimate goal of “to lead all things, heavenly and earthly, in Christ” (Eph. 1:10), in whom is the “guarantee” of salvation. Therefore, having heard about the faith of the Ephesians in Christ, the Apostle thanked God for them, remembering in his prayers that the Ephesians would also be given the opportunity to comprehend the redemptive work of God and the greatness of His power. This greatness was manifested in the following separate moments in the history of salvation: “God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand” above all the powers on high and above every name; πάντα ὑπέταξεν (ὁ Θεός) ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Χρίστοῦ), καὶ αὐτὸν (τὸν Χριστὸν) ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου) - “And (God) put everything under His (Christ’s) feet and set him above all, the head of the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” 543. The general desire of the Apostle does not raise doubts. He needs to reveal the greatness of God’s works aimed at the salvation of everything “heavenly and earthly.” Therefore, it is unthinkable to allow that in this tirade overflowing with content, where the economy of words is brought to the maximum and sentence is molded onto sentence, and their conciseness makes it very difficult to understand the text, that in such a tirade there would be at least something that does not go directly to the goal that the Apostle sets for himself. And therefore we cannot assume that verse 23 was a simple statement, a simple statement. Undoubtedly, he too (even primarily he!) serves a common goal. Which one exactly? Let's take a closer look: the Apostle says that God: 1) resurrected Christ, i.e., distinguished Him from the ranks of all other creatures that do not resurrect; 2) he placed above all, that is, he proved by deed that he singled out, clearly revealed His superiority; 3) he put it all under His feet, that is, he forced it all to recognize the revealed superiority of Christ; 4) made him the Head of the Church over everything. Here there is undoubtedly an intensification, a climax, and the Apostle puts forward more and more powerful moments in order to convince the reader of the main idea of ​​his argument. But it might seem unclear what the difference is between putting everything under the feet of Christ and making Christ the Head over everything. It is this difference that is made clear by verse 23, which defines what the Church is. Everything is subjugated to Christ, everything is under His feet. But this is precisely conquest, that is, something violent, external. God wants to completely overcome everything. He means to “lead everything in heaven and on earth through Christ” (Eph. 1:10), and therefore it is not enough for Him that everything should only be subjugated to Christ. What is needed is an organic connection, not a mechanical subordination. The Church serves as the guarantee of the first. God, says the Apostle Paul, made Christ the head of the Church, that is, that means he made the Church internally connected with Christ. The latter is expressed in the words: “for the Church is His body, completely filled with His grace-filled powers” ​​544, that is, it exists in complete, not only external, but internal dependence on Christ - the Head. This means being the body of the Head, as well as vice versa: that is why He is the Head, because the Church is such as the Apostle describes it (the Body). In confirmation of this understanding, we can refer to the authority of John Chrysostom and Ecumenius, who say that the Apostle adds: “... Which is His body,” so that someone, hearing the word “Head,” would not understand it in the sense of “Chief,” “power,” but would understand it in its own sense; in other words, the said addition was made to show the “kinship and closeness” of the Church to Christ 545 and the height to which the Church is exalted 546. It follows that verse 23b (that is, the sentence beginning with ἥτις 547 548), placed at the end of the argument, has a central place in meaning, for it contains the key to the entire argument. This is its essential, irreplaceable significance, which ultimately all comes down to the word ἐστὶν 549 in Art. 23b. This most important bond cannot be fragile, this ἐστὶν cannot have a metaphorical meaning. It necessarily follows from everything preceding that ἐστὶν has a real, literal, metaphysical meaning 550. Eucharistic formulas (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24), grammatically identical with the definition being analyzed, are recognized by the Church as metaphysical, and not metaphorical; the non-metaphorical meaning in them ἐστὶν was the main basis in the polemics with the Protestants (1:43–44). In addition to all the direct requirements to understand this ἐστὶν in Eph. 1:23 as an expression of metaphysical truth, as a genuine “is”, and not just as a “like” - in addition to these direct requirements, we would have to do this for simple consistency, so as not to violate the Orthodox teaching on the Eucharist. Yes, there is a deeper connection here than a purely formal connection between the two “ἐστὶν”. The Eucharist stands in the closest mystical relation to the Church*; one might even say that the “Sacrament of Body and Blood” is one of the moments of common church life. It would be incomprehensible how the Church, which is not the Body of Christ, but only similar to it, can be an organ for performing one of its functions (the Eucharist), which is infinitely higher than it. And at the same time, it would turn out that each of the believers who partake of the Holy Body and Blood and assimilate them is higher than the Church. Until now, wanting to preserve the integrity of the reasoning, we have not diluted it with philological analysis, although we have not relied on it silently. However, it is not superfluous to give the hitherto implied analysis of the word ἥτις. The word ὅστις or ὅσ-τις (feminine – ἥτις) has its main meaning: whoever, whoever, qui aliquis, welcher einer. But for the most part (especially in later times, and almost always in the New Testament language) ὅστις 551 has more special meanings, among which we will note two as the most common and at the same time the most deviating from the main one. 1. ὅστις, which generally has an indefinite meaning, in the New Testament often (Grimm (62:313) indicates 34 cases) “refers to a specific object (but in such a way that it is thereby subsumed under the underlying general concept” (61:263) 552 and has the meaning: some which, some which, ciner der, einer welcher – “ad unam quidem personam vel rem referiur, sed ita ut respiciatur ad universam notionem vel classem ad quam haec una persona vel res pertinent eoque modo qualitas indicetur; (von der Art wie; ein solcher, welcher)” (62:313). 2. “In ὅστις there may also be an indication of the basis, for he, since he, like the Latin ut qui, quippe qui” (62:313) 553. “Usui jam illustrato (see 1) finitimus esdt, qua reddendae rationi inservit: tales quiquippe qui, ut qui” (61:264) 554 . Thus, the indefinite ὅστις (of basic meaning) receives the essential or causal meaning of the specified particular cases, that is, it acquires the character of a term. – In the first case, he establishes the individual object in its essence; in the second - in its relationship with some consequence flowing from it. It is clear that both of these partial meanings are not mutually exclusive. This “argumentative” (57:374) 555 meaning of ὅστις is especially emphasized in Rom. 16:3 ff. 556 by means of the adjacent ὅς 557, and ὅστις or ὅς is placed depending on whether a simple statement needs to be made or a characteristic must be given (66:109). Therefore, used in Eph. 1:23 the pronoun ἥτις cannot be translated simply “which,” for it contains an explanatory point to the previous one, as in Rom. 2:14–15. To highlight this explanatory point contained in ἥτις, one can rightfully add “precisely” in the translation: “which, precisely (quae quidem), is His body” (39:328). The entire sentence is constructed “argumentierend”, similar to Col. 2:23; 3:5, etc. (57:374). “Ἥτις emphasizes the ἐστὶν that follows it, puts logical emphasis on it. The latter with ἥτις indicates either the essentiality of the entire phrase, or its causality, or both together, so that it establishes not the accidental similarity of the Church with τὸ σῶμα, but the identity of the essence here and there, which is the reason that Christ is the Head not in the metaphorical, but in the true sense. Christ is the Head, for the Church is a body, and the body is not in its accidental features, but in its essence; This means that Christ is the Head essentially, essentially, internally, and not accidentally and externally. By this, in fact, we consider the dogmatic-metaphysical significance of the analyzed text of Eph. 1:23. But now we will see a new basis for the same assertion. Having examined whether the connective ἐστὶν has existential meaning, we turn to the predicate of the entire definition, to τό σῶμα and to τό πλήρωμα 558. First of all, the term τό at σῶμα, as well as at its parallel πλήρωμα, attracts attention. A member with a noun is usually an individualizer, separating an object from a number of similar ones (66, 143 next), while without a member an object has the meaning of one of many, or the word is used as an abstract. But how to understand a term with a predicate? After all, generally speaking, with a predicate-noun and a predicate-adjective there is no member. However, under special circumstances, the opposite of this also happens. So, for example: οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων (i.e., who is known by this name; Mark 6:3); ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς (Matthew 5:13); ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (Matt. 5:14); (Matthew 6:22); σὺ εἷ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Matthew 16:16); σὺ εἷ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Mark 15:2); ἐγώ εἰμί ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή (John 11:25); further In. 1:4, 8, etc. (66:153) 559 . The meaning of the above passages is transparent: it is not talking about salt, light, etc. in general, not about some salt (cin Salz), etc., along with another salt, etc., but about what alone has or is available to have this name - about what carries in itself. the essence of those properties for which ordinary salt, ordinary light, etc. receive their name (66:153). So, τό σῶμα in Eph. 1:23b means: not one of those, not a body in general, but a body κατ’ ἐξοχήν, - a body that especially deserves this name, - a being that carries within itself the very principle of corporeality, - a body in the purest and most perfect form and sense, - an object that, to the highest degree, combines in itself everything for which individual bodies are called bodies - the body itself or, in one word, – Body. From here it is once again seen that Eph. 1:23b is not a metaphor, not a comparison of the Church with a body, but an ontological formula in which the very essence of corporeality is affirmed behind the Church (as opposed to external and accidental signs of similarity on which all sorts of likenesses are based and on which the current likenings of the Church, as a known society, to an organism are so often played) 560 . The Apostle speaks with all decisive emphasis and laconic energy, as if focusing all the reader’s attention on a small number of words: “The Church is the Body of Christ,” and the entire argument of Chapter 1 hangs on this statement. As said, the member τὸ, placed with the predicate, makes it clear that the Apostle does not want to talk about one of the signs of the Church (for example, about its invincibility), does not want to remain on its periphery, but delves into the very depths of its existence, into its metaphysical nature. That is why we said that the apostolic definition of the Church is an ontological definition, and not a metaphorical or accidental one. That this is so can be referred to one more circumstance. Of the eight cases where σῶμα stands as a subject (in the entire New Testament), only in two (1 Cor. 12:12; 12:20b) is it placed without a member, while in the other six - with a member. Of these, two (Col. 2:17:19) speak directly about the Body of Christ, and the other four (1 Cor. 12:12a, 14, 17, 20a) speak about the body in general, but in relation to the Body of Christ, meaning it, as well as the above-mentioned two cases of σῶμα - subject without a member. From here it is clear that σῶμα – the subject in general, and even more so meaning the Body of Christ, is placed with a member. But, in addition, we have three more cases of σῶμα - predicate. In two of them, namely: οἱ πολλοὶ ἕν σῶμά ἐσμεν (Rom. 12:5) and ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. 12:27) σῶμα-predicate stands without a member, whereas in ἥτις (ἡ ἐκκλησία) ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Χριστοῦ) ( Eph. 1:23). This is understandable. The first two places indicate an accidental sign of people - to be part of the Body of Christ (accidental, for a person can be deprived of it), while in the last the sign is no longer accidental, but constructive. What is an acquisition for a person is its very essence for the Church. This once again proves the ontology of the definition of the Church in Eph. 1:23. In the same emphasizing and intensifying meaning, the term at σῶμα is used with particular clarity by the Evangelists also in application to the Eucharistic Bread, and here the connection between the Church and the Eucharist is established (already once - Chapter III, § 2 - indicated briefly). We have the following places: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (Matthew 26:26) τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (Mark 14:22) (Luke 22:19) (1 Cor. 11:24). Everywhere with the predicate σῶμά there is a member τὸ, for we are not talking about the body in general, but about the body κατ’ ἐξοχήν, about the true Body. On the contrary, everywhere, namely in: …λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας (Matt. 26:26) … λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας (Mark 14:22) …καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας (Luke 22:19) …ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας (1 Cor. 11:23) – bread is called ἄρτος without a member, for this bread is before “thanksgiving” (which follows the act of taking and, in turn, precedes the Eucharistic “take, eat”) there is simply bread, one of the breads. After its consecration with the prayer of thanksgiving, during the recitation of the Eucharistic “take, eat” and when eating it, it is no longer simple bread, but bread par excellence, the Bread itself, ὁ ἄρτος - Bread, and we are convinced of this by comparing these passages with 1 Cor. 10:16–17 and John. 6:33–35, 41, 55, etc. Here it is said everywhere ὁ ἄρτος (with a member), and moreover, this ὁ ἄρτος is thought to be identical with τὸ σῶμα. True Bread = True Body. This refutes rationalistic objections that the Holy Scriptures do not contain the teaching of the Eucharist. So, combining everything that has been said, we come to the conclusion: the Church is (metaphysically, substantially, and not figuratively 561) the True Body of Christ. But what exactly is the Body, understood metaphysically? Let's see first if linguistics will give us anything. The Greek σῶμα - body apparently comes from the root of the Sanskrit ska, the Greek σῶς, which also underlies the words: σάος, σόος - healthy, whole; σῶος, σῶς – prosperous, healthy, saved; σῶκος – strong, healthy; σαόω, σώζω (or rather, σώζω) - I treat, heal, save; σω-τήρ – savior, healer. Therefore, comparing σῶμα with σωτήρ and with σώζω, we can say that these words relate to each other as the result or instrument of action (ἐνέργημα, effectis vis) to the agent (ὁ ἐνεργῶν, auctor) and to the process actions (ἐνεργέω). And since the ending τήρ is equivalent to the ending τής, then σῶμα: σωτήρ: σώζω = ποίμα: ποιητής: ποιέω = κτίσμα: κτίοστης: κτίζω κτλ 562. Russian word formation can also be drawn in parallel to Greek... (according to Khomyakov). Body from the Sanskrit root tal, til - to be full, fat 563 (i.e., according to ancient ideas, healthy, strong). Let us find out (1, 26, next; 60, 539–542; 64, 730–731; 61, 373; 62:417–418) now the word usage of σῶμα. The eigenvalue of σῶμα is probably the shell (from ska). Hence Homer uses it as a “lifeless body,” cadaver. Later writers use σῶμα to mean an animate body, seeing in it a “vessel of life” (60:539) and as such contrasting it with the soul - the contents, Ψυχή. In other cases (among the Apostle Paul and in later church literature) this dichotomous view of man gives way to a trichotomous one, and then it becomes possible to combine the concepts of σῶμα and ψυχή (σῶμα ψυχικόν) as not mutually exclusive. In other cases, σῶμα with or without the addition ανθρώπου means a person, an individual. For the holy fathers, σῶμα means substance or matter, from the combination of which with the soul the whole person consists; the dwelling place of the soul, every creation; cover and garment of the soul; a person, especially one who is subject to his master. Finally, the Greek σῶμα means all kinds of people united in a whole, corporate body or σωματεῖον, σωμάτιον. Looking at the above usage of σῶμα, we can draw some general conclusions. First of all, σῶμα is not thought of in itself, but as standing subordinate to a higher principle, for which σῶμα is a vessel, a shell, an instrument, a revelation, and without which σῶμα is only a corpse. Σῶμα is a passive principle, perceiving, having a source of action in another, but not self-acting, although it has reality. As such, it has the character of subordination and, because of this, is especially suitable for designating a slave who serves, as it were, as a body for his master. Marked by the trait of service, σῶμα naturally has an instrumental, instrumental purpose: it does not act, but through it an action is performed, and thus σῶμα becomes a revelation of internal power, as opposed to σάρξ, denoting the whole person (17, 1902, part II, 38:94) or corporeality on its material side (60:521–524), etc. The mediocrity of the body is especially clear from the words of the Apostle: “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, πρὸς ἓπαξεν" (2 Cor. 5:10). This διὰ is not sufficiently emphasized in ordinary translations 564 and denotes the mediation (Vermittelung) of actions through the body, so that the quoted text makes sense: “the means for which the body was to him” (60:540). From the fact that σῶμα primarily means the physical, visible, most tactile, so to speak, part of human nature, one has to see in it not an abstract something, not an abstraction, but a thing (in the broad sense) - something with objective existence. This side of σῶμα is represented with urgent energy by those cases where σῶμα means a totality, a whole, as, for example, τό τοῦ κόσμου σῶμα 565 566. The root word σῶμα (from σως) shows that σῶμα, being a tool, is an instrument aimed at the good, salvation, integrity, safety, protection of its owner and others. Let's combine the individual strokes marked in the meaning σῶμα. At the same time, we can characterize σῶμα as some real (as opposed to illusory, imaginary, verbal) being, which is an instrument, through (as opposed to being independent, self-sufficient, self-active and completely autonomous) salvation and in general any good (as opposed to an instrument of harm and all evil) for the whole being and, therefore, its individual organs, since they are connected with the whole organism (in the opposite of private goals and objectives that are separate from the general and integral ones, such as, for example, the selfish interests of individual organs). This is the metaphysical, most outlined grain of this, generally speaking, vague and ambiguous concept of σῶμα. The teaching about the Church was developed primarily by the Apostle Paul, and therefore it would be important to check the just revealed understanding of σῶμα as an instrument of the spirit and, therefore, the Body of Christ - the Church - as an instrument of Christ's Spirit, on the word usage of this Writer. We achieve this by comparing the corresponding 567 places where σῶμα is mentioned. In all these places, σῶμα has the meaning of an instrument, “and, moreover, such an instrument, through which believers are freed from everyday sorrows and misfortunes, healed from all bodily and mental ailments, cleansed from sins, become partakers of Christ’s holiness, in short: again live a true life in unity with God.” The formula: “The Church is the Body of Christ” means: “The Church is the saving instrument of Christ’s Spirit” or, in short, “the saving instrument of Christ” (1:27). This is the idea of ​​the Body of Christ with a certain rationalization. But its abstraction makes it quite easy to slip in inappropriate concrete content, which, apparently differing little from the proper one at the beginning, will necessarily deviate consciousness in a decidedly inappropriate direction as it intensifies. This substitution can be made on the basis of the relationship between the Church and believers. In order to better understand the attitude of the Church to believers and vice versa, let us examine exactly how the Holy Scripture qualifies the body of believers. The Apostle says: οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ (Rom. 12:5); ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν (1 Cor. 10:17); ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. 12:27), that is, “we, who are many, are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5); “we, many, are one body” (1 Cor. 10:17); “And you (believers) are the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27). It is remarkable that in all three cases it is not ἓν τὸ σῶμά, but simply ἓν σῶμά (without a member), from which it follows 568 that believers (ἡμεῖς σῶμά, ὑμεῖς) are not the Body itself (= Church), but only are involved in it - they join it, they enter into it, while it itself is something more than a simple body of believers 569. Believers are also the Body of Christ, but not essentially, not in themselves (per se); do not form and replenish it, but only enter into it, partaking of it. On the contrary, ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Χριστοῦ) (Eph. 1:23). So, it would be an extreme error against logic (not to mention faith) to repeat the syllogism that is made all the time: major: ἡ ἐκκλησία τὸ σῶμα τοὖ Χριστοῦ; minor: οἱ πιστοί = σῶμα τοὖ Χριστοῦ; ergo, conclusio: οἱ πιστοί = ἡ ἐκκλησία 570 - the syllogism is all the more tempting because philologically, according to the root word ἐκκλησία (see Chapter VII, § I), conclusio really turns out to be correct. The monstrosity of such an error becomes especially sensitive (and not only formally logically (quaternio terminorum), but also meaningfully) if we rewrite what was done in this form: πιστός κ = ἡ ἐκκλησία. It turns out that the mechanical application of “true” to “true” gives their sum a new metaphysical nature, makes them ἡ ἐκκλησία or, what is the same, τὸ σῶμα τοὖ Χριστοῦ. The point made about the absurdity of such a syllogism is sharply emphasized in 1 Cor. 10:16–17. Τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν (1 Cor. 10:16–17) - “Is not the bread that we break a communion of the Body of Christ? There is one Bread and we are many - one body; for we all partake of one Bread.” Here ὁ ἄρτος is juxtaposed side by side, i.e. ὁ ἄρτος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἀληθινός - “the true Bread from heaven” (John 6:33 ; cf. John 6:34, 35, 41, 55, etc.), bread primarily, which is the true Body of Christ (τὸ σῶμα τοὖ Χριστοῦ), Body primarily 571, and wholeness (οἱ πάντες) believers, who are also the Body of Christ (but no longer the Body Itself), but not a body in itself, but only a body through the participation of the True Body. The fellowship (κοινωνία) of the true Body makes the whole body of believers also the Body of Christ. To become the Body of Christ, believers need μετέχειν 572 in the Eternal, One Bread - Body. The massiveness of the concept Church-Body is protected from the attack of nominalism. But how can we concretely imagine what the Church is? If abstract characteristics are not enough for us, then we need to turn to the contemplation of the concrete, to experience. But, of course, sensory experience cannot reveal the essence of the Church - a mystical object at its very core and in all its manifestations. Therefore, only mystical experience can satisfy our desire. But here the boundaries of dogma end and the realm of asceticism begins. In order to understand the nature of the Church in this sense, it is necessary to live in a church atmosphere, to be a member of the Church 573. “Only he understands the Church,” says A.S. Khomyakov (4:63) - who understands the Liturgy.” А «вера не только мыслится или чувствуется, но, так сказать, и мыслится и чувствуется вместе; in a word, it is not knowledge alone, but knowledge and life.” “Truth does not lend itself to abstract concepts” (Excerpts from the work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, quoted from 1:68). Without setting out, however, to expound the patristic teaching about the Church, we will not multiply places like those cited. Да, в сущности говоря, свидетельствами и разъяснениями невозможно дать не знающему в личной своей жизни общения с Церковью конкретного представления о ней как о Теле Христовом. “Whoever leaves the Church, for him it ceases to be a community of believers forming the Body of Christ, but is only a religious community - no more, no less” (1:1956) 574. “Norunt fifeles corpus Christi, si corpus Christi esse non negligent” 575 576, says the blessed one. Augustine. But how would the Church present itself for a religious experience of the highest clarity? Holy Scripture does not directly say this. But an authoritative interpreter, Archbishop of Thessaloniki Nicholas Kavasila, known not only as a deep thinker and theologian, but also as someone who has experienced the truth of dogmas in life, gives the following important instructions. “The Church,” he writes, “is indicated by the mysteries, not as symbols, but as the members are indicated by the heart, like branches of a tree by the root and, as the Lord said, like branches of a vine: for here there is not only the sameness of name and not the similarity of likeness, but the identity of the deed, since the mysteries are the body and blood of Christ... If anyone could see the Church of Christ in the very form in which it is united with Christ and participates in His flesh, then I would have seen her as nothing other than the body of the Lord. For this reason, Paul writes: “...you are the body of Christ and receive part of it” (1 Cor. 12:27) 577. This is how the Church would be perceived in a mystical experience. “So, the Church is a completely new, special and unique being on earth (unicum), which cannot be accurately defined by any concept taken from worldly life” 578. This unicum can also be identified with the God-created Human Nature, fragmented in the Fall and gathered into His Body by the Lord Jesus Christ. “By this very action,” says Metropolitan Philaret (7:24–25) 580, “by which you entered into a union with the Greco-Russian Church, you are planted as a member in the body of Christ: isn’t it clear that in this visible Church the invisible body of Christ is mysteriously located, or, as it were, a part of this body, made up of believers of all times and places?” It is this relationship of the Body of Christ to believers that determines that the Lord, Adam from heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:47), can be called not only the God-man, but also Man-humanity (25:21), for the Body of Christ - the Church - is “typically realized” 581. As a “premium-religious” value (17, 1903, part II, 646) 582, the Church should not and cannot be considered as the result or natural product of exclusively human activity. The object of justification (as A. Ritschl teaches, perhaps, 583 (17, 1903, part II, 671)) is the Church - “Human Nature” - and the task of the individual is to acquire justification for himself through the mediation of the Church. But “to acquire justification” does not mean to be in the Church, or more precisely, to be considered a member of it, but it means to be included in the very Body of Christ. Holy Scripture (for example, 2 Tim. 3:5; Matt. 5:22, etc.) sharply distinguishes between these two cases, speaking about true membership in the Church and the evil one. “Ce sont deux choses fort differentes que d’être dans l’Eglise et d’être de l’Eglise” (26:172). 584 It cannot be otherwise, since believers join the Church, but do not constitute it in the true sense of the word (26:39); see Acts. 2:41–47. But, once “grafted into the Church,” believers are not something external to it. They are in the true sense assimilated into the Body of Christ, becoming its members. Therefore, not only they, individually, are in suffering and torment, but also the entire Body of Christ and, therefore, also His Head - Christ. The suffering of Christ is the suffering of the Church, and vice versa, the suffering of the Church and its members is the suffering of Christ. The Lord Himself said: “Abide in Me (that is, you, My disciples), and I in you” (John 15:4). This actually happened, for example, during the persecutions raised by Saul. Saul persecuted the members of the Church of Christ, as he himself testifies to this: thus, the Jewish churches heard that “he who persecuted them in time (Ὁ διώκων ἠμᾶς) is now preaching the good news” (Gal. 1:23); “You have heard...,” the Apostle addresses the Galatians, “that I cruelly persecuted the Church of God and devastated it.” αὐτήν, Gal. 1:13, cf. 1 Cor. 15:9); when Saul turned, “everyone marveled and said, “Isn’t this the same one who persecuted in Jerusalem those who called on this name (Christ), and came here for this purpose, to bind them and lead them to the high priests” (Acts 9:21: ὁ πορθήσας... τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο; αὐτοὺς), and Saul himself confesses that he “even persecuted the followers of this teaching to death, binding and delivering into prison both men and women” (Acts 22:4: τὴν ὁδὸν ἐδίωξα ἄχρι θανάτου, δεσμεύων καὶ παραδιδοὺς εἰς φυλακὰς ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας). But the Lord Jesus, who appeared to Saul on the way to Damascus, did not say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My Church?”, just as he did not say “why are you persecuting the members of the Church,” but said: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4) and then further explained: “I “Jesus, whom you persecute, Ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις” (Acts 9:5). And Paul repeats the first exclamation of Christ back in Acts. 26:14; 22:7, the second, explanatory, in Acts. 26:15; 22:8. So regarding suffering. It’s the same with prosperity. “He who receives you (Christ’s disciples) receives Me,” says the Lord (Matthew 10:40; John 13:20); “Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me” (Matthew 18:5). That is why the Lord will say: “I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted Me; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me” (Matthew 25:35–36), to those who “did it to one of the least of My (Christ’s) brothers,” because “they did it to Me (Christ)” (Matthew 25:40). On the contrary, those who did not do this to “one of the least” did not do it to Christ (Matthew 25:41–45). Many more similar places could easily be cited. But the above are sufficient for the general conclusion that the suffering and joys of the members of the Church are at the same time the sufferings and joys of the Church and Christ. Unless we want to turn this position into an empty metaphor, then it is inevitable to recognize that Christ, the Church and believers are connected by real (and not just moral) unity. On the contrary, the suffering of Christ is at the same time the suffering of the Church and its members, just as the glorification of Christ is the glorification of the Church with its members. This idea is revealed with particular force in the works of ascetics and is too well known to be worth dwelling on in detail. Who does not know that a believer must be crucified and die with Christ in order to be co-resurrected and co-glorified with Him? (Compare 1:141). “I bear the marks of the Lord on my body,” writes the Apostle Paul (Gal. 6:17); “But I do not want to boast,” he declares, “except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14); “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:19); “Do you not know,” he writes to the Romans, “that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?.. were buried with Him by baptism into death... we died with Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4:8), etc. Therefore, the Lord requires everyone who wants to follow Him to take up his cross (Matt. 10:38; 16:24) and be ready to the most severe sufferings and hardships (Matthew 20:23, 26–28; John 13:15:20), “to bear within you the deadness of the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:10; Rom. 6:6–8), so that, as Christ’s sufferings multiply in us, our consolation will also be multiplied by Christ (2 Cor. 1:5). “If we are the body of Christ,” teaches St. John Chrysostom 585, - then carry the cross, for He carried it too; endure spitting, strangling, piercing with nails: such was His body, although it was sinless.” Having clarified to a certain extent the concept of the Church as the Body of Christ, we return to the analysis of Eph. 1:23, because there is still an additional definition left that reveals the concept of the Church. This definition anticipates the results of exegesis - it reveals what and how the Body of Christ lives. This explanation is all the more necessary because Christ was previously called the “Head” of the Church. It is now necessary to explain exactly how He fulfills the function of “Head” and how noticeable His Divine-human nature is in church life. After all, the head itself is one organ among many, even if it is the first in importance, primus inter pares. But at the same time, it is the physical carrier of the mind in man, the beginning of the already superphysical, as if filling the entire body, all organs. Likewise, Christ, in his humanity being the head, as a separate organ, at the same time in his Divinity stands above, so to speak, organic categories and, like the soul, fills the entire Body. However, we don’t stop there for now, because we will have a chance to return to the same thing. Church, says Paul, - τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου (Eph. 1:23b) 586. These words, as recognized by all interpreters, are distinguished by a high degree of incomprehensibility, resulting from too much compression of speech, “they constitute a kind of exegetical crux and therefore are explained very differently” (39:330) 587. Western researchers (more on that below) see “Gnostic influences” here, and this further confuses the understanding of the text. And since a lot depends on its solution, we should not spare space for a detailed analysis of the mysterious words. “Keeping in mind their closest connection with the previous ones, it is most natural to assume that they constitute the closest definition: τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, i.e. The Church, being the body of Christ, is at the same time πλήρωμα and, namely, πλήρωμα of Christ - τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου. Therefore, it is impossible to accept the interpretation that the subject under πλήρωμα is Christ, and under τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου, and one gets the idea that Christ is πλήρωμα of the One who fills everything in everything” (39:330). (This is the interpretation of Erasmus, Wetshtenius, Meyer and others, who consider ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ to be an introductory sentence, and τὸ πλήρωμα κτλ directly related to αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν from Eph. 1:22.) (ibid., note 3). In the same way, it is difficult to consider the Church as a subject under πλήρωμα; and τοῦ... πληρουμένου cannot be attributed to God the Father, for, starting from the 20th verse, the face does not change and by αὐτοῦ we mean Christ. Another basis for the same statement (namely, the statement about the integrity of verse 23) can be the parallelism of the two halves of verse 23: Due to this parallelism, the subject for πλήρωμα and for σῶμα is the same concept; and since with σῶμα the subject is undoubtedly the Church, then the same should be said regarding πλήρωμα. The subject with τοῦ… πληρουμένου, as well as with αὐτοῦ, must mean Christ. Finally, the third basis for the same conclusion will be the parallelism of Eph. 1:23b with Eph. 4:10. The last place indicates (NB: in the same letter) the purpose of the “descent and ascension of Christ” as “so that he fills everything,” Ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα. From here it again follows that τοῦ... πληρουμένου implies Christ; and then τὸ πλήρωμα cannot be understood otherwise than as relating to the Church 588. This proves the integrity of verse 23. There is no doubt that in the 2nd part of the 23rd verse under consideration, the word πλήρωμα, which most closely defines the Church, has the most important meaning, and hence numerous attempts to clarify the meaning of this word are understandable. But exogeny, apparently, has exhausted philological means, and nothing truly indisputable and unshakable has ever been achieved. Neither the attempts (Robinson, Lightfoot, etc.), which based their research on the ending of the word under study in μα, nor the studies based on word usage, can 589 be considered decisive, and therefore, referring to sources 590, we will only briefly skim over the main points in the meaning of πλήρωμα. The word πλήρωμα, as well as the verb πληρόω, has a Sanskrit relative in the form of the word pool - to be great, to be in the collection, in a bunch - Russian fill up, full, regiment 591, whence the Latin populus, plenus, etc. The meaning of πληρόω also reveals the general content of πλήρωμα, but it is difficult to more accurately analyze the modus of this content. Generally speaking, by πλήρωμα we can mean: 1) in quod impletur seu impletum est; everything that is filled with something is replenished, that is, to see in πλήρωμα the form of the passive voice and the meaning of the real. So understood πλήρωμα – πεπληρωμένοι. Here the action of completeness is directed from the object that is placed in the genitive case. 2) id, quod implet seu id quo aliquid impletur; everything with which something is filled, i.e. then in πλήρωμα you need to see the form of the active voice, and the meaning - the passive voice. So it is clear πλήρωμα = πληροῦν. Here the action of completeness is directed to the object that is placed in the genitive case. 3) copia, abundantia; abundance, that is, one must consider πλήρωμα absolutely, as the result of an act, abstracted from the act itself. “The word πλήρωμα itself does not indicate either the real or the passive meaning, or the concrete or abstract nature of the subject” (55:31), and therefore, taken separately from other members of the sentence, cannot self-determine its meaning, which is formed only by the context 55:32). Consideration of πλήρωμα eo i 592 pso naturally shifts to consideration of the construction standing at πλήρωμα. The latter serves as a reagent for one or another coloring of the corresponding πλήρωμα. Considering examples like: πλήρωμα τῆς γῆς (1 Cor. 10:26; Ps. 25:1, etc.); πλήρωμα τῆς οικουμένης (Isa. 50:12; 88:12); πλήρωμα τῆς θαλάσσης (Ps. 96:11; 97:7); πλήρωμα δρακός (1 Chronicles 16:32; Eccl. 4:6), etc., we are convinced that it says that things fill the earth, the universe, the sea, a handful, etc. The action of completeness passes here to the earth, the universe, the sea, a handful, etc., and, therefore, their genitive case is the genitive case of the object. Πλήρωμα has the meaning of “in quod implet,” i.e., material completeness. Consequently, if the idea of ​​material completeness is connected with the word πλήρωμα, then the construction must certainly have the following form: πλήρωμα - the actual meaning, and the noun - the genitive of the object. On the contrary, in examples like: τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν... τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν (Rom. 11:12) τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rom. 11:25) πλήρωμα εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ (Fig. 15:29) πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος (Col. 2:9), etc. it is said that “they”, pagans, grace, Godhead, etc. fill. The action of fullness is not directed towards all of this, but from all of this, and the main attention is paid to the final result of filling; πλήρωμα means: quod impletur seu impletum est. Therefore, with this representation of completeness as a result (this is the reason why such πλήρωμα can be conveyed through the perfectum), the construction will be as follows: πλήρωμα is the actual meaning, and the noun is the genitive of the subject. Finally, the third case is when πλήρωμα has the meaning of πληροχτις (62, 355; 61, 303 ff.), i.e., the act of filling. Similarly (62:233) 593, καύχημα, θέλημα, ἴαμα, κήρυγμα, κλαῦμα, φρόνημα, γέννημα are sometimes used instead καύχησις, θέλησις, ἴαχτις, φρόνησις, γέννησις. So, for example, in the phrase: “Love does not harm one’s neighbor: therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law” - πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη (Rom. 13:10) - πλήρωμα has the meaning of fulfillment, observance 594, observatio (62:303), Beobachtung (61:303) and can therefore be rendered actio implendi 595. To understand what the construction should be for πλήρωμα in this case, let’s shorten the sentence: “you keep the commandments” (John 14:15). For the abbreviation to be correct, i.e., for the indication of the process to be preserved, it is necessary to say: “your fulfillment of the commandments” or “your fulfillment of the commandments.” The action moves from the subject (“you”) to the object (“commandments”). Thus, the construction with πλήρωμα will have a new form: πλήρωμα of real meaning, and with it there are two genitive cases - subject and object. So: “1) when the word πλήρωμα expresses material completeness, the construction takes the following form: πλήρωμα has a real meaning and requires a genitive object after itself; 2) when expressing the result of filling through πλήρωμα, the construction is completely different: πλήρωμα has a passive meaning and requires a genitive subject after itself; 3) when expressing the process of filling with the word πλήρωμα, a construction different from the first two is used: πλήρωμα in the real meaning and two nouns - genitive object and subject” (55:34). The question comes down to what kind of construction stands at πλήρωμα. But resolving this issue is not so easy. However, in order for the specific meaning of this or that decision to be clear, we will run through a parte priori 596 the main types of exegesis for a given passage of Eph. 1 :23b. Moreover, the whole misfortune is that each interpretation, correct or not from the textual side, is not absolutely unacceptable in meaning and is not even excluded by the meaning of the others. Bishop Theophan declares: “These words are somewhat obscure and give different thoughts” (42:110), and after that he lists all possible interpretations (ibid., 110–114). The first of them, which results if we attribute πλήρωμα to Christ, we have already rejected. With him “there will be such a thought: God has given such a head to the Church that is above all; for it itself is the fullness of divinity, the fullness of Him who fills everything with Himself” (ibid., 110). The second understanding, if we relate πλήρωμα to the Church, is twofold, depending on who is meant by ὁ πληρούμενος - God the Father or Jesus Christ. “If God the Father or the Divinity in general, then the thought will be this: God fills everything, but does not fill the souls and hearts of fallen people; for they closed themselves to Him. By faith in the Lord Jesus Christ they are opened, and the Divinity enters into them and fills them. All believers make up the Church and, having been filled with God, make it filled with Him. This is how the blessed one understands. Theodoret" (ibid., 110–111). If by ὁ πληρούμενος Jesus Christ, then the entire 2nd half of the 23rd verse will be a continuation of the 1st, explaining it, giving it further movement and application... St. Chrysostom says: “The Apostle considers the title of the chapter insufficient to show the kinship and closeness of the Church to Christ. – To show kinship and closeness... that is, to show that in the Church and Christians everything is Christ’s. She is full of Christ; He fills it entirely, in its entire composition and in all its members in parts - and in it and in its members He fulfills everything. In this case, these words can be translated as follows: I am His Body, His fullness, fulfilling everything in all (its members). His is the light of knowledge inherent in the Church, with which He fills the zealots of holiness. His are the benefactors, for which He fills the benefactors with love. His are all other spiritual gifts visible in the Church, for He fills with them those believers who are capable of receiving them. In the Church there is everything and Christ in all (Col. 3:11)” (ibid., 111–112). Πλήρωμα can also be understood as replenishment or replenishment. “In this case, the words of the Apostle will suggest that the Church complements Christ” (ibid., 112). How is this possible, Chrysostom explains: in verse 23, the last words “mean, the Church is the fulfillment of Christ in the same way as the head is complemented by the body and the body is complemented by the head... You see, the Apostle imagines that for Christ, as the head, all the members are needed... His body is completely composed of all the members. And that means: only then will the head be fulfilled, when the perfect body is built” (ibid., 112). Ecumenius and Theophylact believe so. The latter writes: “... Christ is fulfilled, and, as it were, replenished with members through the believers; it is replenished with a hand in a merciful person, with a foot in one who goes out preaching or visiting the weak, with every other member in other believers” (ibid., 112-113). Finally, Bishop Theophan himself writes: “The Church is the fulfillment of Christ, perhaps, just as a tree is the fulfillment of the seed. What is briefly combined in the seed appears in full development in the tree. And Christ the Lord said about Himself: if a grain of wheat falls on the ground and dies, it produces much fruit (John 12:24). After His death, resurrection and ascension, in what abundance believers began to cleave to Him; and until then He seemed to be alone. – And exactly – humanity, saved and deified in the Lord Jesus Christ, and one, combines everything. But since it is not for itself, but for people, then while it is alone, it still seems to be incomplete, since that for which it is such has not yet been fulfilled. The cleaving of believers to Him fulfills what it is for, and thereby completes it. Since believers are the Church, it turns out that the Church is the completion of Christ - His head. In Himself He is complete and all-perfect; but has not yet fully attracted humanity to Himself. It gradually communicates more and more with Him and through this, as it were, replenishes Him, allowing His work to come through this to the fullness of fulfillment” (ibid., 112-113). In essence, Western scientists do not leave the circle of these interpretations. some of their historical considerations, regardless of their correctness or incorrectness, do not change the dogmatic content of the passage under discussion. It is only important to note that πλήρωμα, according to Holtzmann (30, II, 240–244), in many places is like a terminus technicus 597, which does not require explanation for readers, and due to the loss of its exact meaning, it now extremely complicates our understanding - the understanding of people of modern times. The easiest way, according to the same theologian, is to understand πλήρωμα as it was understood in Gnostic circles (30, I, 481–483; 32, II, 219) 598 (i.e. in the ontological sense). But the big question is whether πλήρωμα also has ethical significance; at least Eph. 3:19 we cannot understand “in the sense of an ethical ideal,” as Holtzmann believes (30, II, 242). Let us note by the way that the idea of ​​Western scholars about the parallelism of πλήρωμα between Paul and the Gnostics cannot be considered non-Orthodox, for the Gnostics, quite possibly, borrowed this terminus technicus from the Apostle and gave it a slightly different content. This or that understanding of πλήρωμα, being significantly different for understanding the text, does not make significant differences in its dogmatic content. In fact, each of the possible solutions logically entails, like conclusions, everything else. Let us begin with what, as will be subsequently proven, is textually more correct, namely, with the fact that the Church is τό πλήρωμα, for it is filled with the grace-filled powers and energies of Christ. But the grace-filled powers of Christ are not something external to Himself, but the discovery and revelation of His nature, the actual revelation of what was intended to be revealed in the Church. This is the messiahship of Christ in its expanded form, which before its discovery was only a potential, for if Jesus is the Son of God in relation to the Father, then the Messiah is in relation to humanity. And if so, then the Church, so to speak, imbued with the powers of Christ, is, of course, the completion of the Lord, a complement to Him as the Messiah, and the world is a complement, a complement to the Divinity as the Creator. 599 After all, any actual revelation of a certain potency and inner power always serves as its replenishment; the artist, of course, did not depend on his creation, but nevertheless it replenishes him. Likewise, the Church, filled with the inner fullness of Christ, is itself a replenishment of Him, especially since the main features of its Filler, His inner content, are imprinted on it in an open form. But this is not enough. Christ’s fullness is God’s fullness, and in this sense we will have to repeat everything that was said about Christ about God the Father. Then the Church will have to be considered as being filled with the Father and at the same time completing Him (in the above-revealed sense). And finally, since Christ is “filled” with Divinity, then we can say about Him that He is the completion of Divinity. Consequently, all interpretations have their place, and having established one of them, eo ipso, we establish all the others. The rest is not important for dogmatics 600. In any case, if only we begin to attribute πλήρωμα to the Church, and ὁ πληρούμενος to Christ, then this will establish “a relationship of mutual conditionality between Christ and the Church” (32, II, 219), due to which the Church will be filled with Christ and complemented to Christ at the same time. The connotation of the word πλήρωμα is indeterminable outside the constructions of the word being parsed. Therefore, the next step (after πλήρωμα) is to resolve the issue of collateral πληρουμένου. But since the verb πληρόω can form both participium medii and participium passivi 601 in this form, the question posed, in turn, forces us to turn to what depends on πληρουμένου - τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. Robinson (see 55:36) sees in it an adverbial expression equivalent to the English all in all and meaning entirely - something like an intensified παντάπασιν. With this understanding, πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν is a “stereotypical adverbial expression” in which both parts have merged into one inseparable whole. And if Robinson is right, then πληρουμένου has the meaning of the passive voice. But the numerous cases of this combination, and, moreover, slightly varying (1 Cor. 15:28; 16:6), shows that we are not dealing with a “stereotypical expression,” but with a terminus technicus. In (τὰ) 602 πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός (Col. 3:11) the union καὶ testifies to the independence of each member, and the expression τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα (1 Cor. 9:22) convinces even more of the independence of these sayings and their own strength. So in Eph. 1:23b must be taken apart separately τὰ πάντα (win. fall.) and ἐν πᾶσιν (Dan. with sentence) (55:35). First of all, how to understand τὰ πάντα? If this is an accusative relationship, then πληρουμένου is of the passive voice, but if τὰ πάντα is the accusative of the direct object, then πληρουμένου is of the middle voice. But τὰ πάντα cannot be understood in the first sense and, therefore, cannot be translated through the phrase “in relation to everything.” In fact, the pronoun πᾶς without a member has a general indefinite meaning everyone, everyone (not each individual, like ἕκαστος, but any), and then only πάντα (without a member) is used in the form of an accusative relation. Ὁ πᾶς means all, every single one, exclusively all and “opposes the whole or the totality of its parts”; from ὁ πᾶς there cannot be an accusative attitude 603. This distinction between πάντα and τὰ πἀντα is illustrated by the following examples: τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος Eph.1:11) ὁ... Θεός ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν (1 Cor. 12:6) τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου (Eph.1:23b) αὐτὸς διδοὺς πᾶσι ζωὴν καὶ πνοὴν καὶ τὰ πάντα (Acts 17:25b), i.e. “Himself giving to everyone life and breath and everything.” ἴνα ᾖ ὁ Θεός πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν (1 Cor. 15:28b) πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός ( Col. 3:11b) Κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω (1 Cor. 10:33), i.e. “and I please everyone in everything.” So, τὰ πάντα means a totality, wholeness, completeness of something, most closely defined in the words ἐν πᾶσιν. At the same time, τὰ πάντα is certainly an accusative direct object. And since this word does not depend either on the expression ἐν πᾶσιν, or on τὸ πλήρωμα, it remains to admit that it depends on the participle πληρουμένου. Consequently, τοῦ πληρουμένου is a middle voice participle and must be translated through the active form with the addition of “to oneself,” i.e., “for execution, for realization, for the implementation of one’s plans, one’s intentions” (62:354) 604. The difference between this expression and τὰ πάντα lies primarily in the absence of the member τοῖς, which, in contrast to τὰ πάντα, indicates something partial—rather, many rather than all, and in any case, everything (or many) that is incomplete and lacks unity. Τὰ πάντα is plurality that has become complete and united, all-unity 605 (as indicated by the neuter gender), while ἐν πᾶσιν is only multiplicity, without the character of unity, in its opposition to all-unity and completeness. But the question is what kind of ἐν πᾶσιν it is - middle or masculine. If the first is true, then ἐν πᾶσιν has a cosmic character, if the second is social. Almost all researchers speak for the masculine gender, and it is confirmed by parallel passages (1 Cor. 12:6; 15:28; Col. 3:11), where ἐν πᾶσιν, included in combination with πάντα, implies believers and, therefore, is in the masculine gender. From here it is clear why ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν was not stated: the number of members of the Church is not something fixed, unchangeable and complete; it essentially grows and must grow, never (in this century) becoming complete. Тут возникает ещё вопрос, поднятый некоторыми толковниками (см. 55:37), не имеет ли ἐν πᾶσιν инструментального значения, т. е. «чрез посредство всех, многих» (dativus instrumentalis) 606 . It is necessary to find out whether “everything” is a tool for filling “everything” or a place for this “everything”. G. Dumsky (55:37) comes to the conclusion that “the New Testament construction of the verb πληροῦμαι in the dative case with ἐν expresses the idea that the object denoted by it is a container of filling, an area of ​​action, etc.,” i.e., he sees in πᾶσιν a dative container. But Dumsky’s argumentation (which is also approved by Prof. Bogdashevsky (39:337)) is untenable, because it is twice based on a misunderstanding: firstly, the passages he cites (except John 17:13): Col.1:9, 2:10, 4:12; Eph.5:18 (according to the best manuscripts, however, there is a different verb here: πεπληροφορημένοι), apparently, they have ἐν with the dative case not as with the dative of the container, but as with the dative of the person (dativus auctoris) with an instrumental connotation, and so considers the matter, for example, Kremer (60:503). Secondly, and mainly, in all the given places the passive voice is used, and not the general (medium), so it would be unfair to conclude about the meaning of ἐν with the dative in the general voice on the basis of the examples offered. But, being wrong in his argumentation, Mr. Dumsky is right in his basic position (not affected by criticism of the argumentation) that ἐν with the dative case has a local character. This can be clarified through a consistent comparison of Eph.1:23; Eph.4:13; Col.2:9, at the same time resolving the question of the meaning of πλήρωμα. Identical texts (see § VI): τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦπληρουμένου (Eph. 1:23) and τὸ πλήρωμα Χριστοῦ ( Eph.4:13) have their resolution in the words of the Apostle σωματικώς (Col.2:9) 607, where ἐν αὐτῶ (in Christ) has undoubtedly a local meaning and refers to τὸ πλήρωμα. The action of filling comes from God and is directed towards Christ, whereby He is τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος. The container of filling is indicated here through ἐν with a dative, from which we conclude that in Eph.1:23b ἐν πᾶσιν denotes the container of filling, “The words ἐν πᾶσιν cannot mean either “in all things” 608, or “everywhere”, or “all” (in the instrumental meaning): especially the last interpretation, that Christ fills the entire universe through everything, does not give thought” 609. To unite everything that has been said about τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, it is useful for us to compare Eph. 1:23 with Col. 3:11, where the Apostle says that πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός, - literally: “everything and in everyone is Christ” 610. Christ is everything in all believers (or more broadly, in all rational creatures), is depicted in every spiritual movement of them, but exists only insofar as each of them used and accepted that church filling (πάντα) that the Filler gave to their very being (τὰ πάντα). Col. 3:11 examines the unfinished Christianization of all life in unfinished, “leaking” humanity, that is, the process of Christianization going into the depths of the individual and into the breadth of humanity, an increase in Christian consciousness both in intensity and in extensiveness. On the contrary, Eph. 1:23 speaks of what is given to each of the believers (their number is incomplete), and therefore a complete, complete renewal of the very secrets of man, so to speak, of his whole, complete core. The entire inner being in every believer is filled and sealed with Christ, says Eph.1:23. Much, but not everything in every person from his life, from the empirical discoveries of his being, is filled and sealed by Christ, says Col. 3:11 611. Having analyzed the entire text of Ephesians 1:23 piece by piece, we now have the opportunity to finally determine the meaning of the word πλήρωμα (55, 46–47). For this purpose, let us replace τοῦ πληρουμένου with its equivalent τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Then τὸ πλήρωμα, having become dependent on πλήρωμα, will pass into the form of the genitive case, so that the construction τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν πάντων τοῦ will be obtained Χριτοῦ ἐν πᾶσιν. The genitive case of the object perceiving the action (τῶν πάντων) together with the genitive case of the acting subject (τοῦ Χριτοῦ), standing depending on τὸ πλήρωμα, finally reveal the long-sought construction. It turns out that we are dealing with the third case (see § VI) of the construction, namely, when πλήρωμα refers to the filling process. The thought of Eph.1:23b can therefore be translated as: “the fulfillment of all things in all who believe by Christ,” or, more distantly: “The life of Christ (and only Christ) in recreated people.” “The eternal life of the Church in Christ is its everlasting property,” says Dumsky (55, 50–51). – Its development is not something new, not given by Christ, but is the realization of the ideal that was given to it in Christ. Each new moment of its development also has grace-filled powers in Christ the God-Man, the head of the Church. Grace completely belongs to the body of Christ, and each member of it assimilates it to himself in order to develop in himself a constant Christian disposition. This is a condition for constant residence in the body of the Church, and since a person is not involved in grace, he leaves the body of Christ. The general life activity of the body-Church, performed by Jesus Christ, is the organic embodiment of this ideal and the bestowed grace in its actual members. Being by its very foundation a living organism, the Church always remains a living organism, creating for itself the ideal of the fullness of Christ, and will forever remain such a vital body of Christ, depending on the eternity of the ideal itself.” “So, the beginning and continuation of the Church is a process of new life developing in people and the ideal of the God-man being realized in them. In this sense, the Apostle Paul called the Church fullness—the “fulfillment” of Christ. It is the developing life in all members through Christ, in Christ and by Christ. This name does not denote all its sides, but indicates only one - its constant process of development, which began with the suffering of Christ and has to continue until its endless ideal in Christ.” With this understanding of πλήρωμα, other interpreters say (see 55:46), a tautology results. It seems as if “the Church is fullness with those who fill it,” and the definition of this fullness is pure pleonasm. This consideration is based, however, on an insufficient look at the text, which obviously reads: πλήρωμα τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου (when it is truly pleonastic) instead of τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ. As stated earlier (§ III), the member of the predicate establishes the exclusive affiliation of the predicate to the subject. In this case, he gives the meaning that the Church is fullness κατ’ ἐξοχην, essential fullness, and not accidental - fullness in essence, and not in communion. In short, the Church is not one of the plenitudes, but the Plenitude Itself. This is the first thing. Secondly, there is a term τοῦ with πληρουμένου. A member with an independent participle and not related to a name or a pronoun is found quite often (66, 153:37) and in this case means that the action of filling is not simply assigned to the subject of the action (Christ), but is imputed to Him as something essential for Him, and specifically for Him 612. In other words, the however, it is also clear from the parallelism of τοῦ πληρουμένου with αὐτοῦ. This is made all the more obvious because τοῦ πληρουμένου does not stand alone, but with τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, which most closely determines the activity of τοῦ πληρουμένου, and the better the expressiveness of the substitution of τοῦ Χριστοῦ through τοῦ πληρουμένου is highlighted. So, it finally turns out: τὸ πλήρωμα (fullness par excellence, a unique fullness of energies and forces, and therefore imprinting essential features) τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου (i.e. Christ, the One Whose body is and Who is the Head of the body). “The entire apostolic expression,” says Dumsky (55:46), “will through this contain the following thought: Christ generally cares about everything in the world, but especially about the Church, which, because of this, is the center of world development.” “Thus, in the apostolic expression there is no tautology, but the deepest expression of the communion of Christ and believers” (ibid., 47) and, therefore, the ontological character of the entire definition is all the more definitely noted. Having defined the Church as the Body of Christ (Eph.1:23a), i.e. in its static moment, the Apostle then defines it in a dynamic moment, as the Life of Christ. The first characterizes the Church, so to speak, from the anatomical side; the second – from the physiological side. The synthesis of both gives a complete picture of an Organism, the energy of life of which comes from the All-Supreme Head - Christ. Chapter Four. Basic properties of the Church Having understood the dual nature of the Church, we then gave a definition of the Church as an Organism, the vital energy of which comes from the central organ, Christ the Head. Now it is necessary to more deeply reveal the dual unity of this Organism, how it captures the very process of church life, and then, based on what has been discovered, note those essential features of the life process that are necessarily and inevitably imprinted on every moment of it. The starting point for our considerations is Ephesians 4:15–16 613, which reads: [τὸν Χριστόν] τὰ πάντα, ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστός, ἐξ οὔ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαξόμενον διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἐυὸς* ἐκάστου μέρους τήν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἐαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη, i.e., according to the Slavic translation 614, “those who are true in love, let us grow into him in every way, of whom Christ is the head, from whom the whole body is composed and articulated by every touch of giving, according to the action in the measure of each one part - the return of the body creates into the creation of itself through love.” The Russian (Synodal) translation reads as follows: “(so that we) through true love may grow all things into Him who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body, which is composed and joined together through all kinds of mutually fastening ties, through the action of each member to its own measure, receives an increase for building itself up in love” (Eph. 4:15–16). Similarly, Khomyakov conveys it (4:392): “truthful in love, let us grow everything into Him who is the head, into Christ, from Whom the whole body, agreeing and harmonizing in every abiding connection, by the activity of power commensurate with each member, produces the growth of the body self-created in love.” Despite the considerable exegetical difficulties 615 presented by this text, its general meaning is quite clear: the Apostle wishes to consider the growth of the ecclesiastical Organism, drawing its strength from Christ the Head; This is the main idea of the quoted text Eph.4:16, which becomes especially clear when compared with Col.2:19: διὰ τῶν άφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαξόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, i.e. “... not holding on to the head, from which the whole body, being united and held together by joints and bonds, grows by the age of God.” The introductory thought is contained in the words: πάσης 616 τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἐυὸς ἐκάστου μέρους (Eph.4:16a), or in the words: διὰ τῶν άφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαξόμενον (Col.2:19), most closely develops the definition of the Church given in Eph.1:23b. Let's deal with that first. Πᾶν τὸ σῶμα points to the Church Body in its totality, to an internally unified and integral being. The Apostle qualifies this body as συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαξόμενον 617 - predicates that differ only in shade and in their general meaning indicate the unification of a certain plurality into unity, and Moreover, not mechanical, but organic. This unification is conceived not as a dead self-identity, but as a living process, as can be seen from the present tense of their participle form 618. “Consequently, the body is, of course, not completely formed, not brought into a completed form, but continues to form. There is a constant change of elements in it, renewal of existing ones and the introduction of new ones” (2, 143–144). Perhaps a similar thought is contained in the text. But, in any case, here we must also take into account the eternal self-renewal of the Church, understanding it as a supra-temporal activity, as eternal life, and not just the progressive forward movement of the Church in time. The difference between both sayings is as follows: συναρμολογούμενον, coming from ἁρμός - member, joint, connection and combination of joints (in speech about a body) or individual sides (in speech about a building), indicates the articulation of something, i.e. bringing into connection, into a connection of something dismembered (in Eph. 2:21 it is used in relation to the structure of a building) (2:144); the verb συναρμολογεῖν means: to bind, connect, adjust, coordinate one thing with another (39:659). Another of the predicates, συμβιβαξόμενον, comes from the verb συμβιβάξειν, generally speaking meaning to bind together, to copulate; when applied to people, it expresses affirmation, strengthening friendship, community. This word refers primarily, if not exclusively, to people (2:144) 619 . Between συναρμολογούμενον and συμβιβαξόμενι ς some exegetes tried to establish various differences, but without dwelling on these unsuccessful attempts 620, we will point out one that actually takes place. Первый из предикатов имеет более физический характер, употребляясь о вещах; the second is moral, as relating to people. Thus, the first predicate establishes primarily the connection of the members of the Church with each other, their organic unity; the second is their freedom, their moral recognition of this connection (2, 144–145). Therefore, the second predicate is a strengthening of the first (39:560), but not a grammatical strengthening, but a logical one, since it introduces a new moment of free unity into the concept of unity. Thus, “The Apostle thinks of the Church as a single harmonious organism, consisting of countless independent living members or parts... These members are personal beings, living an independent life. By entering into the society of the Church, entering into a close connection with other members, that connection which forms a single, strictly harmonious body, they, however, are not destroyed personally; live and act here as living beings, without enslaving their personality to another system, another life. Here they encounter a certain law that governs the life of the Church, to which they, as members, are unconditionally subject; but at the same time they are not deprived of their moral freedom and independence... The Church of Christ, while reviving man, does not recreate his being. The ineradicable properties of his personality and individual nature remain indestructible, but only they are given a new beginning, a new principle, which gives a new correct direction to a person’s entire life. The Church, accepting into its composition various types and qualities of people, does not leave each of them as he was before consecration, but ennobles, revitalizes and elevates him, makes of each what she can make of him - in relation to a new, holy life in the society of believers in Christ. The being of a Christian, imbued with new elements and the grace-filled forces of sanctification, feels in them the return to itself of those life-giving principles, the absence of which outside of Christianity tormented and destroyed his spirit. Having received them, the Christian feels that they are akin to and are completely applicable to the needs of the life of his being;... the Christian’s subordination to the order of life of the Church comes from the foundations of his moral being, striving for perfection, and therefore is a matter of free personal will, but not the fruit of automatic necessary fulfillment” (2, 145-146). The Body of Christ is a harmonious and harmonious whole. The following words (διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας) explain by what means this unity is achieved. But the interpretation of these words is quite difficult. Let us first turn to ἐπιχορηγίας. Χορηγεῖν (from χόρος and ἄγειν) and ἐπιχορηγεῖν actually mean: “to supply a choir for festivities at your own expense” (39:560). But at the same time, a certain qualification of this production is also given, because the supplying choir was, at the same time, its main manager, “... χόρος, gives the concept of a harmonious, in a certain way united into one whole. The derivative from χόρος – χορηγία means control of the choir. The preposition ἐπί in addition means on, above, on top. From there, χορηγία with the preposition ἐπί i.e. ἐπιχορηγία, gives the concept of the central control of the choir in one person, not directly belonging to the choir itself, but seemingly towering and ruling over it, controlling it. The management of the choir occurs in such a way that a certain wave of the director’s hand is immediately immediately communicated to all members of the choir and, communicating, gives each a known, corresponding direction of the voice. This act of transmission or communication from one person is suddenly communicated to the entire choir on the basis of some invisible mental connections connecting the manager with the entire choir and with each of its members individually. The choir has its own connections - whatever you call them - connections that unite individuals into one choir, through which, interlocking with each other, they are also interlocked with the leadership of the choir. Management is impossible without them. It is through these mental connections that a certain direction is transmitted from choreg to choir” (2, 151–152). Thus, ἐπιχορηγία is not just giving, but giving, which has the goal of harmonizing the whole, giving, which carries a reasonable meaning and leads to an ideal goal. As such, it is par excellence befitting the Divine. Indeed, its sacred use of words specifically implies the energy of grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is how this word is used in: Gal.3:5; 1 Pet.4:4; 2 Peter 1:11; Phil.1:19; 2 Cor.9:10. The holy fathers interpret it in the same way: Chrysostom (see 39, 560 ἡ χορηγία τῶν χαρισμάτων, Blessed Theodoret - τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος χαρισμάτ α (see ibid.). The Apostle says διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας. The word ἁφῆς has been and is being interpreted very differently, sometimes as “contact” (see 39:561), sometimes as “connection, juncurta, Ваnd, jointure, joint, meaning τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας either as a genitive of an object, or as a genitive of a subject (see 39:561), then - as feeling, perception, sensation, touch 621 - the understanding is predominantly patristic. But, if the first understanding is certainly excluded (being intransitive, ἁφή cannot explain the genitive case that follows it), then the second and third are not at all mutually exclusive. Of these, the second is more correct philologically, but it logically entails the third. The true path to understanding is revealed through a comparison of the words in question with the parallel ones in Col. 2:19, namely: First of all, attention is drawn to the unity of gender for the words ἁφαὶ and σύνδεσμοι, revealed by the commonality of the member τῶν. But σύνδεσμος are ligaments that connect different parts of the body, joints, muscles (39, 563; 41:130), why by ἁφαὶ we must mean something homogeneous in function with σύνδεσμο i.e. some kind of tissue that makes it possible to transfer nervous energy from the head through one organ to another. It is most convenient to interpret ἁφαὶ as nerves, especially since they are naturally associated with the idea of ​​the very flow of nervous energy that organizes and centralizes the life of the entire body. Through the nerves, individual organs seem to feel or touch the many different (πάσης) gifts of the Spirit (39:563), and since the main thing is not the transmitting nerves, but the transmitted energy and the “touch” of it, it is natural that the holy fathers, studying the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, paid primary attention to these latter. At the same time, shortening the quoted text of Col. 2:19 “(the whole body) being joined and fastened by joints and bonds” into “(the whole body) united through joints and fastening bonds,” we are convinced that the word επιχορηγίας is the genitive case of the object, for they actually fasten ἁφαὶ. Therefore, the text in question, Eph. 4:16, must be interpreted in the sense that the life-giving and organizing energy distributed through the nervous system of the Church (by which we can mean both certain individuals, and certain church offices, teachings, rituals, etc.) is the cause of the unity and integrity of the entire Church Body. “Recognizing this interpretation as prevailing,” says Bishop. Theophan (41:131), - let us not have any difficulty in understanding it allegorically. The system of bones with muscles, which determines the structure of the body, in the Church of God corresponds to its visible structure: under the Apostles and prophets, shepherds and teachers of the Church stand all Christians, each with a special gift for the benefit of the Church; “Everyone is connected by mutual subordination, love and zeal for the common spiritual good.” “As there are joints in the body, then in the composition of the Church there are apostles, prophets and teachers,” says Blessed. Theodorite. The nutritional system in the Church corresponds to all the ways in which the knowledge of revealed truths and the outpouring of divine grace are communicated to believers, mainly the preaching of the word of God and the divine sacraments. They provide that which alone can nourish the Church and grow with the growth of God, namely: grace and truth. The nerves emanating from the head and penetrating and stimulating the whole body are Christ the Lord Himself, Who holds both the composition of the body of the Church and permeates it with life-giving power. Blazh. Theodoret writes: “Just as in the body the brain is the root of the nerves, and through the nerves the body receives sensation, so the body of the Church receives from the Lord Christ both the sources of teaching and the instrument of salvation.” But then a natural question arises: does this “supply” of vital energy occur, so to speak, with pressure, forcibly forcing the organs to function? But such functioning is not life, but a kind of mechanism. Therefore, it is natural to expect a negative answer to the proposed question. The Apostle says that ἐπιχορηγία occurs κατ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἐυὸς ἐκάστου μέρους. These words are explained by Eph.4:7 (“grace has been given to each of us according to the measure of the gift of Christ”) and Eph.4:11: (“He appointed some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers”) and mean the same thing as κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογὶαν 622 , Rom.12:6, i.e. in proportion, according to the strengths and purpose of the members receiving the “giving” or, if we take the word μέρους in its literal meaning, parts of the body (39:564). Ένέργεια indicates the active participation of members or parts in the life of the whole; ἐνός ἐκάστου has the meaning of “decisively every part”, i.e. not one, even the most insignificant, is subjected to the violent influence of a gracious “supply”; everyone receives that, and only that, that is in accordance with the measure of her activity, that will not crush her freedom. The organs do not turn into a “scratching reed” in the hands of God, but their individuality, so to speak, blossoms under the influence of grace, and “the gifts of grace are, so to speak, grafted onto their personal qualities and gifts, elevating and perfecting them” (2:155). “Like a spirit,” says St. Chrysostom 623, - descending from the brain, not only communicates, through the nerves, sensitivity to all members, but - in accordance with each of them, and the one who is able to receive more, communicates more, and the one who is less, communicates less to him (for the spirit is the root of life), so does Christ. Since our souls are as dependent on Him as members are on the spirit, His providence and distribution of gifts, in accordance with the measure of one or another member, brings about the regeneration of each.” Let us now turn to the main idea of Ephesians 4:16: ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἐαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη 624, parallel to which are the words of Col. 2:19: ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σώμα ... αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ 625 . The words just discussed depicted, so to speak, the anatomy and physiology of the Church Body, and those words served as an explanation for those now cited and containing a description of the life of the Church, its growth, its purpose. From the grammatical side, there are no particular difficulties in these texts, and the pleonastic του σώματος in Eph. 4:16 is easily explained by the need to remind the reader what, in fact, we are talking about: τοῦ σώματος is placed, as it were, in parentheses. “It would be straightforward to say: from which the body creates its return, but the Apostle said: the body... the return of the body creates, because many intermediary thoughts were inserted and it is possible to lose who creates this return” (42:276). Further, the form ποιεῖται (and not ποιεῖ) indicates that the body has an internal life in itself (for the supply of grace occurs in proportion to the activity of each part), borrows nourishing juices for itself only in Its Head (ἐξ οὗ), and not from somewhere outside, from another source (39:565). This is also confirmed by the fact that the body αὔξησιν ἐν ἀγάπη: the body grows in love, in the activity of love on the part of each member, as stated in Art. 15: “(so that) through true love all may grow into Him who is the Head, Christ”; it would be wrong to attribute ἐν ἀγάπη to εἰς οἰκοδομήν, for love is not the goal of the Church, but only a condition for achieving the goal (39:564) 626 - the fullness of spiritual perfection, when the Lord will lead everything. Let us also pay attention to the verb αὔξει and the noun αὔξησιν. This verb in its proper sense is used in speech in relation to plants (Matthew 1) and has the basic meaning of an organic category, which can also be applied to people, to the people, to the word of God, to faith, to the increase of grace (see 2:51); (quotes here). Therefore, the words αὔξησις and αὔξει once again emphasize the organic nature of growth, which therefore should be understood not only extensively, in the sense of increasing the number of believers, but also intensively, in the sense of deepening the Christian consciousness in believers, in the sense of strengthening the connections between them (conducting grace-filled forces better and better), in the sense of multiplying the number of these connections, etc. The text of Col. 2:19 should be divided into διὰ τῶν άφῶν ἐπιχορηγούμενον and διὰ τῶν συνδέσμων συμβιβαξόμενον, i.e. “nourished by nerves” and “jointed by muscles.” Perhaps the first of these unification systems points to positions that have as their task to carry out beneficial influences throughout the entire body of the Church and therefore are not of a local nature, such as, for example, the ancient charismatic positions of apostles, prophets and teachers; the second system will then point to more local positions, positions of a communal nature, which through their activity of love unite the individual members into one. The latter could include, for example, the position of deacons, etc. 627 The life of the Body of the Church depends entirely on the Head – Christ. We see that the Apostle repeatedly 628 calls Christ the head, as if wanting to impress upon the reader that this is a position of essential importance. And indeed, the basic properties of the Church flow from it, how all life is determined by the Head Himself. This is quite understandable if we remember what a “head” actually is. Just as, according to the views of the Russian people, 629 the head is the centrally important organ of the body, so this belief also passes through other worldviews (60:355). In the chapter, according to the Bible (Gen. 3:15), life is concentrated, and therefore victory over the head is victory over the entire organism: the head is the goal of the movement of life coming from the heart, why “raise your head” means to revive, to be in a vigorous state (Luke 21:28; Acts 27:34), and “lower your head” indicates weakening, a decrease in vital energy. Therefore, the head is responsible for the crime of the whole person, and it is equivalent whether to say “your blood is on your heads” (Acts 18:6) or the blood is on you (Matthew 23:35), etc. Already in ancient times, the head was always considered the bearer of the ideal principle in a person, his spirit, his intellectual abilities. It is natural, therefore, that the nature of the Head is reflected in every function of the Body, that every vital manifestation of the Body is imprinted with the properties of the Head, “from which” the forces for growth are taken. “The steadfastness and indestructibility” (8, 324, 325, etc.) of the Church is its main feature, which follows analytically from the very concept of the Church. The eternal and not subject to evil Head of the Church constantly renews the entire Body, giving it grace-filled power. If “Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16) decided to create his Church, then the devil defeated by him cannot shake the Body of Christ - His Church. The Lord Himself, preaching the gospel to Peter and, through him, to all humanity, in response to Peter’s solemn confession, said to him: ?? κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς (Matthew 16:18). - “And I say to you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” In view of the importance of these words of the Savior, we will dwell somewhat on their exegesis, since it is needed for our immediate purpose. Jesus Christ said: “I will create,” οἰκοδομήσω, that is, he spoke about the future, and not about the past and not the present; in the same way, Archangel Gabriel, who announced the news to the Virgin Mary about the birth of the Savior, told her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,” that is, he again spoke about a future event. This remarkable similarity of the two annunciations will not seem accidental if we remember that the Fruit of the first annunciation, Christ, is “the firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead,” that is, the firstfruits and firstborn of renewed humanity 630, the firstfruits of the Church - His Body (Col. 1:18), which is the Fruit of the second annunciation. But for those who take a legal point of view when considering the Church, that is, for those who proceed from the concept of the Church as a “society of believers” and therefore cannot help but see the Church in the totality of Christ’s disciples, the future tense οἰκοδομήσω is completely incomprehensible. Wanting to avoid this difficulty, Syeir claims that there was no community of believers then and that Christ spoke of a future community. Meyer rightly objects to him that “to accept eine solche historische Prolepsis 631 would be arbitrary, for the qahal of 632 believers was evident, even if not formally constructed” (58:347). But for us, the community of the Apostles is only a community - and nothing more; only then did she enter the Church when the Church was born. But the very verb οἰκοδομείν and the future tense have, as Stir (ibid.) not unreasonably refers to, the meaning of “the ongoing construction of the Lord, for the Church Body is nurtured by the energy of its Head.” The most important words in this phrase are the words “the gates of hell will not prevail against it (the Church).” To understand them, one must delve into the expression - πύλαι ᾅδου or πύλαι ᾅΐδου, which corresponds to the Hebrew shaare hashsheol. Jewish ideas about Sheol or hell are as follows (see (69, 628–630); (68, 527–530 also) 633. Sheol (šěol) 634 is the oldest and most common name for hell in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament (Gen. 37:35; Is. 14:15, 38:10; Jonah 2:3, etc.). In the Talmud, it is also called “gehenna” (geyhinom) and “mehoza” (mehoza), and the first name, in fact, means “the valley of Ennom”, where sacrifices were made to Molech and where sewage was subsequently brought to be burned in ever-burning fires, and the second name (from hoza’ - city, mehoza’ - fortified area) can be translated literally as “a place where they take or taken away, place of detention, prison" 635. It also includes the names found in the Old Testament: “destruction”, “well” and “pit”, “shadow of death”, “well of foam and dirty silt”, “lower country”, “valley of Tophet”, “valley of tears”. As can be seen from the Talmudic names for the place of the souls of the wicked, the Talmudists believed it to be in a special region of world space, which has the appearance of a fortified place or prison and is a place of uncleanness, dirt, decay, corruption, and generally destruction and death. Created before the creation of the world 636, Sheol is filled with the fiery element “or” (’or), created on the second day. Talmudists accurately calculate the magnitude of Gehenna, but in depth they consider it bottomless. The earth's surface separates the region of Sheol from the region of paradise and is for the former like the lid of a pot. According to Rabbi Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, there are three entrances to hell from the earth: one in the desert (cf. Num. 16:33), another in the sea (cf. Jonah 2:3) and the third in Jerusalem (cf. Is. 31:9). (Erubin, f. 19, a). According to Rabbi Marion, in the valley of the son of Ennomov there are two palm trees, from the middle of which smoke rises, and this must be the entrance to Gehenna (Erubin, L. 19, a). Immeasurable in size, hell (Taanit, f. 10, a), as it is said, is filled with special fire, and a special fiery river flows into it, falling on the heads of the wicked. Hell has its prince (geyhinom sar) and its gatekeeper (taphetcn somer). The Prince of Hell appears to be the ruler of the inhabitants of Gehenna, who were given to him by the Lord of the world (Shabbat, f. 104, a). The gatekeeper of hell is seen as guarding the gates of hell, through which one can only pass with his permission. However, regarding Rabbi Yohanan it is said that after his death he managed to go down to hell and come out of here together with the liberated Rabbi Acherov without the permission of the gatekeeper of hell (Chagiga, f. 15, b). Regarding its greed in demanding more and more new victims, hell is compared to the womb of women and to the earth unsaturated with water (Berakhot, f. 15, b; Sanhedrin, 9, 2, a). But will all pagans go to hell or only the wicked who have forgotten God - this question receives several answers in the Talmud. The indispensable inhabitants of hell include: Menaians, traitors, apostates (from the faith), Epicureans who rejected the law (Mosaic, i.e. its heavenly origin), who rejected the resurrection of the dead, moved away from the laws of the community, instilled fear and led others into sin (Rot Hashan, f. 17, a; cf. Sanhedrin, 90, a). Among the sins that entail the obligatory settlement of sinners in hell, in addition to sin against faith, are fornication, adultery and humiliation of a neighbor or unjust ridicule of him, etc. Of individual clans, generations and persons, the inhabitants of hell include: 1) the clan that perished in the flood (Gen. 6:3); 2) a kind of division (Gen. 11:8); 3) residents of Sodom (Gen.13:13); 4) spies of Palestine sent by Moses (Numbers 13:31); 5) the generation of the desert, i.e. the Israelites who came out of Egypt with Moses and died in the desert; 6) Korah, Dathan and Abiron with like-minded people (Num. 16:33); 7) belonging to the ten tribes of Israel and who did not repent; 8) people of the cursed city (Deut. 13:13–17); 9) little children of the wicked Israelites; 10) Jeroboam, Ahab, Manasseh, Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophal and Ezi; 11) those engaged in reading external books and magic (Sanhedrin, f. 90, a). – In general, the number of inhabitants of hell = 2/3, all people (Sanhedrin, f. III, a). Hellish torment is very diverse and can be both physical and moral, but primarily consists of burning with Gehenna fire 637. This is the Talmudic teaching about hell. Since this was probably the current opinion at the time of Christ, we do not dwell in detail on the biblical teaching on the same topic. Common names for Sheol (probably means abyss, deep) (Jonah 2:3; Gen. 37:35; Is. 14:15, 38:10): boron; bor = ditch (Isa. 14:15, 19, 38:18, etc.); bor tahetiyot (Ps. 88:7) = pit of the grave; ‘eres tahetiyot (Ezek.31:14) = the land of the underworld; sahat (Ps. 16:10; Job 17:14) = corruption; dumah (Ps. 94:17; 105:17) = land of silence; beer sahat (Ps. 55:24, Heb.) = ditch of destruction; ‘eres něšiyah (Ps. 89:13) = land of forgetfulness; ‘abadon (Ps. 88:12) = destruction; salemawet (Ps. 23:4; 107:10; Job 12:22; Am. 5:8) = the shadow of death. As is clear from these names, hell appears to be a vast abyss lying below earthly space, having the appearance of a vast pit, where traces of decay, uncleanness, and death in general are visible. This area is devoid of light, so it is at the same time an area of ​​darkness (Job 10:21:22). In hell there are special compartments (Proverbs 7:27), which have unequal depth (Proverbs 9:18). The most distant of them are called “the edges of the grave” (Ezek.32:23). Hell in the Holy Scriptures appears to have gates through which those going into it pass through (Is. 38:10). The inhabitants of hell are sinful people who strive exclusively to achieve sensual pleasures (Ps. 16:14). Classical ᾅδης or ἁΐδης (from α, negativ and ἰδεῖν), i.e. invisible, invisible country, as Plutarch says, Is et Osir. 79, 382, ​​F (τὸ ἀειδὲς καὶ ἀόρατον), originally the name of the God of the underworld, who has power over the dead (Ζεύς χθόνιος), later became the name of the land of the dead itself. In the New Testament, this word undoubtedly serves to designate Sheol, and therefore we do not need to retell the views of the Greeks and Romans on the underworld 638. Now the current expression ša’ărey šěol (shaarei sheol) (according to Delich’s translation of Matthew 16:18) or its equivalent πύλαι ἁΐδου, πύλαι ᾅδου, ἁΐδου becomes clear πύλαι. The word sa‘ar 639 (plur. šěarim, constr, ša’arey) actually means: 1) door, gate, entrances of various types; 2) part – a free area adjacent to the city gates; 3) then - a meeting of townspeople in this square and in general citizens belonging to the general meeting and having the right to vote; 4) finally, people gathered near the gate in the square. Among the latter are, of course, the gatekeepers and more prominent representatives of the city. Therefore, the expression “Shaarei Sheol” is a double metaphor, in which a part is used instead of the whole (“the gates of hell” instead of “hell”), and then contains instead of content (“hell” instead of “the inhabitants of hell”), and ultimately equals “death” 640. But death must be understood not only as a physiological process, but as a generic concept, including sin with impurity and suffering. “Gates of Hell” = “powers of hell.” Let us trace several uses of the popular expression “the gates of hell” among the classics and in the Old Testament. The expression “gates of hell” in the Old Testament is found in the following places: Job 37:17; Ps.9:14, 107:18; Isa.38:10; Pres.16:3; Mac.5:51. “Have the gates of death been opened to you and the gates of darkness? Can you see?” ( Job 38:7 ). - “Look at my suffering from my enemies, You who lift me up from the gates of death” (Is. 9:14). - “Their soul turned away from all food, and they approached the gates of death” (Ps. 107:18). - “You have the power of life and death, and bring it down even to the gates of hell, and raise it up” (Wisdom 16:13). In classical literature this phrase is very common; examples collected by Betshteni in his edition of the New Testament 641 642 on p. 430–431 1 volume. They show that the “gates of hell” metaphorically mean inexorable, invincible death, stopping at nothing in its victorious march, but they consider it more narrowly than the Old Testament, because they do not associate with death the idea of ​​sin, the idea of ​​impurity. This sovereignty of death is depicted in the Old Testament in Ezekiel (32:18–32), Isaiah (28:15–18), and in many other places. Therefore, the Lord’s words about “invincibility by the gates of hell” mean that all the evil inhabitants of the bottomless, dark and dirty hell, led by their prince and with the gatekeepers, even having gathered for a sortie at the gates of hell, will not be able to win victory 643 644 in this case, although there is nothing that they would not defeat. A parallel to them is the words of the Apostle: “Death! Where is your sting? Hell! Where is your victory? ( 1 Cor. 15:55 – Hos. 13:14 ). But the question is who, exactly, will not be defeated. It is said αυτης 645, and by αὐτῆς we can mean both τῆς πέτρας 646 and τῆς ἐκκλησίας 647. Some holy fathers spoke out for the first understanding of 648,649, but if this is correct, it is not of significant importance. Of course, if the Lord speaks about the steadfastness of the rock - the foundation, then at the same time he means, and even primarily means, the steadfastness of the Structure Itself. The faith of Peter would have been in vain and the solemn promise of the Lord would have been in vain if the preeminent Cause of Christ, so solemnly proclaimed, were shaken by the gates of hell. Whatever is meant by αὐτῆς, whether the Church or the Stone - Peter, or the Stone - Petrov's faith, the idea of ​​the passage under discussion is that the Church created by Christ will have divine strength, divine invincibility for evil in all its forms and in all its power. Therefore, leaving further analysis of Matthew 16:18, let us move on to clarifying the properties of the Church. As the Body of a single Head, the Church inevitably reflects the character of unity in its entire existence. As the Body of the internally completed Head, the absolute Head, the Church is a single and integral being, superior to all other beings. As the Body of the singular Head, the Church itself exists only in the singular. The Church is one and only; and due to its steadfastness, this character of unity and uniqueness cannot be overcome by evil forces seeking to disrupt the absolute unity of the Church. In this area, the unity of the Church is negatively expressed as its indivisibility, while the invincibility of the Church takes on a particular definition in a positive form in the form of unity and internal integrity. The Church is one, but not in the sense of a simple absence of other churches, not in the sense of exclusivity, but in the sense of absolute integrity 650. The Church - the Body of the Son - is as one as God and His Son are one. The Lord said to Peter: “On this rock I will build My Church, μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν” (Matthew 16:18), just as he said another time: “Tell the Church, εἰπὸν τῆ ἐκκλησίαν” ( Matthew 18:17), but did not say: “I will build My churches,” just as he did not say, “Tell the churches.” Church unity is emphasized by the Lord in His farewell conversation with the disciples; at the celebration of the first Eucharist, Christ prays that the members of the Church would be in absolute unity with each other, as He Himself is with the Father (ἵνα ὧσιν ἕν καθώς ἡμεῖς, John 17:11) 651, and repeats several times his petition for the unity of the members of the Church in the absolute unity of the Father and the Son σοί, ἵνα και αὐτοί ἐν ἡμῖν ὧσιν, John 17:21) 652, - about the unity of the glory given to the Son (κἀγώ τὴν δόξαν John 17:22 ) 653 , about the unity received from God through the mediation of the Son, who dwells in believers (Eph.3:17; Col.3:16; 2Cor.6:16; John 14:23) (ἐγώ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ, σὺ ἐν ἐμοί ἵνα ὧσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν, John 17:23) 654. The unity of the church is the manifestation of the unifying Power of Christ - the “Glory” of the Lord, i.e. His consubstantiality with the Father (John 17:21, 22, 23:24). With these prayers the Lord ends his last conversation, in which all the power of His preaching is concentrated. The importance of the moment when these words were uttered forces us to recognize the special, extreme significance of these words and, even more so, their conclusion. Indeed, the thought of unity is one of the leitmotifs of later development. It seems to run through all the Epistles of St. Paul, and in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is dominant. “The main, central concept in the message is the concept of unity, which dominates here and, one might say, subordinates everything to itself. The Apostle speaks about the unity (heading) of everything that exists in Christ (1:10), about the closest unity of Christ, as the Head, with the Church, as His body (1:23, 5:25ff.), about the unity of the Church and all manifestations of its life (4:4ff.), about the unity of Jews and pagans in Christ (2:13ff.), about the unity of faith and knowledge (4:13), - the message is all in general imbued with the idea of the need for unity of Christian faith and life, Christian word and deed, theory and practice” (39, 123–124). The unity and uniqueness of the Church are indicated in the very definition of the Church (Eph. 1:23), as the absolute Body (τὸ σῶμα) of the absolute Head. And, being disparate, if taken conditionally and limitedly, the concepts of unity and uniqueness turn out to be mutually validating when applied unconditionally and in full force. Unity par excellence can only be universal in its content, and universal unity is thereby unique, unicum. Conversely, unconditional uniqueness necessarily presupposes unconditional unity; if the latter did not exist, if fragmentation were possible, then there would thereby not be unconditional uniqueness. So, it makes no difference whether to say: “The Church is one” or “The Church is unique,” ​​because in both cases the dogmatic meaning will be the same. But this is if the Church is universal in content. That it cannot be otherwise follows from the concept of the Church as the Body par excellence, as τὸ σῶμα, that is, including or having to include all the true corporeality of the world 655 656. That this is so will be proven when discussing the concepts of “Conciliar” and “Apostolic”. The Church is one. And since believers become members of the Church through their participation in the mystical life of the Church, through their incorporation, through their incorporation and incorporation into the Church, the unity of mystical life makes them “joint heirs and co-partners and partners in the promise,” τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμος 657 καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (Eph.3:6), i.e. some unity. Being fellow-hidden people (συμμῦσται), believers become incarnate in the Body of Christ (“more ushtmukdushie”, Cremer). But, as “the Church is the Body” and in the mouth of St. Paul is not a moral predicate, but a real subject, then the unity of the Church is not only a moral or corporate solidarity, not only a nominal unity of “beginning and foundation,” “organization” and “goal” (although there is no doubt that all of this partly really exists, partly constitutes the task facing the believing consciousness), but ontological unity and, as such, cannot be created through any human effort. The unity of “beginning and foundation” may be from men; unity of organization, as well as unity of purpose, are not necessarily excluded from human possibilities. Those who take the nominal point of view (which is the majority of theologians) 658 are forced with full consistency to admit that there is a “church”, Buddhist, Mohammedan, Brahminical, etc. For there too there is a unity of “beginning and foundation,” “organization” and “goal,” and no less than that of Christians. Essentially speaking, such theologians do not have the right to say the word “Church” in a personified sense, but should only say the adjective “ecclesiastical” or the abstract name “churchiness”. “Church” in their mouths should always be only a legal or moral predicate, but never a subject, just as L. Tolstoy, without actually recognizing God, openly admits: “It seems that I consciously very rarely use the expression “God” separately. In connection with other expressions, it appears to me in the words “live according to God.” When I say this, I internally want to say: “to live by truth, by love, by reason or wisely”” 659. It turns out that “God” is not even a separate noun, but only an adjective. But the same thing turns out to be true for all those who, without actually recognizing the Body of Christ, still continue to talk about its nominal unity, which can be a purely human unity or, better said, a similarity of aspirations and views that exists in every community. But the ontological unity of believers requires a unifying Principle, which would not be acquired or developed by people, but given to them by God. Such is the unity of the Body of Christ and His sacramental life. Believers become, through communion with the Church, no longer like-existing, not ομοιούσοι among themselves, but consubstantial, ὁμοούσιοι 660. That is why Holy Scripture persistently connects the unity of believers with the unity of the sacramental life of the Church - with the unity of the Eucharistic Bread-Body (see Chapter III, § III) and baptism (Gal. 3:27:28). Particularly important in this regard is Gal.3:27, 28. First, the Apostle says that believers “were baptized into Christ (εἰς Χριστόν ἐβαπτίσθητε),” which indicates “a mysteriously inseparable joint” (49:97). Therefore (ὅσοι γάρ in v. 27 a) “they have put on Christ,” that is, they have participated in His unity. Then the Apostle notices that all differences have ceased to matter, all have been fused into one (εἷς), “all of you,” Paul addresses the Galatians, “are one (εἷς) in Christ Jesus, πάντες γάρ ύμεἷς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ" (Gal.3:28b) 661. With this εἷς instead of ἔν, the Apostle emphasizes even more strongly that here we are not talking about likeness and resemblance, but about the essential unification of many into one (Holtzmann (30) means by this “one” the Heavenly Man, Christ). Likewise, in Eph.44-6, “there is one body and one spirit (ἔν σῶμα καὶ ἔν Πνεῦμα), just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all,” by “body” is meant the Church Body, the unity of which is a necessary parallel to the unity of the Spirit who animates the Body, to the unity of hope, the Lord, faith, baptism and God 662. Ultimately, the unity of the Church is a consequence of the unity of God the Father. The pagans and the Israelites - two poles of history, who were far from each other, “became close through the blood of Christ,” “for He is our peace, having made both one (ὁ ποιήσρας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἔν) and destroying the barrier that stood in the middle, abolishing enmity His flesh, and the law of the commandments by teaching, so that from two he could create in himself one new man, establishing peace, and in one body he could reconcile both to God through the cross, killing the enmity thereon" ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ ἀποκαταλλἀζῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἐνὶ σώματι τῲ Θεῲ δια τοῦ σταυροῦ...) ( Eph.2:13–16 ) 663. Here under ἕν σώμα “very many” 664 means the Church. Even if Bogdashevsky correctly objects that here, in fact, the Body of Christ is meant, this does not refute the thoughts of the named exegetes, because the Body of Christ is the firstfruits of the Church. Finally, let us cite the already partially analyzed text of 1 Corinthians 10:17: “There is one bread, and we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of one bread, ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.” “The Eucharist is the communion of the one Body of Christ, which makes those who partake similar to Itself, that is, unites them into the Body of Christ.” It is the same with other sacrificial meals: “Look at Israel according to the flesh: are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor. 10:18). “Participants of the altar” (κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου) indicates the idea of ​​Israel as an organic whole, to which believers join through participation in sacrifices. Regarding the place of St. John Chrysostom says: “Having said: communication of the body, he wants to express an even closer connection and says: as there is one bread, there is one body of many. What am I saying: communication? - he continues, - we constitute His very body. For what is this bread? Body of Christ. What do those who participate do? The body of Christ, not many bodies, but one body. Just as bread, being composed of many grains, becomes one, so that although there are grains in it, they are not visible, and their difference is imperceptible, due to their union: so we are united with each other and with Christ. For we feed not one on one thing, and another on another, but all on one and the same Body. Therefore the Apostle adds: for we all partake of the one bread. Christ united you with Himself, so far removed from Him...” (see 45:329). Hence it is clear that the unity of the Church has a real manifestation in the unity of the sacraments. There is nothing more alien to the biblical concept of the Church than the modern individualistic and democratizing assertions that the Church is an abstraction 665 and the sacraments are nuda et mera signa, signes nus 666, as Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists and Socinians claim about them (26, 432-433). The latter opinion is necessarily connected with the first, and vice versa, the first with the latter, so that the doctrine of the Church as nudum et merum signum Corporis Christi 667 is the correlate of this denial of the sacraments. The sacraments are the guarantees of the mystical nature of the Church, just as the Church itself is one great Sacrament. Whatever is said about one of these correlates thereby applies to the other. No wonder St. Irenaeus of Lyons saw in this parallelism of the sacraments and the teachings about the Church the supreme criterion of truth. “Our teaching,” he declares, “is in agreement with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms the teaching - ἡ εὐχαριοστία βεβαιοὶ τὴν γνώμην" 668 . The unity of the Church is also proven by the text of 1 Cor. 12:12, etc., and the connection of unity with the sacrament of baptism - 1 Cor. 12:13: “for we were all baptized into one body by one Spirit, Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, and all were given one Spirit to drink,” “καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε « Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι καὶ " (1 Cor. 12:13) 669. “The meaning of his (Apostle Paul’s) words,” says Chrysostom (see 45:405), “is as follows: one Spirit made us into one body and regenerated us; for one was not baptized with another Spirit, and another with another. And not only is the Spirit who baptized us one, but also that into which He baptized, that is, for what He baptized, is one; for we were not baptized in order to constitute different bodies, but so that we would all exactly constitute one body, that is, we were baptized in order that we might all be one body. Thus, He who made us is one, and that into which He made us is one. And the Apostle did not say: so that we belong to one body, but so that we may be one body: we are all baptized into one body...” But, being one, the Church can manifest itself in separate groups of people, just as the True Body of Christ manifests itself in many separate liturgies, being present entirely in every particle of the Holy Gifts; just as it cannot be said that a particle of the Holy Gifts is a “piece” of the Body of Christ, it also cannot be said that a given local Church is a “part” of the Church – the Body. She carries it all. “Thus,” says R. Zom (21, 41–42), “there is only one ecclesia, the collection of all Christianity as a whole, but this one ecclesia has countless forms of phenomena. She appears in the congregation of the local congregation and in countless other congregations of Christians, even when they do not necessarily represent the congregation of the local or home congregation.” “The fundamental positive idea of ​​antiquity is the idea of ​​the church (ecclesia). The only meeting known to antiquity is the church meeting (the meeting of the ecclesia), the meeting of Christianity. In general, there is no local or home congregation meeting as such. What we can actually call a meeting of a local community, namely a general meeting of Christians in a certain city, is what it is, not as a meeting of a local community, but as a form of the phenomenon of ecclesia, a meeting of the entire people of Christians. And the meeting of the local community (which in ancient times was not necessarily found everywhere) by no means constitutes the only form of the phenomenon of ecclesia. Along with it, every other gathering of Christians is also an ecclesia, and therefore every Christian spiritual action (baptism, Eucharist, election) can also take place in any other Christian gathering. It makes no difference at all whether the local community can be considered assembled or not. The only important thing is that there be Christianity in the congregation.” “The idea of ​​a local community 670, in general the idea of ​​a closer community in the modern sense of the word, had no place at all in the organization of the church (Christianity). There is no assembly, and therefore no organs of local or home or any other community as such. This excludes any local communal or union structure, in general any local or corporate form of organization..." Transcendent for the world and the mundane, standing above the sinfulness of the empirical, God is absolutely holy (Rev. 4:8, 15:4, 16:5). Likewise, Christ, “who is the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15; Phil.2:6; 2Cor.4:4), “the radiance of Glory and the image of His Person” (Eph.1:3), in whom “all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily” (Col.2:9)‚ is absolutely holy (Acts 4:27, 30; Mark 1:24 = Luke 4:34; 1 Peter 1:15; Rom. 11:16). This predicate of holiness is only the predicate “not of the world” expressed in a positive form. Just as God, acting in the world, remains “not of the world,” transcendental to the world, so Christ, living in the world and eternally continuing to be with His disciples who are in the world, was and is “not of the world” (John 8:23, 17:16). “Not of this world - οὐκ ἐν τοῦ κόσμου τοῦτου” indicates a metaphysical and mystical nature, as well as moral perfection, and not simple extra-worldliness, simple detachment from the world (2, 5, 16, 6 ff.). To be not of the world does not mean not to be in the world, not to be here, but it means to have one’s inner being free from the worldly, above the worldly, and therefore carry within oneself the guarantee of victory over the world and to overcome the world (John 16:33; Rev. 2:21; 5:5). Transcendence for the world of being and immanence for the world of action - this is what it means to be holy or to be not of the world. Being “not of this world,” Christ is the “light” of the world (John 9:5, 12:46, 8:12, etc.), who “shines in the darkness” (John 1:5), but cannot be covered by darkness, because “there is no darkness in him” (1 John 1:5), and He Himself is above the darkness. But by His victory over darkness, He naturally causes darkness to hate the light (John 3:19-21, etc.), the hatred of evil for good and sin for holiness. Here, in the antagonism of darkness, rising up against the Light and striving to destroy It, as well as in the eternal triumph of Light over individual attacks of darkness, it is revealed that He is not of this world. The world's exclusive, only hatred of Christ (John 7:7) is a sign of His chosenness in the full and true sense (Luke 23:35; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6; Matt. 12:18), the predominant love for Him on the part of the Father; Therefore, he who hates Christ also hates His Father (John 3:23). Chosenness is another moment of holiness. But, beloved by God, the Son, in turn, loved Him, which is why He completely humbled Himself (Phil. 2:8, etc.), having the fullness of moral perfection. This is the ultimate point in the concept of holiness. One way or another, the Church certainly has all these moments - the “fullness” of Christ’s grace-filled power. The holiness of the Church is a necessary consequence of its real connection with Christ. But if all aspects of holiness are already given in all their power to the Church itself, then they are given differently to believers, members of the Church. Like the Lord, the Church is holy. “Christ,” says the Apostle, “loved the Church and gave Himself for her, in order to sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water through the word; in order to present it to Himself as a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that, but that it might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25–27) 671, By the “wash of water” (τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος) here we mean a sacrament baptism, as is unanimously recognized by all ancient and modern exegetes, but “through the word” (ἐν ῥήματι) causes controversy. The most thorough interpretation, which is also consistent with the patristic one, sees in ρῆμα 672 the sacramental words pronounced at baptism, that is, the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (39:632) 673. The holiness of the Church is the holiness of Christ, for Christ is the “first fruits” of the Church (Col. 1:18), the “vine” (John 15:5), filling its “branches” with life-giving juice. “If the first fruit is holy, so is the whole; and if the root is holy, so are the branches” (Rom. 11:16). Consequently, the entire Body of Christ is holy. (? κλάδοι – Rom.11:16 ). This text refers, in fact, to the Old Testament theocracy (44, 152–153). But since the first half of the verse (where, in fact, it deals with leaven, “on which depends both good kneading and good rising or leavening of the dough” in the kneaded place φύραμα) is parallel to Matthew 13:33 = Luke 13:21, and the second - John 15:5, then this text can (out of context) also refer to the Church. As a saint, the Church in its being is at the same time raised above worldly existence, the Head - Christ raised his entire Body above the worldly. That is why Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) “My kingdom,” the blessed one paraphrases these words. Феофилакт 674 , – не отсюда, откуда ждет себе царя народ; it is not of worldly origin, but of the highest, heavenly, divine, and I myself am not a simple person, not from among earthly creatures, but the Gods, the Son of God.” “But the Kingdom of Christ,” says Mansvetov (2, 5 ff.), “being not of this world, is not, however, an exclusively spiritual kingdom, that is, an invisible kingdom existing in the supermundane sphere, known only to God, no; The Lord did not say that it is not in the world, not here. The expression “not of this world” indicates the origin or fundamental basis of His kingdom, which was revived from above and before centuries, and not on earth, through the natural development of people’s life. But this does not exclude his presence and spread in this world... The Kingdom of God or the Church, having a premium beginning, must, according to the teachings of the Savior, abide and act among the world in the world - in the society of those chosen from this world, separated from its life, but abiding in it; therefore, it must act and spread visibly, tangibly among the present world... It receives its primordial existence outside the region of this world, but at the same time it must live and develop here, that is, on earth.” The Church is “not of this world,” and therefore “this world” persecutes it, seeing in the very fact of its existence an indictment of itself. This is how Saul persecuted the Church of Christ (see Chapter 3, § V), this continued throughout the history of the church, and this is how it will be, especially in recent times (see Chapter 5, § V). In the hatred of the world and in its eternal enmity towards the Church, the ontological antagonism of the world and the Church is revealed. And the other side of the same antagonism is the love of Christ for the Church (Eph. 5:25) and the chosenness of the Church, its isolation, separation from the whole world. The Church is called “the chosen Church” (1 Peter 5:13) (ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ), and “the chosen lady” (2 John 1, cf. 2 John 13) (ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία ). Beloved and chosen, the Church itself loved God, which is why it is “pure,” “immaculate” (Eph. 5:25–27) and generally ethically perfect. Such is the holiness of the Church. But its members, believers, organically belong to the Church, forming its substance. They cannot be holy in the sense in which that term is applied to God and the Son. But at the same time, they cannot bring their sins into the Church. They, too, must be holy in their organic connection with the Holy Church, but their holiness can be of a different nature - borrowed holiness or, more precisely, sanctification. However, this holiness consists in renewing the recesses of being, the inner core of being 675; ethical perfection is not given, but only given: “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), Christ commanded his disciples. And the Brother of the Lord writes: “...count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations, knowing that the testing of your faith produces perseverance; But let patience have its perfect work, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (James 1:2-4; cf. Col. 4:12; James 3:2; Heb. 6:1; 2 Cor. 13:9; 1 John 4:18; 2 Tim. 3:17, etc.). The “invincibility” of the Church in the sphere of holiness is precisely this impossibility of violating the holiness of the Church for all the efforts of evil forces invading the souls of the members of the Church. In extreme cases, the very members, having died spiritually, fall away or only in appearance continue to abide in the Church Body, while in reality they do not enter into organic unity with the Church. The Church remains unshakable in its holiness and purity. “We are sanctified by the holiness of the Church, but the Church is not desecrated by our sins, for its holiness is not from us, but from God through Christ, and it itself is not in us, although it consists of us (just as our body consists of tissues and fibers, but its essence is not in them, but in their organic combination in the form of one whole). The Church is not only a collection of people (believers), but first of all that which gathers them, that is, an essential form of unity given to people from above, through which they can be involved in the Divine” 676 (14, III, 351). “The Church, founded by the God-man Christ, also has a theanthropic composition. But the difference is that Christ is the perfect God-man, and the Church is not yet perfect God-manhood, but only in progress... The Church of Christ has not yet reached a glorified state, and although its humanity is connected internally with the divine, it still does not express it in everything and does not fully correspond to it. The Church is holy and divine because it is sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; that which directly proceeds from this principle that sanctifies the Church is divine, immaculate and unchangeable; the deeds of church people, according to humanity, even if for the sake of the Church, performed, represent something very relative and far from perfect, but only being improved. This is the human side of the Church. But behind the changing and wavering stream of church humanity, the eternal and endless source of divine grace, the continuous action of the Holy Spirit, which gives humanity true life in Christ and God, resides and forms the very Church of God. This gracious action of God has always existed in the world; but from the incarnation of Christ it entered into visible and tangible form 677 . In the Christian Church, the divine is not only an internal, elusive action of the spirit, but also appears in some already realized form or physicality. There were forms in the Old Testament Church, but there they were only allegorical prototypes or omens; the sacred forms of the New Testament Church are real, authentic images of the Divine presence and action in humanity. Due to the imperfection of the human elements included in the Church, these divine forms appear only as the beginnings or guarantees of divine life in humanity, which must reach their fullness only in the New Jerusalem - in the glorified God-manhood. But even now this New Jerusalem - the city of the living God - exists not only in the thoughts, desires and inner feelings of Christians: those divine forms of the Church that we are talking about already constitute the actual stones of its foundation, on which the entire divine edifice will be erected and mysteriously already being continuously erected; so that although not everything in the visible Church is divine, the divine in it is already something visible. These visible stones are unshakable, unchangeable, and without them there is no Church” (ibid., 352–353). “Those who accept this universal and unchangeable form of divine action, who are formed by it in Christ or who enter into the living body of Christ, cannot, by their private and transitory shortcomings, violate the eternal dignity of the Church as a whole. Even in the physical body, individual members can be affected and paralyzed, but the whole body lives and acts, and through the influence of its life can heal the affected members. The body necessarily dies only when its main parts are damaged - the head and heart. But the Head and Heart of the church - Christ and the Mother of God - are in the eternal divine world and cannot be struck. A holy and immaculate whole cannot arise from vicious components: and if the Church were only a collection of individual people, then it could not be holy and immaculate, since sinless people do not exist on earth. But the visible Church receives its life and strength, apart from sinful people, from Christ Himself, in Whom dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily, through the mediation of the Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin and the entire invisible Church of saints; therefore, our human imperfections cannot in any way abolish the holiness of the Church. And then for us, people who belong to the Church, but do not form it, there is a moral task to try to conform and conform our life with the divine life, the first fruits and image of which we receive through the sacred forms of the visible Church. This is the goal of Christian activity - the fulfillment of the Church in people or the advent of the Kingdom of God on earth. We should not take this goal for reality, for in reality the Kingdom of God on earth has not yet been fulfilled and God reigns more over people than in people” (ibid., 349). Such is the relationship between the holiness of the Church and the moral imperfection of believers. The Church, which eternally renews its members with a grace-filled influx of spiritual energy, can wash away one or another defect in the activities of individual members. Here the meaning of the right to “knit and solve” becomes clear, which is most often a stumbling block for non-believers. This right, or better yet, this power, bestowed upon the Church by the Lord Himself (Matt. 18:17), is usually granted to the church hierarchy on the basis of the words of the Savior (Matt. 16:19, 18:18) 678. But the unity of believers would be absolutely incomprehensible if the Church only sanctified and purified believers without entering into immanent communion with them, although, on the other hand, the holiness of the Church would be just as incomprehensible if we recognized the immanent participation of sinful (even if eternally purified) people in the very essence of the Church. This problem is resolved by the difference in redeemed humanity between two sides: the redeemed ideal essence, the image of God, and the perfecting empirical character, the likeness of God. This ideal essence, constituting the very substance of the Body of Christ, is holy and pure, while the other, empirical side is sanctified and only insofar as it belongs to the body of Christ, is assimilated by the Body of Christ, since it is likened to the image of God. But each of the believers carries a shrine in his soul, and with this shrine he joins the Body of Christ, through it receiving sanctifying energy from this Body 679. Therefore it is said 680: “Sanctify God in your hearts” (1 Peter 3:15). For believers “have not received the spirit of this world” (1 Cor. 2:12), but the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8, 8:18, 10:44, 11:15, 19:2, 19:6); The Spirit of glory, the Spirit of God, rests on them (1 Peter 4:14, 1:11), lives in them (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; cf. John 7:39), is poured out on them (Acts 2:17) and is given to them (1 John 4:13). Living in believers, the Holy Spirit teaches them (Luke 12:12), inspires them (Acts 2, 4, 7, 55, 4, 8, etc.), comforts them (Acts 9:31), encourages them (Rom. 15:13), inspires them what to say (1 Cor. 2:13; Acts 21:4), gives His strength and communion of Himself ( Hebrews 2:4, 6:4), knows the secrets of man (1 Cor. 2:11), nourishes the whole being of believers (1 Cor. 12:13). Therefore, believers are called saints (1 Cor. 6:2; 2 Cor. 13:12; Phil. 4:22; Col. 3:12; Heb. 3:1; Mark 8:38; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 3:18; 1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 13:7; Acts 9:13, 9:32); Иуд.3 ; Рим.1:7, 15:25, 31, 16:2 ; 1Кор.1:2, 16:15 ; 2Кор.8:4, 9:1 ; Еф.1:1, 15 ; Кол.1:4 ; Еф.5:3 ; Флп.1:1 ; Кол.1:2, 26 ; 1Фес.5:27 ; 1Тим.5:10 ; Тит.2:3 ; Флм. 5 ; Евр.6:10 ; Откр.11:18 ; Деян.9:41, 26:10 ; Иуд.14 ; Рим.8:27, 12:13, 16:15 ; Евр.13:24 ; 1Кор.14; 16:1 ; 2Кор.9:12 ; Еф.1:8, 38, 4:12, 6:18; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8, 13:10; 14:12, 15:3, 16:6, 18:24, 19:8, 22:6; ), sanctified (Heb.10:14, 10:10, 2:11; 1 Cor.1:2; 2 Tim.2:21; John 17:19; Jude 1). But being holy and sanctified, believers are thereby set apart from the world, not of the world (John 15:19), just as Christ is not of the world (John 17:16), for “they have the first fruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23) and “have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God” (1 Cor. 2:12), “they have not received the spirit of slavery... but the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15), “The Spirit of truth, which the world cannot receive” (John 14:17). Previously, they too were of the world (John 8:23, 17:6; 1 John 4:5; Eph. 2:2), but they became not of the world, hated by the world (John 2:15), a disgrace to the world (1 Cor. 4:9), foolishness (1 Cor. 1:13), and rubbish (James 4:4). But if the world hates them, then this hatred is in connection with hatred of the Savior; in this hatred their foreignness to the world is revealed (John 15:18:19). Hated by the world, they are chosen by God ( John 15:16, 19 ; Gal. 1:15, 25 ; Mark 13:20 ; John 13:18 ; Acts 1:24 ; Acts 15:7 ; James 2:5 ; 1 Cor. 1:27, 28 ; Eph. 1:4 ; 2 Thess. 2:13 ; 2 Peter 1:10 ; 1Фес.1:4 ; Рим.9:11, 11:5, 28 . Рим.16:13 ; Рим.11:7 ; Кол.3:12 ; Откр.17:14 . Деян.9:15 ; 1Петр.2:9 ; Рим.1:1 ; 1Петр.1:1 ; Лк.20:16, 22:14 ; Мф.24:22 ; Mk.13:20; Mk.13:22; Mk.13:27; Rom.8:33; 2Tit.1:1) and, moreover, before the creation of the world (2Thess.2:16); Ин.13:1 ; Ин.3:16 ; Ин.13:24, 15:9, 17:23 ; 1Ин.4:11, 19 ; Еф.2:4 ; Еф.5:2, 5:25 ; Откр.3:9 ; Ин.14:23 ; Рим.9:25 ; 1Пет.4:11 ; Рим.11:28 ; 1Фес.1:4 ; Rev. 20:8 ; John 14:21 ; John 14:21 ). They remain in the world (John 17:15) and use the things of the world, but, however, as those who do not use (1 Cor. 7:31), because they carry within themselves the new man (Eph. 2:15), have put on Him (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), and whoever is in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) and are waiting for a new heaven and a new earth ( 2 Peter 3:13). Therefore, they are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13; Luke 14:34) and the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). They are in the world, but the world is not worthy of them (Heb. 11:38). But sealed with the promised Spirit of God (Eph. 1:13), having the anointing of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:20), representing with their body the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), believers, although not morally perfect, must take care not to offend the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), keep their vessel holy (1 Thes. 4:4, cf. 1 Thess. 4:7), presenting their bodies as a holy sacrifice (Rom. 12:1), being holy in deeds (1 Peter 1:15:16) and blameless (Eph. 1:4). If the Holy Spirit gives strength and assistance in all vital functions, then all functions must be pure; the whole person must strive to become like God. “The Spirit himself intercedes for those who believe with groanings that cannot be expressed” (Rom. 8:26:27), because believers are the sons of God, and God sent the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, crying: Abba, Father! (Gal.4:6, cf. Rom.8:15). Therefore, a lie is a lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). The Body par excellence, the Body itself, τὸ σῶμα would not be such if it excluded any particular body from itself. That is why it stands above all individual bodies, because it carries within itself every particular perfection of an individual body and, therefore, does not exclude the latter from itself. But at the same time, being a perfect Body, it always and everywhere and under all conditions remains itself. Everything is for him, but he is above everything, without violating his self-identity. Universality in the sense of unum versum alios is the third and last essential property of the Church 681. The Church is the fullness of Christ, the priesthood of Christ (Eph. 1:23 b). But all things began to be through the Word, and without Him nothing began to be that began to be (John 1:3); By Christ are all things, by Him (1 Cor. 8:6), for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers - all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist ( Col. 1:16–17 ). The fullness of Christ is the fullness of all energies by which all existence is created. If now the Church is not all actual, then she is all potential, for she is filled with the fullness of Christ. After all, everything was delivered into the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ by His Father (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 3:5, 13:3); The Father put all things in subjection under the feet of the Son (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:5:8), so that what belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son (John 16:15). And everything comes from God (1 Cor. 11, 12, 8:6); all things are from Him, by Him and to Him (Rom. 11:36), for He created all things by Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:9); One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all (Eph. 4:6). This means that Christ is God who is above all (Rom.9:5): the Father loves the Son and shows Him everything that He Himself does (John 5:20). The will of the Father is to unite everything in heaven and earth under the head of Christ (Eph. 1:10). The Father gave Him authority over all flesh, so that to all that the Father has given the Son, the Son will give eternal life (John 17:2). When the Son submits everything to the Father, then He Himself will submit to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). The purpose of God's economy is the salvation of all creation. The Savior wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). And together with people - the whole creation, for the creation awaits with hope the revelation of the sons of God - because the creation submitted to vanity not voluntarily, but by the will of the one who conquered it - in the hope that the creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now; and not only she, but we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:19-23). Just as the nature of the Church forces one to conclude its universality, so the economic purpose of the Church necessarily entails the universality of the Church. The Church cannot exclude any creature from itself, for then it would not achieve its purpose. Neither space, nor time, nor certain empirical characteristics of people can limit their participation, their integration into the Body of Christ. According to the prophecy of the Savior, the Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the entire universe (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ), as a testimony to all nations (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), and then the end will come ( Matthew 24:14). Indeed, the apostles preached everywhere (Mark 16:20). Already up. Paul thanks God that the Christian faith is being repaid throughout the whole world ( ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ) ( Rom. 1:8 ), and says in the words of the psalm (18:5) that “he has passed through all the earth ( εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν their voice (i.e., preachers of the Gospel), and their words to the ends of the world (Rom. 10:18). The Lord commanded: “Go and teach all nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), baptizing them... teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20), and said regarding the pouring of peace at His feet by Mary Magdalene: “Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel will be preached in the whole world (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ), it will be said in memory of her and what she did” (Matthew 26:13). When the realization of salvation comes, they will come to the Kingdom of God from various sides, that is, regardless of national, ethnographic and other characteristics; “And they will come from the East and the West, and the North and the South, and will sit down in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29 = Matt. 8:11). The nature of the Church is universal, its purpose is universal, its spread is universal. The very faith professed by the Church is also universal, because with the new religious consciousness, God-worship is not associated with a certain place, a certain nation or a certain era, but is performed in spirit and truth (John 4:23), in every place (1 Tim. 2:8), and not in Jerusalem alone (John 4:23) and, therefore, is available to everyone, regardless of his position and condition, from his mind and abilities, but together Moreover, it is capable of satisfying a person of every condition and position, every mind and every ability. But not only that, the Savior commanded his disciples: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” 682 ( τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει . – Mark 16:15), “and the gospel was proclaimed to every creature under heaven” in fact (Col. 1:23) 683. If, therefore, the task is to preach the Gospel throughout the entire universe, to all creation, then it is clear that the truth of God through faith in Jesus Christ is in all and on all who believe; for there is no difference because all have sinned... receiving justification for nothing ( Rom.3:22:24). Here, in the Church, there is no difference between Jew and Greek, because there is one Lord of all, rich for all who call on Him (Rom. 10:12); Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:11). Ritual, national, social, economic (James 2:1ff.) and all other differences have lost their force or, better said, do not constitute boundaries for the universality of the Church. The dichotomous division of humanity into circumcised and uncircumcised has disappeared; in the Church of Christ, circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), neither one nor the other has power (Gal. 5:6, 6:15, 11; 1 Cor. 7:18; Gal. 2:9; Gal. 2:3; Gal. 5:2; Acts 21:21, etc.), because the Lord Jesus is the world of the circumcised and the uncircumcised, having made both one and destroyed standing in the midst of the barrier, having abolished the enmity by His flesh, and the law of commandments by doctrine, in order to create in Himself one new man from the two, establishing peace, and in one Body to reconcile both to God through the cross, putting to death the enmity in Him (Eph. 2:14-16). The Lord Himself said: “Listen to Me, all of you” (Mark 7:14) 684; no one is deprived of the opportunity to hear the preaching of the Gospel, so that all may honor the Son (John 5:23), that they may all be one... and that the world may believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21). Christ predicted that when He was lifted up from the earth, He would draw everyone to Himself (John 12:32); and the prophet Isaiah prophesied that before Him every knee would bow, and that every tongue would confess God (Is. 45:23 = Rom. 14:11). This universality in the purpose of the Church is a necessary consequence of the universality of sin. Complete victory over the great dragon, the ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole universe (Rev. 12:9), is the headship of everything by Christ (Eph. 1:10). If neither the place nor the external state of the believer can serve to exclude him from the Body of Christ, then this or that time, this or that era in which the believer happens to live, is not an obstacle to union with Him. The Lord promised to be with believers all the days until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20) 685 and, therefore, even more so, at the end of this age, when the coming age comes, when everything will be headed by Christ, everything will be included in His Body. The Comforter Spirit, who sanctifies the Church and believers, will remain with her and take her away forever (John 14:16). And the sacrament of the Eucharist will not cease until the second coming; “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup,” writes St. Paul, “You proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Being the fullness of holy being, the Body of Christ is universal or universal, all-time and all-format, that is, it does not exclude from itself any God-created diversity of the cosmos. Moreover, it not only does not exclude it, but it positively requires such diversity, for in it the infinite wealth of the sanctifying powers of the Lord is revealed. As a member of the Church, each believer does not mechanically, but organically enter into church unity, that is, he has his own place in it, which cannot be replaced by anyone, cannot be eliminated by anyone, his own function, which he alone is given by God to carry out in truth. His individuality is not only not destroyed, but is sanctified and finds its highest sanction in the Church. The Body of Christ is not a disordered mass of homogeneous parts, but a harmonious unity of heterogeneous, mutually replenishing, mutually necessary organs. There are many different spiritual gifts, ministries and activities, but their source is the Triune Godhead (1 Cor. 12:4-6). The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the benefit: one is given a word of wisdom by the Spirit, another a word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to others faith by the same Spirit, to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:7-10). For just as the body is one, but has many members, and all the members of one body, although there are many, constitute one body, so is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). The body is not made of one member, but of many (1 Cor. 12:14). No organ can consider itself not to belong to the Body on the ground that it is individual (1 Cor. 4:15-16), because diversity is required for the perfection of the Body: if the whole body is eyes, where is the hearing? If everything is hearing, then where is the sense of smell? And if everyone had one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but the body is one (1 Cor. 12:17:19–20). Each member is needed by all the others, and its apparent invisibility may hide its great importance (1 Cor. 12:21–24), which is why it requires greater care from other organs. But, being different, the organs are mutually conditioned; If one member suffers, all members suffer; if one member is glorified, all members rejoice with it. Likewise, believers are the Body of Christ, they constitute His substance, and individually they are members of this Body (1 Cor. 12:24–27). If diversity is required for the Church, then it is natural that the functions of different members turn out to be different, and not all the same (1 Cor. 12:28-30). Just as we have many members in one body, but not all have the same function, so we, who are many (believers), are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another (Rom. 12:4, 5; cf. 1 Cor. 10:17). Everyone has their own gifts, their own abilities, and therefore everyone should think about themselves modestly, no more than they should - not dream about themselves, find their true place in the Body of Christ, knowing “what is the will of God” (Rom. 12). The wisdom of God does not exclude private wisdom, but includes it within itself, because She is “the manifold wisdom of God” (ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, Eph. 3:10), and so that believers can be “good stewards of the grace of God" (“ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ”, 1 Pet. 4:10), each of them must serve each other with the gift that he has received, with the ability, which the Creator endowed him with (1 Peter 4:10–11). This is the essence of humility, to be aware of one’s place in the Body of Christ and at the same time to see that this place is given by God, and not deserved, for all the individual characteristics that make the believer a certain member were not created by him, but received from God. All these differences, like the whole life of a Christian in general, are essentially grace-filled, but in external form they can be ordinary, natural human abilities, such as, for example, “the gift of intercession for the oppressed” (45:417) before the authorities and before evil people (ἀντιλήμψεις), “the gift of government” (κυβερνήσεις) (1 Cor. 12:28), “the gift of teaching” (1 Cor. 12:28), etc. (21, 43, seq.). Thus, the Fullness of Christ is refracted in a variety of ways and depicted in the diversity of individuals who make up the Church. Without excluding anyone from itself, the Church at the same time requires and presupposes the characteristics of believers, and in view of this property it is called catholic καθολικός ἐκκλησία. The word καθολικός 686 is not found, in fact, in the text of Holy Scripture, and the Church was called by this name for the first time in St. Ignatius (ad Smyrn., p. 8). In the Holy Scriptures it is found in the inscriptions of the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, which term characterizes that these messages are directed to the entire Church, and not to a separate community. Found in Acts 4:18 (as well as in Heb.13:3, 22; Am.3:3, 41, then in Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, etc.) the word καθόλου, i.e. καθ’ ὅλου, which is most convenient to translate in every possible way, entirely, omnius prorsus, überhaupt. Therefore, καθολικός: means universal, universalis, generalis, das Ganze betreffend, allgemein and in accordance with the content of the word ὅλος - holistic, integral, has a logical emphasis on the integrity of the object to which it refers. The catholic is the all-one 687, and if it is correct that there is an elliptical καθ ’ ὅλα ἔθνη, then it is equally correct that it is also καθ ’ ὅλου χρόνον and καθ ’ ὅλην οίκουμένην or καθ ’ ὅλου κόσμον. Therefore, the predicate “universal”, οίκουμενική is only a particular form of καθολική). It is remarkable that the Slovenian first teachers, Sts. Methodius and Cyril translated καθολική through “conciliar”, of course, meaning conciliarity not in the sense of the number of votes, but in the sense of the universality of being, purpose and all spiritual life, gathering into itself everyone regardless of their local, ethnographic, historical and all other characteristics. The “conciliar” of the Creed or καθολικός is something similar to what in Kantian philosophy is called “objective”, “supra-individual”. “The Church is called conciliar because it is located throughout the entire universe from the ends of the earth to the ends of it, that everywhere and in full it teaches all the teaching that people should know, the teaching about things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, that the entire human race leads to the true faith, leaders and subordinates, scientists and ordinary people, and that everywhere it heals and cures all kinds of sins committed by the soul and body, has in itself every kind of perfection, appearing in deeds, words and in all spiritual gifts" 688. The catholicity of the Church is most clearly indicated, and, moreover, in its entirety, in the words of Jesus Christ: “where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). It is not indicated here to which nationality, to which era, to which country, to which social or other deliberate conditions those gathering should belong. All that is needed is for them to gather in the name of Christ. This is enough, and He will be among them, as He said. It is very clear that non-recognition of the catholic character of the Church of Christ leads to a grave distortion of the very concept of the Church and creates a special phyletic heresy, which wants to give national and other human differences a place not of a service, but of a dominant one, introducing the human, as such, into the sphere of the Divine, and by its excommunicative attitude towards all foreign elements of the Church, introducing tribal divisions and strife into it. Byzantinism, Russianism, Bulgarianism, Georgianism, etc. - all these directions of church life, or, better to say, these diseases, with which the “gates of hell” are trying to shake the catholicity of the Church, of course will not shake or overcome its strongholds, for “the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his” and: “Let everyone who confesses the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness”” (2 Tim. 2:19). But there is no doubt that until now there is too little recognition of the absurdity and heresy of phrases like “Byzantine churchliness” and so on. (14, IV, 69). But given the actual catholicity of the form of the Church, its content is catholic not in reality, but only in possibility. In reality, for the substance of the Church - the believers - catholicity is the same task as unity and moral perfection. The Church must grow, assimilating itself, incorporating into itself an ever-increasing diversity of church bodies. This growth is accomplished through the teaching and baptism of those who have not yet been included in the Body of Christ, and the means to teaching and baptism is apostleship in the broadest sense of the word (ἀροστολή), as the sending of the Church into the world in order to teach others by preaching, example of life, miracles, signs, education, organization of all life, etc., to awaken religious consciousness in the unconverted, to deepen it and strengthen it - in the members of the Church. In this sense, the Lord is called “Apostle” (“Keep in mind the Apostle and High Priest of our Confession, Jesus Christ” - Heb. 3:8), and His first disciples are designated by the same name, as each member of the Church can be designated. The Church itself in this sense is called apostolic, ἀροστολική 689, as stated in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom “itself goes around and seeks those worthy of it, and favorably appears to them on the paths, and meets them with every thought” (Wisdom 6:16). Just as the Lord commanded his disciples: “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20), “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), so “they went and preached everywhere, with the Lord working together and confirming the word with subsequent signs” ( Mark 16:20). This sermon, passed on from generation to generation, expanded and captured ever larger circles. Apostleship has always been the most important duty of church people. But this moment does not yet exhaust the apostolicity of the Church. The Church is a real subject, a living Being 690, but not an institution or an abstract concept. Like every individual, she is unicum, one of a kind; but at the same time the individual is catholic. Therefore, the existence of the Church is not exhausted by this or that teaching, even if it is catholic, but presupposes its own existence, for itself, expressed in the self-consciousness of the Church. If the Church, being catholic, is not limited by any external conditions, neither time, nor space, nor the social, economic, etc. system of the people, then this is only a negative definition of its property. The positive definition lies in the Self-identity of the Church - in the fact that everywhere, always and under all conditions, in all shells and under all clothes, the Church remains identical to itself, and, moreover, not only essentially identical, but also numerically, for any other identity would only be equality. Just as “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), so is His Body – the Church. Just as a person’s personality under all conditions remains identical to itself, which is expressed in the unity of self-consciousness, so the Church, eternally inspired by the One and the Same Spirit, can never become different. In order to be “the pillar and foundation of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), “the solid foundation of God” (2 Tim. 2:19), the Church must necessarily have numerical identity, real unity. After all, with formal unity, unity of teaching, behavior, etc., it is always possible to put different content under the same forms. Then, without real unity, we would not have the right to talk about the Church as a Body, but would have to talk about church institutions that have a purely ephemeral reality. But on what is such real unity based and guaranteed? What ensures that the flow of church history tells us about the history of the Church, and not about similar and causally determining phenomena of the social system? This real unity and self-awareness of the Church is based on the unity of the Holy Spirit, who revitalizes and sanctifies the Church. But it is guaranteed for us, for members of the Church, mainly by the continuity of the hierarchy. In it, it is not the teaching that passes from believer to believer, but the real interaction of personalities takes place through the sacrament of initiation. This establishes a real, and not just a formal and ideal, connection between the members of the Church, personal boundaries are removed and, through a series of intermediate links, the hierarch mysteriously touches the Lord Himself 691. And since the main and primary links in this chain are the holy apostles, then in this sense the Church is again called apostolic, and this second apostleship serves as a guarantee of the first, the messengership. Its essence is that the contact of two, the dedicatee and the dedicator, is accomplished not through ideas, not through products of consciousness, but through the real interaction of personalities. The question arises, but can’t there be a hierarch who is not appointed from another hierarch? Of course, he can, for isn’t God able to give him grace-filled powers directly? But, if there are no certain, predictable external phenomena, then only in exceptional circumstances and conditions could we distinguish such a person from a non-hierarch. For church people, generally speaking, he would have remained as a simple layman. This is why Holy Scripture often emphasizes the apostolic origin of ecclesiastical humanity. Thus, the Lord promised Peter to build his Church on it (Matthew 16:18). Without going into an analysis of all the disputes about how exactly to understand this passage, whether to see under the “Stone” Peter himself, or his confession, or the confessed Christ, we can notice the undoubted fact that in one sense or another Peter is considered the foundation of the Church, as well as the other 12 Apostles (Rev. 21:14). The apostles receive the right to knit and decide (Matthew 16:19, 18:18). The entire church building was built on them (Eph. 2:20). And they, in turn, appointed their successors in the Church (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 5:22). The catholicity of the Church and the two mutually complementary sides of its apostolicity define the Church as a universal subject and therefore, equally necessary for each other and inseparable from each other, can be united into the last property of the Church - its universality 692. The invincibility of the Church in the sphere of universality lies in the fact that the “gates of hell” can never shackle and limit the catholicism of the Church to the area of ​​the conventional, just as they cannot break and fragment its self-identity in one or another conventional manifestation. One or another part of church humanity (“local Church”), depicted in Revelation under the image of a lamp, can violate the catholicism of the Church, falling into phyletic heresy, and can break away from the continuity of the hierarchy, forming a schism. Then she will be removed from her place (Rev.2:5). He who walks among the golden lampstands (Rev. 2:1) can transfer them from one side to the other and again kindles their light stronger than before. But the Church will never succumb to the “gates of hell” and will forever remain universal, just as it will forever remain united and holy. Chapter five. The relationship between the attributes of the Church and its symbolic definition The Church is the Body of Christ and, like any body, must inevitably have properties common to it with every body. Every body, from the most general point of view, is a “group,” to use the language of mathematics, and therefore, formally and logically, we cannot define the Church otherwise than as a group. But since the formal-logical definition does not adequately capture the divine side of the Church, therefore for us it has a conditional, symbolic meaning. But every group is a certain (1) set, united by a certain (2) unity into a (3) whole. So, in the Church we must distinguish (1) plurality, as a collection of individual parts and elements from which the body can be composed; (2) unity, as a form forming from them a real body; (3) the whole, as the expression of multitude in unity and unity in multitude, or, if you like, the actually realized purpose for which the multitude came together. More specifically, we must distinguish in the Church: 1) its substance or the people from whom its content is composed; 2) its unifying principle or the Body of Jesus Christ, which assimilates these individual human units into itself; 3) her self-awareness, coming from the Holy Spirit. And since, although the entire Holy Trinity participates in every Divine act, nevertheless, individual moments of God’s economy belong primarily to one or another Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, then, in accordance with the three Hypostases, we can distinguish three moments in the Church: 1) the work of the Father, as the Creator, who gave existence to people entering and having to enter the Church; 2) the work of the Son as the Word organizing people into His Body; 3) the work of the Spirit as the Sanctifier, the life-giving Body of Christ. But the Church is the Body of Christ, it is the Body par excellence, τὸ σῶμα, as well as the fullness of Christ, the Completeness par excellence, τὸ πλήρωμα. Being an absolute Body and absolute Fullness, the Church cannot be symbolically represented by any particular being; the fullness of her divine being, which carries within itself the potentialities of everything, is depicted only by the totality of everything, every created being given in the cosmos. And since “everything” cannot be imagined separately, then “everything” must be taken according to the main categories of what exists. Three areas studied in 1) physics (understanding it as the science of inorganic being); 2) biology (understanding it as the science of organic being); 3) psychology (understanding it as the science of spiritual-intelligent being), three typical representatives will answer in the field of ecclesiology: 1) the world of lifeless matter (mineral); 2) the world of organized matter (animal-vegetable); 3) the world of animate matter (spiritual-intelligent), namely: 1) a building, a structure, as the most beautiful product of physical-chemical forces external to the substance itself (cohesion, heaviness, etc.); 2) a living body, an organism, as the most expedient identification of educational aspirations internal to the organization itself (organic forces); 3) bride, wife, as the most perfect adherence to moral duty, which neither internally nor externally binds her and, therefore, is completely free. By virtue of what has been said, three modes are established in the relation of the Divine to the Church and the Church to the Divine. Namely: 1) The Divinity (primarily the Father) lives in (ἐν) the Church, as in a Building, and the Building-Church, a type of multitude, lives in the Divine. 2) The Divinity (primarily the Son) lives through (διὰ) the Church, as through the Body, and the Body-Church, a type of form, lives through the Divinity. 3) The Divinity (primarily the Spirit) lives with (σύν) the Church, as with the Woman, and the Woman-Church, the type of the whole, lives with the Divinity. If these are the three aspects of the Church, then it is clear that the three attributes of the Church will be: 1) universality, as a property of absolutely integral content or substance; 2) unity, as a property of an absolutely integral form; 3) holiness, as a property of absolutely holistic self-awareness. 1) Universality befits the building of God, so that nothing is excluded from its stones; 2) The Body of God deserves unity, so that every organ has its place; 3) The wife of God deserves holiness so that moral self-awareness is complete 693. But all these properties of the only mystical Church are given in reality, but in the empirical Church, i.e. for church humanity, are not so much data as given. Hence the task facing ecclesiastical humanity is to achieve the full implementation of the named three attributes of the Church, i.e. the need for change towards greater and greater embodiment of these properties. 1) Like a Building, the Church mechanically increases and strengthens its connections; 2) as a Body, the Church grows organically and makes its members more proportional; 3) as a Woman, the Church improves and subordinates its individual states to the moral idea. The invincibility of the Church for the “gates of hell” means that: 1) the strength and indestructibility of the Building will not succumb to enemy power. Church -The building will not be destroyed, despite all mechanical damage; 2) the health and immortality of the Body will not yield to the enemy’s power, the Church-Body will not be killed, despite all illnesses; 3) the morality and purity of the Wives will not faint from the enemy’s power, the Church-Wife will not be corrupted, despite all the temptations. This is the first thing; secondly, the invincibility of the Church for the “gates of hell” means that: 1) the increase in the Building (towards universalism), despite the private aspirations of individual parts of ecclesiastical humanity to limit themselves to the given content of the Church, will not stop; 2) the growth of the Body (towards unity), despite the individual deviations of individual organs in order to gain dominance, will not stop; 3) the improvement of the Wife (towards holiness), despite temporarily appearing thoughts that seek to occupy the consciousness, will not be disrupted. Thus, the “gates of hell”, i.e. the totality of all evil forces, namely: 1) fragmentation; 2) death; 3) sin - they will not prevail over the Church and it will remain undisturbed in all its three attributes. Christ, the fullness of the Godhead ( Col. 2:9 ), said: “I am the way, the truth, the life – Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή” ( John 14:6 ). And the Church, the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:23b) is, therefore, the way, the truth and the life. But what is given in Christ as a person is reflected collectively in the humanity of the Church. 1. The path in the Church is that part of ecclesiastical humanity that is the disseminator of the idea of ​​the church and at the same time the main bridge along which new elements of ecclesiastical humanity come to the Church. These are the laity, for the actual implementation of Christianity in life serves as the main way for bringing new stones into the Church Building. 2. Truth in the Church is that part of ecclesiastical humanity that is the guardian of the idea of ​​the church and at the same time the main corrective that maintains the harmony of new elements with the old. This is the priesthood, for the control of the newly emerging aspects of church life is the main adjustment for the protection of the old members of the Body. 3. Life in the Church is that part of ecclesiastical humanity which is the purifier of the ecclesiastical idea and at the same time the main impulse by which the improvement of old elements lives. This is a prophecy, for the creative purification of the already existing church life is the main motivation for improving the already existing aspects in the spiritual life of the Wife. If 1) laity, 2) clergy members, 3) charismatics form the main tissues of the church body, then 1) authority, 2) tradition, 3) revelation are the main principles in the life of each of these tissues. 1) Authority is primarily the guiding principle of the laity; it gives the beginning of action external to the believer, for it is contained in a fixed and unchangeable form (Holy Scripture, canons, etc.). d.); 2) Tradition is primarily the guiding principle of the kliroshan; it gives for the believer a living, although external to him, beginning of action, contained in the general church consciousness; 3) Revelation is primarily the guiding principle of charismatics; it provides for the believer a living and internal active principle of action, contained in personal consciousness. At the same time: 1) the laity, who increase the content of the Church, are predominantly depicted as a Building, the main advantage of which is to firmly hold what is invested in it (authority); 2) the choir members, who guard the form of the Church, are predominantly depicted as the Body, the main advantage of which is to stubbornly resist the introduction of alien elements into it; 3) charismatics who purify the self-consciousness of the Church are predominantly portrayed as a Woman, whose main dignity is to freely follow the voice of a free conscience. These are some of the trinitarian divisions of the existence of the Church. There is no doubt that there is a very close touch both between the individual members of the triads and between the individual triads, although it is impossible to say that each of the members of each triad corresponds exactly to the member with the same number of the other triad. Here it is necessary to add “primarily” all the time, and this “primarily” is caused by the very essence of the matter. The Living Whole - the Church - cannot be anatomically dissected into parts by any diagrams, just as it is impossible to accurately distinguish on a living human body where one part of the body begins and where another ends. That is why the Church is something Whole that cannot be divided into parts. But nevertheless, this conditional schematization has its benefits, helping to navigate the Whole. The close affinity of the individual moments of a separate triad is due to the very principle of schematization. Thus, holiness is embodied in universal content through a unifying form; the whole arises from the many through unification; πνεῦμα acts in σάρξ through the medium of ψυχή 694; life is achieved by passing through truth, etc. Let us note, in addition, that each of the triads is not, therefore, a simple enumeration of three moments, but is an ascending series, each member of which to a certain extent includes the previous one. Thus, for example, the symbol of the Body includes the symbol of the Building, which it carries within itself in the form of a skeleton; and the symbol of the Wife includes the symbol of the Body, for the Wife has the Body. A cleric is at the same time a member of the Church and a layman, and a prophet is also a cleric. Tradition implies authority, and revelation implies tradition. Truth carries within itself the path (to truth), and life implies truth. Growth includes increase, and improvement includes growth. In a word, each triad is an ascending progression, and not randomly grouped moments. The Church, as an absolute Organism of Spirit, soul and body, is most perfectly symbolized in three words-symbols: Building, Body, Wife-Bride. “If we want to know what is taught to us by Divine revelation about the essence of the Church, then we must first of all delve into the meaning of these images, for we will not find any abstract definitions of what the Church is in the Holy Scriptures, and in general, regarding such a complex real and living subject as the Church, concrete images are closer to the truth and more meaningful than abstract concepts. The building of Christ, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ - here we have the most direct, precise and complete definition of the Church" (14, IV, 553) 695. The further presentation forces us to consider each of these symbols of the Church separately. But first it is necessary to grasp some of their common features - the work is all the more expedient since it will allow us to avoid repeating the same thing three times in the future. Due to the dual nature of the Church (see Chapter II), each definition of it must inevitably correlate the Church with Christ and ecclesiastical humanity, or, in other words (in this case, the idea remains the same), with the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ. From this, each definition of the Church is split into two, so that in total there are 6 symbols or 3 syzygies. The first syzygy – the Church-Building, which includes the “Cornerstone” Christ, and the Church-Building in which Christ lives by His Spirit – has both conjugated symbols very distant from each other. While in the first of them Christ is, as it were, primus inter pares, in the second He is something completely different in nature than the entire Building - not like this or that stone of His. The second syzygy - the Church-Body, the organization of which includes the “Head” Christ, and the Church-Body, which is revived by Christ - already makes both conjugate symbols closer to each other. Here there is no such abyss between the Christ of the first and second symbol, for the head is at the same time an organ that, through its activity, lives throughout the whole body. The third syzygy - the Church-Wife, in communion with whom the “Husband” Christ is, and the Church-Bride, which is just waiting for the “Groom” Christ - almost already identifies both conjugate symbols, and it is natural to consider them identical. Hence the duality of predicates with which each syzygy is endowed. Considered as it is given in God, the Church has its absolute attributes as given, complete, and actual 696; considered as it is given in humanity, the Church does not possess given, complete, actual attributes, but must fulfill the task of achieving them: they are given to the Church only potentially. This dualism, perhaps intolerable to reason, is a necessary consequence of the true religious force of all the concepts under consideration. We have already seen, when we talked about the dogmatic-metaphysical definition of the Church, that words-concepts subtly transform into words-symbols, and a dogmatic-metaphysical definition into a dogmatic-symbolic one. In the same way, we will see further that the dogmatic-symbolic definition imperceptibly turns into a dogmatic-allegorical one, and words-symbols into words-emblems. But not only that, individual aspects of the symbolic definition themselves do not remain stable. The images transform into each other, live, sway, change their shape, grow. The building begins to grow into a City, into the Jerusalem of Heaven. Individual stones of buildings become churches themselves. The building stretches into a column. Then the fluctuations become more serious. The stones come to life, the building is created in love, grows on itself; Moral purity is required of him. Finally, it imperceptibly became a living, spiritualized Body and turned into the Bride. The Bride becomes the Wife, and the Wife is the Body of her Husband, while the Husband is his Head. Etc. In a word - πάντα ῤεῖ 697, but in this general flow of religious schemes a sign of life - a life that is elusive by any schemes. In all the fullness of images, one mystery of salvation is revealed - in a cascade of individual diagrams, the single idea of ​​the Church is refracted by thousands of rainbow colors. But they remain mutually exclusive only for rational knowledge. Direct religious experience again carefully collects each colored ray, and, refracted in the consciousness of the believing soul, they form a dazzling white disk - the image of the saving Sun. The symbol of the Building originates from the Savior Himself. In response to Peter’s confession (Matthew 16:16), the Lord said: “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you (i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God), but My Father who is in heaven; and I say to you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-19). This text has been repeatedly subjected to interpretation and reinterpretation (see, for example, (32, 1, 583–584); (7, 136–144); (13, 95–106:112); (10, 36–38); (8:325)). The main question here is what is Peter’s attitude towards the Church. As you know, renaming has always had a mysterious meaning: it was especially mysterious this time when Simon (Σίμων, Συμεών, in Hebrew Shimgon), which in Hebrew means Listening. He who listens 698, as if Hearing the Divine Truth 699, received the deeply significant name of Cephas or Peter, which means rock, stone 700, according to the generally accepted interpretation 701. The meaning of this renaming will become clear if we compare the verse under discussion with the previous one. Christ speaks of Simon's faith, given to him by the Heavenly Father. As such, it is, of course, the Rock on which everyone must build. “The stone is not from Peter, but from the stone Peter, since it is not from a Christian that Christ is named, but from Christ a Christian,” says the blessed one. Augustine 702. “Peter does not mean the Rock (Petra), but the one who is named from the Rock (Petra). Thus, Melissus ἀπὸ τοῦ μέλιτος does not mean a bee (apem), but means the one who received the name from the word apis. Thus, Hespersus from vespere” 703, etc. Peter is a Stone, but a Stone for the faith given to him, so that, in fact, the true Stone is the content of his faith, the Lord Himself. Peter without faith ceases to be a Rock. It is remarkable that the Savior usually called him Peter. But when Peter lost his firmness and denied Christ, Christ again called him by his former name: Simon. Only the new confession of the Apostle again restored the name of Peter to him (John 21:15:16) (cf. also 19:290). Thus, at the foundation of the Church-Building lies the confession of Christ, faith in Christ, or, better to say, the Lord Himself, as He is perceived by human consciousness. The Apostle Peter, as the first to accept the Divine dignity of Jesus, was thereby the first to lay the foundation, the foundation of the Building. But he is not alone there. “... Having been established on the basis of the apostles and prophets...” writes the apostle. Paul (Eph.2:20). Comparing the Greek text of this passage ( προφητῶν) with the text of Matthew 16:18 (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω), we are convinced that here and there we are talking about foundations similar to each other. But who are the prophets? There is a lot of exegetical warfare about whether to understand the prophets of the New Testament or the Old Testament 704; but, without going into the details of these disputes, we note the following: 1) by προφῆται in Eph.3:5 we undoubtedly mean the New Testament prophets; 2) here they are compared with the apostles, and the close connection of both is indicated by the unity of the member τοῖς; 3) “prophets” have the same meaning in 1 Cor. 13:1–3, 13:8; Rom.12:6, 3. In 1 Cor. 12:28 they come immediately after "apostles" and in Eph. 2:20; Eph.3:5; Eph.4:11. 4). In Eph.4:11, the community of the member in the expression τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους shows the identity of the class or category of “shepherds” and “teachers,” i.e., charismatics like “apostles” and “teachers.” 5) In the “teaching of the 12 apostles” XVI, the identity of the office of prophets and teachers is emphasized by the unity of the member: “for they (bishops) also perform ministry for you, τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.” In view of what has been said in Ephesians 2:20 should be understood in the sense that these are people, charismatics of the same category. This view is confirmed by the fact that only the New Testament prophets can be spoken of as the foundation of the Church, in the same sense as the apostles, and also by the fact that in modern church-historical science 705 the prophets are not considered as something different from the apostles in terms of the type of talent, but as the same apostles who settled in a certain community and attached to it. So, at the foundation of the Church are the apostles and prophets. But they are there not as specific individuals, but by the type of charisma received from God and, therefore, because of their activity in the Church. In general, the image of the Building, as emphasizing the universality of the Church and, therefore, the real existence of the “substance” of the Church, does not take into account the human will, but primarily means humble submission to authority, receptivity to the Divine voice on the part of the individual, listening to God’s voice. Simon, as the Hearer par excellence, is the first stone in the foundation of the church. Other apostles follow him. Then there is the apostolic and prophetic office. Simon-Peter lies first, because it is impossible for all twelve to be first 706, but there is no difference in essence, as can be seen from the other passages of Holy Scripture we have cited. And that this or that place for each Stone is determined by the wise will of the Creator and the type of position, but not by the advantage of the person, this is evident first of all from the very meaning of “foundation”. With it, as with an apostolic sermon (apostolic in general, and not deliberately referring to the apostles in a narrower sense), the construction of a building begins, for the foundation of the Building-Church is Christ preached (28, 11, 230; 7, 133, seq.), Christ confessed and perceived - in a word, faith in Christ as the Son of God (cf. Matthew 7:24–27 ). This meaning of the apostolic-prophetic office, as preaching about Christ Jesus, is also indicated in Rev. 21:14, which describes the Heavenly Jerusalem (“spreading” of the previous image of the Church-Building) (14, IV, 552). “The Wall of the City,” says the Seer of Mysteries, “has twelve foundations, and on them are the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). “The foundations of the City wall are decorated with all sorts of precious stones: the first foundation is jasper, etc.” ( Rev. 21:19–20 ). In these texts, the foundations are designated by the word θεμέλιος, the same one that is designated the foundation in Eph. 2:20. But the true meaning of these foundations is revealed from the words of the Apostle Paul: “I, according to the grace given to me from God, like a wise builder, laid a foundation (θεμέλιον), and another builds on it (ἐποικοδομεῖν); but each one see how to build (ἐποικοδομεῖν) For no one can lay any other foundation (Αεμέλοον) than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Does anyone build (ἐποικοδομεῖν) on this foundation (ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον) from gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw - everyone’s work will be revealed... Whoever’s work that he built will stand - he will receive a reward; but whose work is burned up, he will suffer loss...” (1 Cor. 3:10–15; cf. Matt. 7:24–27). Neither the Apostle Paul (for he lays the foundation), nor Jesus Christ Himself (for the apostle cannot lay Himself as the foundation) is the foundation, θεμέλιος. Θεμέλιος is faith in Christ Jesus, which appears from hearing the word of inspired preaching. The foundation of the Church cannot be laid by faith in anyone other than the Lord Jesus. And therefore, if this or that person is called a foundation, then this must be understood, so to speak, functionally. The place in the architectonic whole makes the apostle the foundation, and it is not he who gives the place a certain important meaning. When it comes to Stone for a building, it is not a matter of the shape of the stones (for they will be hewn), but of their ability to be easily hewn. To be “clay in the hands of the Potter” (cf. Rom. 9:21) is the primary virtue of Church members in the first aspect of the Church. Therefore, this first aspect relates primarily to the laity, and the guiding principle of activity here is authority, as a form external to the material itself, the architectural plan of the building. The struggle against the “gates of hell” is purely passive: each stone, without aggressively attacking the “gates”, remains in its place - stands firmly despite what authority tells it. And until it moves, it remains part of the building, and the entire Building continues to stand. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” meaning that there will always be enough unmoved stones so that the whole building will never collapse. But along with the “foundation,” Eph. 2:20 also mentions the “cornerstone”: “being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου Ἰησοῦ), on which the whole building, being harmoniously put together, grows into a holy church in the Lord εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Кυρίῳ), in which you too are built into a dwelling place of God by the Spirit ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς ( Eph.2:20–22). First of all, we must clarify the term “cornerstone”, which is also mentioned in the texts: Matthew 21:42 (Ps. 118:22, cf. 1 Pet. 2:7). “The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner... ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας ; 1 Peter 2:6 ( Isa. 28:16 ); “Behold, I lay in Zion the corner stone (Λίθον... ἀκρογωνιαῖον), chosen, precious; and he who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” There is no doubt that by Λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος we mean the Lord Himself. But in what sense? In Isaiah, in the book. Job 708, it is found under the name eben pināh and from the context it is clear that this is the main, essential stone that gives stability and strength to the whole building. In construction, the cornerstone is the most important stone on which the entire building is built and established. This is a stone that is placed at the head of the corner and therefore binds and restrains, “closing the two walls of the building” (Works of Blessed Theodoret, vol. VII, p. 428). But this is not enough. This stone is placed in such a way that it serves as a support and stronghold for the foundation itself; therefore St. Chrysostom says: “The cornerstone is that which supports both the walls and the foundation, on which the entire building is supported” (Conversation on the last to Eph., p. 90). Consequently, this stone holds back the base and walls of the building (actually, the corners of the walls), i.e., the two most essential parts of the building. From this the relation of the cornerstone to the foundation becomes clear. It is not the same as the foundation, but is the cornerstone of the foundation itself; therefore, there is something different from it, although the foundation, the cornerstone, holds the walls on itself, or, more precisely, the necessary, because it binds, holds back the foundation, connecting the corners of the building itself. Thus, placed at the head of the corner, this stone imparts connection, strength and stability to both the foundation itself and the whole building rising above it, so that everything entering the building itself rests and rests on it 709. From this it is clear in what sense Jesus Christ is called the Cornerstone. He is the metaphysical center of the entire Church; without Him it would crumble into individuals. He is also the metaphysical principle, the restraining foundation - faith in Him. Without Him, faith in Him is not and is impossible, for in Him only does it find support. But nevertheless, a foundation is also necessary - subjective faith in Him. Everything else in the parsed text does not require special parsing. Let us note only a few features that cannot be conveyed in the Russian translation. Firstly, the terms συναρμολογουμένη and αὔξει are of an organic nature (see Chapter 4, § 1; also (2, 51, 144:221)) and refer to the Body rather than the Building. This indicates the transition of this image of the Building into the image of the Body. Secondly, the word συνοικοδομεῖσθε: indicates the participation (passive, as a material) of the Ephesians in the construction of the church, from which it is clear that the local Church is only a part of the church. Thirdly, and finally, it is important that πᾱσα οἰκοδομή is called κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, i.e. it is represented that God lives in the Dwelling, a parallel of which we find in the texts: “you... God's building, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε" (1 Cor. 3:9); “Don’t you know that you are the church of God (ναὸς θεοῦ) and the Spirit of God lives in you (ἐν ὑμῖν οἰκεῖ)” (1 Cor. 3:16); “You are the church of the Living God,” as God said: “I will dwell in them and walk in them...” (Lev.26:12; 2Cor.6:16); “...how one ought to act in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God...” (1 Tim. 3:15); “and Christ, as the Son, is in His (God’s) house; But we are His house (οῖκος αὐτοῦ), if only we hold fast the boldness and the hope in which we boast, firmly to the end” (Heb. 3:6); “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the Living God (πόλει Θεοῦ ζῶντος), to the heavenly Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ) and to ten thousand Angels, to the triumphant to the council and Church of the firstborn written in heaven (καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς ...)" ( Hebrews 12:22–23); “Dwell in your hearts by faith,” καρδίαις ὑμῶν" (Eph.3:17; cf. Col.3:16; 2Cor.12:9); “He who sits on the throne will dwell in them” (Rev. 7:15); “Whoever loves Me will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him (μονὴν 710 παρ᾿ αὐτῷ ποιησόμεθα)” (John 14:23; cf. John 14:17, 18:20); “and the City (Heavenly Jerusalem) has no need of either the sun or the moon to illuminate it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Rev. 21:23); “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:3–4; cf. 22:5) and so on. So, the Church is a Building, house, dwelling, tent, city, Heavenly Jerusalem, Pillar, etc., serving as a dwelling place for God. It can actually be represented by one, two, three, etc. people, a people, finally, humanity and even all creation, 711 always and everywhere, and under all conditions, remaining itself. Without dwelling on further analysis of the texts related here (which can be found in the previously indicated interpretations), let us return to the text (Matthew 16:18–19). Christ said: “I will build – οἰκοδομήσω – My Church.” The verb οἰκοδομέω, as having a tectonic meaning of house-building, undoubtedly points to the image of the Church-Building presented before Christ. This image is developed further when Christ speaks of “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven - τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν” (Matthew 16:19). Let us note first of all that placing this “power of the keys” next to “building on” and the “Kingdom of Heaven” next to the “Church” proves the very great affinity of the corresponding members in pairs of these concepts. Some kind of close relationship is being established between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. But a question of this kind arises: if the building of the Church will, in fact, not be on Simon-Peter, but on the Christ confessed by him, then the “power of the keys,” textually referred to Peter (“you,” 601), apparently also refers not to Peter as a person, but to Peter as the confessor of Christ. “The power of the keys” belongs in its own and most precise sense to Jesus Christ Himself: “Thus says the Holy One, the True One, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one will open; I know your works: behold, I have opened a door before you, and no one can shut it; You have not much strength, and you have kept My word and have not denied My name” (Rev. 3:7–8). The Holy and True is ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖδα Δαβίδ, and Peter can only receive (δώσω): I will give, says the Lord, this key from the hands of Him who has it - to receive as one who performs a certain function based on the confession of Christ. What is this function? Christ says: “...whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). This is “the power to bind and decide - δεῖν καὶ λύειν”, given, as is known, also to face 12 (Matt. 18:18; cf. Matt. 18:29; Mark 3:27; Matt. 13:30; Luke 13:16; Rev. 9:14). In view of the parallelism between Matthew 18:19 and Rev. 3:7, one has to think that “the power to bind and loosen” is the same as “the power to lock and unlock” (Rev. 8:7), especially since Matthew 16:19 does not say what Peter will actually do with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” If Christ transfers His power to Peter, then, as can be seen from Rev. 3:7, this is precisely the “power to lock and open,” i.e., “the power of the keys.” The second half of verse 19 of Matthew 16 fully corresponds to the second half of verse 7 of Rev. 3. Vl. protested against such an understanding in advance in the interests of papism. Soloviev (13, 132–135), motivating the difference between one and the other power in the following words: “... when they talk about keys, they would have to say: close and open, and not knit and decide. And indeed, we read in the Apocalypse (limiting ourselves only to the New Testament): “He who has the keys of David, who opens and no one will shut, he who shuts and no one will open” (Rev. 3:7). You can close and open a room, a house, a city, but you can only bind and untie special objects and creatures that are in a room, a house, a city. The Gospel text in question is a metaphor, but a metaphor does not have to be absurd. The image of the keys of the kingdom (royal residence - bêth-ha-mélék) undoubtedly means a power more extensive and universal than the image of binding and loosening” (ibid., 132–139). But, captivating at first with its simplicity, upon closer examination it turns out to be a simple archaeological misunderstanding: “Doors in ancient times were attached with ropes, and keys were used to tie and unfasten them. Therefore, instead of talking, like us, about unlocking and locking doors, the Jews talked about tying and untying them” (Geiki) 712. So, Christ gives Peter the right to unlock and lock doors - obviously the doors of the Church that was built on him. Unlocking and locking doors means letting people in and not letting them into the Church. But what is the charisma discovered at this moment (for what is given from the Heavenly Father, such as, for example, in this case, the knowledge of the Divine nature of Jesus, is precisely the charisma of Peter)? In confessing Christ as the Son of God and at the same time in preaching this truth to his co-apostles, in teaching them. Consequently, the “power of the keys” comes down to the ability to divinely penetrate into the Mysteries of God and divinely transmit them to others so that faith is ignited in others, the doors of the Church are opened for them and they enter there in order to then become one of its stones 713. The “power of the keys” is in its essence the apostolic charism. And it is clear that everything declared to be untruth on earth will be untruth in heaven, and what is declared to be true on earth will be truth in heaven as well. “The power of the keys” is the gift of penetration into the Divine Will, which is Truth. From here the further words become clear: “Then Jesus commanded his disciples that they should not tell anyone that He was (Jesus) 714 the Christ. From that time on, Jesus began to reveal to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day rise again” (Matthew 16:20-21). The Apostle says: “then, τότε,” “from that time, ἀπὸ τότε.” Why did “then” forbid speaking? Because it was still premature to speak, but the disciples of Christ had already received the power to speak. And since He forbade τοῖς μαθηταῖς, and not Πέτρῳ 715, then, obviously, Peter spoke to Christ “on behalf of” the rest of the disciples, although this was not agreed upon in advance (cf. Matt. 16:15 and 16:16), and Christ, speaking .. σὺ 716, meant not only Peter, but also everyone else, although to a lesser extent. Next, why did “since” start to speak? Because only since the apostolic charisma of secret vision was given to the disciples, their eyes were opened and they began to understand the Divine mysteries. Thus, verses 20 and 21 stand in close connection with the previous ones, as well as those with the initial verses of the chapter, which speak of incomprehensibility, insensitivity to the mysteries of God on the part of the Sadducees and Pharisees, and then the disciples of Christ. The entire 16th chapter reveals the gradual enlightenment of the disciples’ gaze, starting with complete blindness, similar to the blindness of the Pharisees and Sadducees, then passing through the stage of vague anxiety and unclear guesswork (v. 7 and cf. v. 12), then through the confession of Christ as the Son of God (see 16), then through the teaching of the disciples by Christ Himself (v. 21), and even further through the decisive struggle between blindness and sight (vv. 22-23), through Christ’s setting forth the basic condition for full sight (v. 24) and, finally, the promise to show in advance the fullness of times - “the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (v. 28), which is actually fulfilled in the Transfiguration of the Lord, with the narrative of which the next chapter begins (vv. 1-5). This is the path of insight, at the turning point of which the Church is evangelized, before the end of which (during Peter’s dispute with the Lord about Death on the Cross (vv. 22–23)) the Church is preemptively born, and at the end of which (transfiguration) the Church preemptively triumphs, appearing as the glorified Body of Christ. This is the general connection of thoughts in ch. 16, and it best proves the established understanding of verse 18. It can also be confirmed by the fact that “to decide and knit” was, as Leightfoot showed in a large number of examples (Nog. Hebr. vol. II, pp. 238–241), an expression that was in daily use among the Jews and meant: to allow and prohibit (in the sense of qualifying a thing, deed, action, etc., as corresponding to the law or not; and the Law was considered God’s will, why “decide and knit” means establishing for oneself and announcing to everyone and others the will of God - P.F.). It was a common expression among rabbis when they had to decide the countless number of cases put before them. They “tied”, i.e. prohibited, one thing, “untied”, i.e. allowed, another (19, III, 396); (1, 9:88) with reference to Ios. 1., Vel. Iud., 1, 5:2). What the “power of the keys” means, given to the apostles and, mainly, Peter, becomes clearer from the parables conveyed in John 10: 1-18, where Christ compares Himself to a door. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up somewhere else, is a thief and a robber, and he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep: the doorkeeper opens the door for him, and he calls his sheep by name and leads them out, and when he has brought out his sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice; they do not follow a stranger, but flee from him, because they do not know the voice of others” (John 10:1-5) and “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep... I am the door: whoever goes out by Me will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture...”, etc. (John 10:7-18). He who “goes in and out” by the door obviously has “the power of the keys,” has the power of “loosening and tying” the lock. Only the gatekeeper and the Shepherd himself know the secret knots of the castle - only Christ Himself and His Apostle (or Apostles) know what the secrets of entering and exiting the Church are. Anyone else who does not have the charisma of apostleship, if he tries to enter and exit, will not be able to cope with the locks and will turn out to be a thief and a robber, whom the sheep will not follow; they do not know his voice - he does not have a gracious word of preaching for the flock of Christ. The expression “knit and solve” is usually interpreted as the origin of the sacrament of confession, where the priest has the power to “knit and solve sins.” But this interpretation would be too narrow and too strained. What is the essence of absolution in confession? Of course, it is not that, according to his whim, the priest can say: “If I want, I will let go; if I don’t want, I will not let go,” referring to the words of the Lord: “Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; On whomever you leave it, it will remain on him” (John 20:23). Truly the Jews were right when they thought in their hearts about Jesus Christ: “Why does He blaspheme so much? Who can forgive sins except God alone?” (Mark 1:7; cf. Luke 5:21). Only they didn’t know who was in front of them. But only the Son of Man “has power on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24; cf. Luke 7:47; Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 10:18, etc.). A priest can forgive a sin not in the proper sense, but in the sense of stating, testifying that God forgives and forgives this sin. Therefore, the apostolic right to forgive sins is only a special case of the apostolic secrecy and the declaration of the will of God. The charism of apostleship is the knowledge of the mysteries of God. The most striking distinction of the Apostles from the mass of the rest of the people was that the Lord spoke to them not in parables, incomprehensible even to the people, but directly. “For this reason,” the Lord told them, “because it has been given to you to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it has not been given to them... blessed are your eyes that they see, and your ears that they hear” (cf.: “Blessed are you, Simon,” etc. - Matt. 16:17) ( Matt. 13:11, 16. See also Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10; cf. Matthew 10:26; Mark 4:22; 1 Cor. 14:25; Knowledge of the mysteries is precisely what was given to the Apostles, because even the gift of miracles comes down to this knowledge: miracles are performed not by the will of the Apostle, but by the will of God, and the Apostle is, so to speak, the Trustee of God, knowing the hidden will of God and constructing his actions in view of this will. This is why the Apostle Paul speaks so often about the mysteries of God; this was his office, because such was his charism (1 Cor. 15:51, 13:2, 14:2; Rom. 11:25, 14:22; Col. 1:27, 2:2, 12:6, 4:3; Eph. 3:3, 5:32, 1:9, 6:19, 3:4, 3:9; 2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:16), as well as all the other Apostles (except for the previously cited places, see: Rev. 1:20, 10:7, 17:5, 17:7). “Boldly proclaim with your mouth the mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19; cf. Col.1:26, 4:3) – in this the Apostle sees his purpose (Eph.6:20); “Everyone should understand us (that is, Paul himself and, perhaps, the Apostles in general) as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), writes the Apostle; in the same way, “deacons must be... keeping the mystery of the faith in a clear conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). And at the moment of the highest spiritual upsurge, the Apostle, seeing clearly in “the way of God,” exclaims: “O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom. 11:33). Without dwelling on further evidence of the identity of the “power of keys,” “the power to knit and loosen,” and “knowledge of the mysteries of God,” 717, let us move on to the most striking and vivid example, where the Church is presented as a Building, as a Church, the restraining Cornerstone of which is the Body of Christ, and in which the Divinity lives - “all the fullness of the Divinity lives bodily” (Col. 2:9). Having demonstrated his authority in relation to the Temple of Jerusalem (John 2:13–18), Jesus, when asked by the Jews about proof of the legitimacy of His authority, said to them: “Destroy this church, and I will raise it up in three days” (John 2:19) (“λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, ἐγερῶ αὐτόν "). “He spoke,” as John noted, “about the church of His Body (περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ). When He (ὅτε οὖν) rose from the dead (ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν), His disciples remembered that He had said these things, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus spoke” (John 2:21-22). These words of the Savior were obviously spoken very publicly, because even three years later, when He was on the cross, the surrounding crowd with anger, mockery and mockery reminded Him of this decisive and mysterious prediction of victory over death (cf. Mark 8:31, etc.) - they repeated, however, without understanding it and, all the less, seeing that they were creating the firmest bulwark against the attacks of modern criticism on the fact resurrection (Matthew 27:40; Matthew 26:61; Acts 6:14; Mark 14:58, 15:29) 718. But their mystery becomes even greater if we remember the remark of the Apostles (John 2:22). To unravel the thread of an idea, let's turn to the sequence of thoughts. The Jews told Christ about the Temple of Jerusalem - the mystical center of the Old Testament theocracy. Christ answered them, speaking about “this church.” The question is, what exactly is “this”? Strauss 719 720 quite rightly speaks of the groundlessness of the assumption that Christ pointed his finger at His body. Of course, literally analyzing His words, we are forced to admit that He primarily spoke about the Temple of Jerusalem. But why then does the Evangelist note: “When He rose from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said these things, and believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus spoke” (John 2:22)? Because when the Jews killed Jesus Christ, at the same time they “destroyed” (actually “allowed”, “destroyed”, “cancelled”, cf. the verb used by the Savior: λύσατε, John 2:19) the Temple of Jerusalem in its mystical essence, for from that moment it ceased to be the only and exclusive place of true worship of God (cf. John 4:21): from that moment on, the Temple of Jerusalem, as the Church κατ’ ἐξοχην, scattered everywhere, wherever there was a New Church in the hearts of the true worshipers of the Father - the Church, in which it is no longer the Shekinah of God, but the Divinity Itself 721. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Jews 37 years before the new, material destruction of it by Titus (in 70 A.D.), and Titus had to burn not the Church, but the “room under the Church”, in which the Jews had previously mystically torn the veil of the holiest” (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). But when the Jews destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, Christ, as promised, “raised it in three days,” for Christ was resurrected and, together with His body, erected its Church, that is, the Church, which was taken upon the Body. This is what the Evangelist notes when he speaks about Christ: “And He spoke about the church of His Body - αὐτοῦ" (John 2:21), which is why the Evangelist continues: "that is why (ὅτε οὖν), when He rose from the dead (ἠγέρθη, - literally - was raised up, i.e. here is the same verb as in v. 19 and 21, and it is remarkable that the Jews about The Temple of Jerusalem was said to be οἰκοδομήθη, so Christ wanted to emphasize that He was not talking about the simple construction of the Church-building, but had in mind something more important), then His disciples remembered that He said this, and believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus said” (John 2:21-22). Thus, the Jews really fulfilled what Jesus Christ spoke about, really destroyed it by killing Jesus Christ, which caused the veil to be torn and the Old Testament ended, and thereby contributed to the erection (literally awakening, for this is the first meaning of the verb ἐγείρω; and this indicates the Church as a Being) of a new thing, common to pagans and Jews, common even to of all creation, the universal, one and holy Temple - the Temple of the New Testament, and in this Temple “true worshipers” “worship the Father already in spirit and truth” (John 4:4), as the Lord predicted to the Samaritan woman. Truly, His prophetic words came true: “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:226), as the Apostle of the Gentiles pointed out: “So, I ask,” says the latter, “have they (the Jews) really stumbled in order to completely fall? No way. But from their fall salvation came to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (Rom. 11:11). “They are now disobedient to have mercy on you (the Gentiles) ...” (Rom. 11:31). This interpretation of John 2:19 becomes especially convincing when compared with the Epistle to the Hebrews and controlled by the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapter 10 is especially important) 722 . But not having the space and time to go into this issue, we will only note the following. According to Pfleiderer 723 724, the true meaning of the analyzed words of the Savior is preserved only in Mark, in the accusation of false witnesses who attributed to Christ the words: “I will destroy this church made with hands and in three days I will erect another not made with hands” (Mark 14:58). Whether correctly or incorrectly, Pfleiderer believes that Christ said his phrase in exactly this form is a different matter, but there is no doubt that the meaning of the words is really this and is suggested by the very difference in the verbs οἰκοδομεῖν (about the Temple of Jerusalem) and ἐγείρειν 725 (about “Church of the Body”). If the crowd (as can be seen from the mockery of the Lord during the sufferings on the cross) understood the Lord’s words too simply, then the same cannot be said about the false witnesses, who undoubtedly grasped the mystical content of his answer, but could not fully understand it. The patristic interpretations of 726 also come close to the proposed analysis of John 2:19. (“If the hand-made and soulless buildings of the legal faith are called the beloved dwellings of God,” writes Blessed Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in his interpretation of the Creed, “and the holy of holies, just as the church built under Solomon is called the holy house and church of the Lord, then how much more the body of the Lord, created and fashioned in Him by the Divine Spirit, “unless it is sin,” a body which, having deified in union with Him, it itself sanctifies everything, serves Him as a holy, animated and inseparable church" (See the Writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. St. Petersburg, 1857, III. 74. - Cf. John Chrysostom, Conversations on Various Places of the Holy Scriptures, Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1862. “He did not say: destroy). this body, but the Church, in order to show that God dwells in Him." "That the body of Christ is the church of the Divinity is, according to the above, a complete truth; but that the church of God is not necessarily the body of Christ - this is also true" (Cf. I. Crys. In ep. 1 ad Sog. Nom. XLI. Orp. ed. Montf. Par. 1837, X. 452). Blessed Theodoret (De incarnatione), p. 18, writes the following: “The Savior does not say, “destroy Me,” but destroy “this Church,” that is, the church received by Me (NB).” See N.N. Glubokovsky, Blessed Theodoret (M.., 1890, II, p. 103, cf. p. 109). The image of the Church-Building embodies one of the attributes of the Church - universality, and this attribute is immanent to the image itself, since the material in the building seems to be something most essential. But the other two attributes - unity and holiness - have only an external relationship to the image in question, so to speak, are transcendental to it and are imposed on it from the outside, especially the last one - holiness. In fact, it is impossible in a strict sense to talk about the unity of the building, because the individual elements only externally touch and are externally fastened to each other. Something foreign to them - cement or lime - turns individual stones into a monolithic whole. But this “whole” is only a conditional whole, for the true “whole is before its parts” (Aristotle) ​​727, and in a building the parts are before the whole. The Cornerstone in a building is not the bud, the potential of the building, but only an externally restraining mass, just as an architectural plan is not a revelation of the internal forces of a building, but something externally imposed on the building material, to which it relates and must relate completely passively. This lack of unity in the building (although the architectural plan of the building may be internally unified) is especially clearly visible in the “spreading” of the image of the building - in the image of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21%10–25 728; Heb. 11:10, 12:22, 13:14; Rev. 22:195 729). Here, not only are individual stones held together by bonds that are external to them, but even more so, individual houses are in external and conditional unity among themselves, united by a random plan in relation to them, given from God: Here everything is nothing before God, and the task of everyone is reduced to complete submission to Divine authority. If this is so, if there is no unity, then there can be no talk of holiness. Holiness is not only external to a building, but also something conventionally attributed to it. It is not the stones that are holy, not even the architectural plan, but the Lord who dwells in the Building is holy, and the walls of the Building, so to speak, are not capable of assimilating this Divine Holiness, for assimilation is possible only with the existence of a moral personality. But, of course, when applied to the Church, all this must be said conditionally, since with the further development of the image, when the stones of the building are called “living” and are invited to build themselves into a spiritual house 730, when αὔξει is spoken about the increase of the Building, when we talk about love in relation to the building (Eph. 4:16), it imperceptibly passes into the images that follow it, and Jerusalem on High is directly called the Bride of the Lamb ( Rev. 21:9, cf. 21:2). Since there is no unity, i.e., co-dependence of individual parts that do not have strictly defined isolation, then there can be no talk of the growth of the Building; and since there is no even deeper unity - the unity of the moral personality, then there can be no talk of improvement. There is only an increase in the Building, a realization of its universality, taking place from the outside (“No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him,” John 6:44; cf. 6:45 and Matthew 16:17) according to the predetermined plan of God’s Providence 731 732. So, emphasizing one side of the Church with all its might, the considered image of the Building turns out to be insufficient to clarify the other two sides. Hence the need arises to move on to the second image – the image of the Body. A distinctive feature of a living body in comparison with a structure is its organization. Organization is such a property of all living things, due to which living things are not a collection of separate parts, indifferent to the whole, but a whole, internally unified, despite and even due to the diversity of parts, mutually necessary, and, therefore, heterogeneous and irreplaceable with each other. Both the unity of the whole and the heterogeneity of organs in a living body are not something external to it, but a disclosure, a manifestation of the internal essence of the organism - forces immanent in the organism itself. The main thing, therefore, is the form of the organism, as a manifestation of organizing potentials, and not the substance flowing through this form. In the unstoppable flow of matter, the form stands motionless, developing systematically under the pressure of the organizing principle (nisus formativus) unfolding from within. From here it is clear that the harmony and internal harmony of the organs, on the one hand, and the growth of the organism, on the other, serve as the most important features of the organism. They form the basis of Paul’s image of the Church-Body. Let us first consider the growth of the Church. “For God and in God,” says Vl. Solovyov (14, III, 355–358), - therefore, for all who are already in God, for the blessed spirits of the invisible Church - the kingdom of God has already been created, that is, in their eyes the entire hierarchical structure of the universe in all its complex perfection, all the depths of true knowledge and all the fullness of living and mysterious communication of the Divine with creation - all this three-part whole appears as one perfect, defined in all its parts and the expedient organism of deification, or the body of God. And in the historical existence of the visible Church, this divine body is already given from the very beginning, everything, but is not revealed or open, but is only gradually revealed or revealed 733. According to the Gospel comparison, this universal body (the kingdom of God) was originally given to us as a divine seed. A seed is not a part or separate organ of a living body; it is the whole body, only in possibility or potency, that is, in a state hidden for us and inarticulate, gradually revealing itself. With this opening, only that which in itself, as a formative form and living force, was already initially contained in the seed, is revealed in the material phenomenon. Thus, when a tree grows, only its visible state changes and improves, and not the essential form of this tree itself, which was initially already contained entirely in its seed. Likewise, the divine form of the Church, in itself (i.e. in God) perfect and unchangeable, grows, develops and improves in us, and this progressive course of its appearance forms the history of the Church. But just as it is impossible to doubt this historical course, it is also certain that from the very beginning of the Church, its divine element in its threefold composition was already really present in the Church, as the living seed of the Spirit of God embedded in it, and because of this, further modification and improvement occurred not through the mechanical application of new forms from the outside, but through the organic growth of the divine seed, which gradually transformed human soil into its body and embodied in natural material its divine forms, originally hidden in this very seed. In other words, the own essence of the Church, which has always formed it, was not always clearly recognized and accurately defined by Christian humanity; in the history of the Church, this divine essence, which has been in it from time immemorial, does not immediately, but only gradually, from its hidden and unconscious state pass into the clear consciousness of the visible Church, is defined and realized in it” 734. “Therefore, although in the Church there have always been visible forms of the divine, at first these forms were very simple and imperfect, just as the visible form of a seed is very simple, imperfect and far from being consistent with the full form of a plant, although it contains the latter potentially. But how unreasonable would be the one who, not seeing in the seed either a trunk and branches, or leaves and flowers, would conclude that all this is then only artificially and externally attached, and does not come out by the power of the seed itself, and on this basis would reject the entire future tree in order to always preserve only the bare seed - the same unreasonable act is anyone who rejects the more complex, that is, more revealed forms of God’s grace in the Church and certainly wants to return to the image of the primitive Christian community.” “However, just as in the smallest seed of a plant the most important foundations of future forms can be discerned (such as division into shares or layers, a sprout, etc.), so in the very first embryo of the Church, in the apostolic community of Jerusalem, the presence of three formative connections of the universal body of Christ is already clearly discernible,” namely: hierarchical succession, dogma, sacraments. “So,” continues Solovyov (ibid., 358–359), “the Church, not only in its material composition and external distribution, but also in the appearance of its formative forms, grows, develops and improves. For although the divine element of the Church itself is unchangeable, since the method and degree of its discovery depends on the method and degree of assimilation of this divine element by the human element, changeable by nature, then, consequently, the manifestation of the divine in the Church in this regard changes, determined by a greater or lesser correspondence between its divine and human sides. Such growth, development and improvement of church forms in no way excludes the unchangeable foundation of the Church, not only in itself, but also in its visible manifestation. For, in the first place, no matter how the forms of the hierarchy, the formulas for the confession of faith and the rites of the sacraments were modified and complicated, it was never the case that a correct hierarchy, a true confession of faith and real sacraments did not exist in the Church, and in the second place, all these modifications and complications in these three areas did not abolish, but, on the contrary, preserved and confirmed the former, being only its revelation... The root is not in the growth of a tree is abolished by the trunk, but on the contrary is nourished and preserved by it, just as it itself preserves and nourishes it; in the same way, the trunk is not abolished by branches, leaves, flowers, etc., but all this together in its entirety forms one perfect plant, living not by replacement, but by the mutual preservation of its parts. So for the visible Church, the true situation is not that nothing new appears in it, but that the new that appears in it does not contradict or destroy the old, but affirms and reveals it.” The Church is based on Christ, perceived by human faith. If this firstfruits of the Church in the image of a building was represented in the form of a rock, in the form of soil on which the Building is erected, then in the image of the Body it cannot be represented otherwise than as a seed, grain, embryo from which the Body-plant or Body-animal grows. The Lord said to his disciples: “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed (ὡς κόκκον συνάπεως) and said to the fig tree (τῇ συκαμίνῳ; according to another 735 mulberry tree) this: “Be uprooted and planted in the sea,” then it would obey you" (Luke 17:6; cf. Matt. 17:20). “Faith as big as a mustard seed” – ὡς κόκκον συνάπεως – minimal faith, for the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds” – ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων (Matthew 13:32; cf. Mark 4:31). But, despite its inconspicuous size, this is the most mustard seed of faith sown in the human heart (see Matthew 13:3ff., Mark 4:3ff., Luke 8:5ff. - the parable of the sower. Wed. Matthew 13:24 ff., John 4:36 ff., Gal.6:5–10), as in a field, “when it grows, it grows larger than all the grains and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and take refuge in its branches” 736 (Matthew 13:31; Mark 4:31–32; Luke 13:19), i.e. it grows according to according to the Savior, to the “kingdom of heaven” (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν). In the places just listed, the same image is persistently and powerfully repeated - the image of sowing grain and the seed growing into a developed plant. Entire chapters of the weather forecasters are occupied with a series of parables in which the terminus comparationis 737 is the mysterious life of a plant (Mark 4; Matt. 13): “The kingdom of God is like if a man throws a seed into the ground, and sleeps and rises night and day, and how the seed sprouts and grows, he does not know, for the earth itself produces first greenery, then a full grain in the ear, when When the fruit is ripe, he immediately sends in the sickle, because the harvest has come” (Mark 4:26–29). And just as once in the doctrine of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the germination of a new, jubilant life from a seed decaying in its grave serves as a symbol of renewal and resurrection, so in Christianity: “Truly, truly, I say to you: unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; and if it dies, it will bear much fruit” (John 12:24. Compare 1 Cor. 15:35–38). The relationship of believers to Christ is the relationship of the individual members of the plant to the seed or trunk from which they grow or on which they live. “I,” says Christ, “am the true Vine (ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή), and My Father is the Vinedresser 738; Every branch of Me (πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ) that does not bear fruit, He cleanses it, so that it may bear more fruit. You have already been cleansed through the word that I preached to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it is on the vine; so will you be if you are not in Me (ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε). I am the Vine, and you are the branches; whoever abides in Me, and I in him (ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ, κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ), he bears much fruit, for without Me you can do nothing; Whoever does not abide in Me will be cast out like a branch and wither, and such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned...” (John 15:1-6). But Christ was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), and the pagans must humble themselves and admit the fact of their dependence on the Old Testament theocracy (Matthew 15:26–28) in order to be able to join the New Testament one. The Gentiles are then “grafted” into the “holy root” of Israel. If the first fruit is holy, so is the whole; and “if the root is holy, then so are the branches,” writes St. Paul, referring to the theocratic “firstfruits” of the forefathers, headed by Jesus Christ. “If some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive tree, were grafted into their place and became a sharer of the root and juice of the olive tree (here we mean linguistic Christians), then do not be proud of the branches; if you are arrogant, then remember that it is not you who hold the root, but the root that holds you. You will say: “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Fine. They were broken off through unbelief, but you hold on by faith: do not be proud, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, then see if He will also spare you. So; you see the goodness and severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen away, and goodness towards you, if you continue in the goodness of God; otherwise you too will be cut off. But even those, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from the olive tree that is wild by nature, and were not grafted into the good olive tree by nature, much more will these natural ones be grafted into their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:16–24 739. Cf. Open 11:4, which speaks of “two lamps and two olive trees”). Having grown organically, the Church has its own, internally complete idea, carries out its plan, and therefore each branch of this Plant bears a certain, so to speak, “church” fruit. Without the juices of the root, without the vital energy of the trunk, the branch will not bear fruit, which is “only needed” (Luke 10:42), for without Christ people can do nothing (John 15:5). Without Christ, they will bear fruits corresponding to the tree into which they were grafted, and this tree can be recognized by its fruits (Matthew 7:16:20). Indeed, “are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit: a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit...” (Matthew 7:16-18). “There is no good tree that bears bad fruit; and there is no bad tree that bears good fruit. For every tree is known by its fruit; for they do not gather figs from the stubble, nor pluck grapes from the bush” (Luke 6:43–44). And (on another occasion) writes Ap. Jacob: “A fig tree, my brothers, cannot bear olives, or a vine fig...” (James 3:12). Therefore, if a tree does not produce fruit, if it is barren, then this exposes its essence, and it is worthy only to be cut down and thrown into the fire (Luke 13:6-9; Matt. 7:19), the ax is already lying at its root, ready for cutting (Matt. 3:10; Luke 3:9. Compare Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:9, which speaks of the need for fruiting); a fig tree that does not bear fruit is cursed and must wither (Matt. 21:19-20; Mark 11:13-14, 20-22 - here, however, we still need to find out why Jesus cursed the fig tree: whether to punish it for barrenness or to show the disciples the power of faith), for it has already shown its lifelessness. One who is grafted into Christ cannot be barren and lifeless. Therefore, a truly living fig tree, by the very process of its life, indicates parallel events in the mystical world; when life begins to flourish, does that mean the victory of Christ and the end of history are near? 740. “Take likeness from a fig tree: when its branches become soft and put out leaves, you know that summer is near” (Matthew 24:32 = Mark 13:28). We have traced all the stages in the growth of the Church-Plant - we have seen how a seed is sown in the ground, how it sprouts, how it becomes an adult, how a grown tree bears fruit and predicts the end of the earthly. At the same time, we can only be delighted by the success and simplicity of the symbol. Plant, by its etymology (from grow), is an embodied category of growth. Growing throughout its life, it reveals in a concrete image the process of organic growth of the Church better than anything else. The hearts of believers are sown with the Church, believers sleep and get up day and night, and do not know how the seed of the Church rises and grows in the heart and gives fruit, unexpected for the believer himself, as if a gift to him, because the heart itself produced the fruit (cf. Mark 4:26-29). And now, looking around, the believer sees something that was not there before, and it seems to him that all the growth was not a dream. “If a stone turned into a mountain,” writes Vl. Solovyov 741, although for a different reason, is only a symbol, then the transformation of a simple and barely visible grain into an organic body, infinitely more extensive and complex, is a real fact. And it is precisely with this fact that the New Testament explains in advance the development of the Church - this large tree, which at first was an inconspicuous grain, and now provides extensive shelter for the animals of the earth and the birds of the air. – Among the Catholics themselves (we would say: believers in general) there were ultra-dogmatic minds who, rightly amazed at the immense oak tree covering them with its shadow, completely refused to allow all this abundance of organic forms to come from a structure as simple and elementary as an ordinary acorn. In their opinion, if the oak came from an acorn, then the latter should have contained within itself, in a clear and distinct manner, although not all the leaves, but certainly all the branches of a large tree; he had to not only be essentially identical with him, but also be like him in absolutely everything. On this basis, minds of the opposite direction - ultracritical - began to disassemble the poor acorn down to the last detail and from all sides. Naturally, they do not find anything in it that resembles a large oak - no tangled roots, no powerful trunk, no thick branches, no wavy green foliage. “It’s all nonsense!” - they say. “An acorn is an acorn and can never be anything else. As for the big oak tree with all its attributes, it’s not difficult to guess where it came from: the Jesuits invented it at the Vatican Council, we saw it with our own eyes... in the book of Janus.” – At the risk of appearing to exaggerated dogmatists as a freethinker and at the same time being declared by critical minds to be a disguised Jesuit, I must certify the following truth: that the acorn has a completely simple and elementary structure; that it is impossible to find in it all the constituent parts of a large oak tree; and that nevertheless the latter really comes from the acorn, without any trick or usurpation, but by full right, even by Divine right. God, not subject to the conditions of time, space, or material mechanism, sees in the present seed all their enormous future power. He, of course, had to see in a small acorn, identify and bless the powerful oak tree that would come from it; in the mustard seed of Peter’s faith, He saw and predicted the immense tree of the Catholic Church, which would cover the earth with its branches.” The building certainly does not have an inherent unity; The individual parts of the building are united with each other by external contact and external cohesion only. The Cornerstone, which holds the entire building together, is only the mechanical center of the entire structure. The plant is connected by organic unity, but still its root has exceptional significance. The whole is not so conditioned by the harmony of the parts that each part, except the root, is absolutely irreducible. It can be cut off without much damage to the whole, as long as the root remains intact; and she herself, to a certain extent, can put down a new, independent root, being planted in the ground in the form of layering. If, therefore, the plant most perfectly represents the organic growth of the Church, as the first moment of its unity, then it is not sufficient to symbolize the organic unity of the Church in the sense of the correlation and interdependence of individual organs. The symbol for this side of the Church is the Body (σῶμα) in its proper and literal meaning, like the body of an animal and, primarily, the human body, but in its independence from the mind. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised that the symbol of the Church-Body of St. The Apostle uses it most readily in those cases when he needs to prove the mutual necessity of the members of the Church and the diversity of the gifts and functions of the Church (1 Cor.) or the unity of the Church (Epistle to Col. and, especially, Eph., where unity is the main theme and leitmotif of the entire epistle). “Coming into the world (Christ) says: You did not desire sacrifices and offerings, but you prepared a body for me” (σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι) (Heb. 10:5 = Ps. 39 (40): 7, however, there is no mention of “body”). Much has already been said about this Body earlier, and metaphysical consideration often involuntarily turned into symbolic. Therefore, we will only touch on some of the related issues. According to Weizsäcker, shared by Holtzmann 742, “the image of the Church-Body was transplanted by the Apostle into pagan soil, where it has its original source in the fable of Menenius Agrippa 743. But, if even for such a simple image one must certainly look for sources, then it is much more natural to see them in rabbinism, where, undoubtedly, there was an idea of ​​Israel as a body 744, which is partly indicated by the previously mentioned image of the olive tree (Rom. 11). And that the Body, in the mouth of the Apostle Paul, is not always a metaphysical definition of the Church, but sometimes a simple symbol (however, the metaphysical definition often almost imperceptibly turns into a symbolic one, and to draw decisive boundaries here, as in general in the sphere of religious ideas, would be scholasticism and would threaten to kill the living spirit of religion) - this is clear 745 746, for example, from the fact that the significance of the Head is not unconditionally attributed to Christ, but conditionally, and, if necessary, each believer can be called the head: “I also want,” writes the Apostle, “for you to know that the head of every husband is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” 747. The meaning of the analyzed image is the harmony of the organs of the body and their differences in unity. “The Church,” says one researcher 748, “is the kingdom of solidarity; each local Church is a private realization of it. An organism cannot acquire strength if its members remain inactive. The health of the local Church therefore depends on the activities of its members. We saw above that a spiritual gift is a condition for all fruitful activity. A believer who wishes to live must only ask. Jesus Christ has gifts in store for each of his. – We know that a gift gives birth to service: the multiplicity of gifts produces, therefore, the diversity and multiplicity of ministries. “Multiple ministries are the norm, and if it is not found in most of our Churches, it is because they lack life... Everywhere a single ministry has taken the place of a multiplicity of functions, and the multitude of Churches brings to mind these unfortunate hydrocephalus, whose excessive head sits heavily on a frail body.” “The division of labor not only in the church, but throughout the entire universe is the ruling law.” “Multiple ministries presuppose a busy life, which is expressed through properly organized activities. Indeed, wherever life exists, individual action gives way to cooperation, and when you look at it from a very close distance, you end up noticing that life is ultimately only a miracle of cooperation, so well organized that it manages to continue forever. “The doctrine of ministries therefore allows for a synthesis between life and order, between believers and institutions” (25:135). This is the same thing that the blessed one said. Theodoret (see 45:407) in the words: “The body is not a simple thing, but a complex of many parts.” Therefore, even a certain difference in the rituals or views (theologumen) of individual local Churches may not indicate their internal antagonism. Thus, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow did not even consider the Catholic Church to be a false Church. “...Both the Eastern and Western Churches,” says the Examiner, “are equally from God.” “Yes, since both confess Jesus Christ having come in the flesh, then in this regard they have one common Spirit, which is from God,” answers Confident. – Spanish: “However, these are two Churches that have different opinions among themselves.” – Confidence: “Yes, each of them has its own spirit, or a special relationship with the Spirit of God” (7:14). But in order to test which spirit is more consistent with the Spirit of God, you need to “put yourself” where the spirit of the two great Churches borders on the Spirit of God. “Can you stand and contemplate at such a height? Admit it, aren’t your eyes foggy” (ibid., 14–15). But “what should this test consist of: namely, is the spirit of this society from God?” (ibid., 15). “The test is not to make one’s local Church the only true one, but to show its rightful place among others who rightfully occupy their place. So much the better for the cause of Christ if another Christian Church can defend itself with the weapons found” (ibid., 28). “And you,” the Confident Man reproaches the Examiner, “are still looking for a weapon that would protect you with the death of others... You certainly want to force me to judge. Know that, adhering to the above words of the Holy Scripture (i.e. 1 John 4:1, 2:3), I do not dare to call any Church that believes that Jesus is the Christ false. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, professing the true and saving Divine teaching without mixing false and harmful human opinions, or not purely true, mixing false and harmful human opinions into the true and saving teaching of the faith of Christ. This very distinction is used by the Apostle when he says: for thou shalt not preach as many preach the word of God uncleanly, but as from purity, but as from God (1 Cor. 11:17)....” (ibid., 28-29). Only “He who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands” (Rev. 2:1) knows the state of the lampstand of the Roman Church (ibid., 126); “What I have expressed,” says Confident, “fair respect for the teachings of the Eastern Church in no way extends to the trial and condemnation of Western Christians and the Western Church...” (ibid., 127). “As for the eastern half of today’s visible Christianity: I consider it not out of prejudice and partiality, but out of jealousy based on conviction and conscience, to be the rightful part of visible Christianity...” (ibid., 129). (The following are some proofs of this position.) “These are new signs of a firm union with the ancient Universal Church of the present Eastern Church, which therefore I call the gum part in the whole composition of present Christianity...” (ibid., 131). “You now expect how I will judge the other half of present Christianity. But I just just look at her; I partially see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals many and deep wounds of the ancient serpent in all parts and members of this body, applying sometimes mild, sometimes strong healing, and even fire and iron, in order to soften the bitterness, in order to extract poison, in order to cleanse the wounds, in order to separate wild growths, in order to renew the spirit and life in half-dead and numb joints. And thus I am confirmed in the belief that the power of God will finally, obviously, triumph over human weaknesses, good over evil, unity over division, life over death” (ibid., 131-132). We cited these reasonings of the Most Reverend Philaret (Drozdov) in order to show that even such profound differences as the differences of the Catholic Church can be produced from a “special relationship to the Spirit of God” and, therefore, in themselves, as differences, are not yet subject to condemnation, but, in the highest unity of the Church, perhaps they are necessary in their own way, just as the left side of the body is needed by it, although it is weaker in strength than the right. But in order to see this Divine necessity of differences and even errors, you need to rise to that mountain height from which the Apostle “Caught up to the third heaven” and “Hearing unspeakable words, which it is impossible for man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:2-4), saw that “God imprisoned all in disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” (Rom. 12:32). But if a certain member of the body really fell ill, then, according to the merciful remark of the “wise” 749 Metropolitan, “from the time of baptism, whether he is not healthy, then at least weak, or, although dead, he is already a member of the body of Christ” (7:33), for “only with this assumption can the uniqueness of baptism be explained. Just as a member of the natural body never ceases to be a member, unless through irrevocable cutting off and perfect death, so a person who has put on Christ in baptism never ceases to be a member of the body of Christ, unless through irrevocable falling away from the Church of Christ and eternal death” (ibid., 23-24). And as long as he is a member of the Body, what will make others stop hoping that sooner or later this dead member will be filled with the juices of life and come to life? Even the “eruption of the corrupt from among” Christians, for example, the eruption of an incestuous person (1 Cor. 5:2:13), is not a final eruption into “outer darkness”, where there is “the second death,” that is, something absolutely irrevocable, but only a disciplinary measure, on the one hand, admonishing the sinner by betraying him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh 750 and completely separating him from those around him ( 1 Cor.5:11), “so that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 5:5), and on the other hand, stopping the possibility of further spread of infection, because “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 4:6). Therefore, Pfleiderer is hardly right when he compares this excommunication of a sinner with the amputation of a gangrenous member, with the goal of saving the life of other organs. The severed member dies the “second death,” and the excommunicated incestuous one, as is known, repented and was again accepted into communion. True, in the Church there may be members who are completely dead, who have internally fallen away from the church body. But the Spirit of Christ alone, who revives the Church, knows whether they have completely died or have just died. Remaining unassimilated elements in the Body of Christ, they do not belong to it and are, as it were, foreign parts. “Just as a body that grows and continues to live, some substances belong only temporarily, and over time, even in large numbers, are separated from it, without thereby interfering with its growth and perfection, so the growth and perfection of the body of the Church is not hindered, even if they were numerous, by people who believe for a time, and during adversity, or other types of temptations, fall away (Luke 8:13), who departed from us, but did not run away from us ( 1 John 2:19)" (8:325). This is the very difference between the expressions “to be in the Church” and “to be from the Church” - “être dans l’Eglise” and “être de l’Eglise”, which we spoke about earlier 751. We spoke generally about the differences between individual bodies of the Church. Let's look at several texts related to this; At the same time, the unity of the individual members will become clear. In his farewell conversation with the disciples, the Lord, depicting Himself as a Vine, the branches of which are the disciples (John 15:1-7), then immediately moves on to the teaching of love: the unity of the branches with the Vine requires love for the Vine and love of the Vine for the branches. And the condition for the latter is the fulfillment of the commandment of Christ. “This is My commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you; Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12-13). And then the Lord still does not leave the image of the Vine, speaking about fruitfulness (John 15:16). And, subsequently revealing His oneness with the Father, the Lord ends the conversation with a prayer for unity (John 17:11-23). But, as said, the image of the Vine does not so strikingly clarify the interdependence of individual branches, although it comes closest to symbolizing the dependence of the branches on the Vine Itself: “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “Therefore I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, present (παραστῆσαι) your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, for your reasonable service...” Everyone must know what the will of God is, which has given him this or that place in the Whole, and not “think more about himself than he ought to think,” but think modestly, “according to the measure of faith that God has for each paid For just as in one body we have many members, but not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another ὁ δὲ καθ́εἰς ἀλλήλων μέλη)". And since, “by the grace given to us, we have diversified gifts ἡμῖν διάφορα)”, then each member must function in its assigned sphere (Rom. 12:1–6). Further (12, 6–9) the various gifts are listed, after which the Apostle makes a general exhortation about “love,” “brotherly love and helpfulness,” and other types of Christian asceticism. All the listed virtues (12, 9–21) are manifestations of the internal unity of the spirit and serve to establish external unity. The subsequent chapters set out the rules of Christian community life, and all of them constitute a moral deduction from the basic principle - the unity of the spirit in the diversity of ministries. Every action must be directed towards unity and proceed from unity. This is the attitude towards power and law, towards food, etc. All this is permeated through and through with the spirit of love seeking unity. If in the above passage from the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle develops the theme of unity through instilling modesty and humility in each member separately, then in the First Epistle to the Corinthians unity is justified by the mutual necessity of the members. If in the first case the Apostle seems to be saying: “remember that you are a separate member, and therefore do not dream about yourself, do not attribute to yourself those functions that you are not capable of,” then in the second the Apostle seems to continue the previous argument: “however, both the Whole Body and you yourself, as a separate organ, need the cooperation of all the others. You are connected with all members and therefore, cooperating with them, live in love with them, which is the highest gift.” This passage is from 1 Corinthians (chapter 12): “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and the services are different, but the Lord is one and the same, and the actions are different, but the God is one and the same, producing everything in everyone. But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the benefit: to one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Yet all this is done by one and the same Spirit, dividing it to each one individually, as He pleases. For just as the body is one, but has many members, and all the members of one body, although there are many, constitute one body, so is Christ. For we were all baptized into one body by one Spirit, Jew or Greek, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink. The body is not made of one member, but of many. If the foot says: “I do not belong to the body because I am not a hand,” then does it really not belong to the body? And if the ear says: “I do not belong to the body because I am not an eye,” then does it really not belong to the body? If the whole body is eyes, then where is the hearing? If everything is hearing, then where is the sense of smell? But God arranged the members, each one within the body, as He pleased. And if everyone had one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand: “I don’t need you”; or also head to feet: “I don’t need you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem weakest are much more necessary, and those that seem to us to be less noble in the body, we take more care of; and our unseemly ones are more plausibly covered, but our good-looking ones have no need (for that). But God proportioned the body, instilling greater care for the less perfect, so that there would be no division in the body, and all members would equally care for each other. Therefore, if one member suffers, all members suffer with it; if one member is glorified, all members rejoice with it. And you are the body of Christ, and separately you are members. And God appointed others in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers; further (to others he gave) powers (miraculous, also gifts of healing, help, government, different languages. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are everyone miracle workers? Does everyone have gifts of healing? Does everyone speak in tongues? Are everyone interpreters?” (1 Cor. 12:4-30). But all these gifts are nothing if there is no love, for it is “the most excellent way” (see 1 Cor. 13). Due to the fact that most of the texts concerning the name of the Church as the Body (in a symbolic or metaphysical sense) have already been analyzed, we will not dwell on them further and will give only a list of the most important of them, namely: Eph. 1:23, 2:16, 4:4, 12, 16, 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24, 2:19; 3:15 ; Rom.12:5; 1 Cor.6:15, 10:17, 12:13, 27,752. We have already said that the image of the Church-Body, as primarily symbolizing the unity of the Church, refers to the priesthood, for its task (primarily) is to take care of the preservation of the “form” of the church body in the flow of changing believers. In this sense, the priesthood is the soul (ψυχή) of the church organism (as opposed to the flesh of the laity and the spirit of the prophets). Therefore, the norm of activity is the living church tradition, and its goal is the health of the body. Christ, by his dual nature, has a double meaning in the image under consideration: the Head and the Spiritualizing Principle. But, being one, the Body cannot be called holy in the proper sense of the word, just as the Church cannot be called one in the proper sense of the word. As a non-spiritual being, it can be sanctified and not holy, and therefore, for a concrete presentation of this last attribute, we need to move on to the third image of the Church - to its third aspect - the aspect of the Bride or Wife. A distinctive feature of a spiritualized being in comparison with a living body is its self-consciousness as a spiritual substance. In the free surrender of oneself to the sanctifying energies of the Spirit lies the guarantee of the holiness of such a being, because only with the free choice of purity and spiritual splendor are they holiness, and not when the blind desire of the body is involuntarily expressed in them. Holiness is in a free act of will, and therefore the image of the Bride-Wife, as a primarily receptive being, is most suitable for symbolizing the feminine nature of the Church, which receives the powers of the Holy Spirit. But if unity in diversity is an immanent revelation of the internal forces of the body, then the self-identity of consciousness and the resulting holiness (the retreat from holiness to sin is eo ipso 753 and the retreat from the self-identity of the personality to disintegration and decomposition, as happens with mental illnesses that disintegrate consciousness) 754 is the very essence of the personality, for the personality is only insofar as it assimilates the image of God into it invested because she absorbed her God-created prototype and thereby became a saint. There is no holiness outside of personality, and there is no personality outside of holiness. Therefore, the attribute of holiness constitutes the very soul of the image in question. The invincibility of the Church by the “gates of hell” in the sphere of holiness is expressed as the eternal self-identity and purity of the Bride of Christ. That is why the image of the Church-Bride primarily refers to the third rank of church humanity - the charismatics or prophets, meaning the latter in the broad sense of people inspired by the Holy Spirit. For this very reason, the norm of activity here is personal religious consciousness, inspired by the Spirit - “sacraments” or “secrets” in the broad sense. For this same reason, the process of deification 755 in this image is symbolized by the perfection of the Bride-Wife. Prophecy constitutes, as it were, πνεῦμα, the life-giving spirit of the Church Organism, the priesthood - ψυχή, the living soul, and finally, the laity - σάρξ, its flesh. Thus, the last image of the Bride includes both previous ones. And, just as the Wife is the Body of her husband, and He, therefore, is her Soul and her Head, then Christ in the symbol of the Groom-Husband includes the previous symbolism. Let us turn to the consideration of texts. The image of the Church-Bride is primarily developed by the Author of Revelation, as well as by the Apostle Paul; but the inspirer of both was the Lord Himself, who repeatedly used this image, and, moreover, in three modifications. The Church, in terms of its devotion to Jesus Christ, in terms of its subordination to Him, is symbolized as “Zion’s Daughter” - an expression found in the prophets Isaiah and Zechariah - and then Christ Himself is the King. “Say to the Daughter of Zion 756: Behold, your King (i.e., Christ Himself) 757 is coming to you...” (Matthew 21:5 = Isa.62:11; Zech.9:9; cf. John 12:15). It is remarkable that after the 11th verse the prophet Isaiah directly speaks about the new theocracy: “And they will be called a holy people, redeemed by the Lord, and you will be called a city frequented, never forsaken” (Is. 62:12). From the side of her chastity and purity, as well as from the side of her joy in union with Christ, the Church is represented by Christ Himself as the Bride, and precisely as the Bride at the very height of marriage celebrations, that is, preparing to become a Wife and Mother. And Christ is then called the Bridegroom (ὁ νύμφιος), celebrating his wedding in the bridal chamber. This image was used by the Lord in the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1–13), which has eschatological significance. But Christ the Bridegroom is not only an eschatological image, since it was attributed by Christ (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34) to His earthly life. If the Church is the Bride, and Christ is the Bridegroom, and the marriage of the Groom with the Bride depicts the unity of Christ with the Church, then the believers are presented as participating in the marriage, as friends (cf. Luke 12:4; John 15:14:15) of the Bridegroom and the Bride (οί φίλοι μου, says Christ). On the contrary, all those who were inattentive to their duties, to the Bridegroom and His marriage, remain outside the bridal chamber? 758. This is the general idea of ​​several parables, of which the parable of the ten virgins, as Pfleiderer notes, “is a further development and transformation of the shorter parable of Luke 12:35, seq.” (32, I, 595). “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom; of them five were wise and five were foolish. The foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them; and the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps; and as the groom slowed down, they all dozed off and fell asleep. But at midnight a cry was heard: “Behold, the groom is coming to meet him.” Then all the virgins stood up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the wise, “Give us your oil, for our lamps are going out.” And the wise answered: “So that there is no shortage for both us and you, you better go to those who sell and buy for yourself.” When they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast (εἰς τοὺς γάμους), and the doors were shut. Then other virgins come and say: “Lord! God! Open to us,” He answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you.” Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour (in which the Son of Man will come)” 759 (Matthew 25:1-13 et cf.). This is the eschatological parable about the marriage of Christ 760. But, as said, it also applies to the earthly life of the Savior. John the Baptist, calling Christ the Bridegroom, assumes the role of a groomsman (Paranymphus), rejoicing in the marriage of his Friend... “You yourselves are my witnesses,” says John to his disciples, who came as if to complain to him about Jesus Christ, “that I said: “I am not the Christ, but I was sent before Him.” He who has a bride is a groom; and the groom’s friend, standing and listening to him, rejoices with joy, hearing the groom’s voice: this is my joy fulfilled; he must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:28–30) – ? τοῦ νυμφίου αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται ...). The meaning of this symbol will be quite clear if we remember the purpose of the “groom’s friend” 761, 762 or groomsman, paranymph. One of his main duties was to guard the door of the bedchamber (Huppa, νυμφὼν θάλαμος, thalamus), where the bride and groom retired, so that the “friend of the groom” was like a witness to the actual union of the newlyweds. That is why he “stands and listens, and rejoices with joy, hearing the voice of the groom”: he is convinced that the marriage will not be upset. So John sees in Christ the Bridegroom, who actually enters into marriage with the Church. – Christ views himself in the same way. When John’s disciples began to reproach Him for why His disciples did not fast, Christ said to them: “...can the sons of the bridal chamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Matthew 9:15; cf. Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Here the disciples are designated as “sons of the bridal chamber,” that is, as companions of the Bridegroom. “His presence with His disciples is like the rejoicing of a bridegroom with his companions during the wedding feasts. Could He have invited His disciples to fast while He was with them? When He is taken from them, then they will fast" 763. Christ was asked about fasting (Matthew 9:14, etc.), and He answered about sorrow. This is explained by the fact that fasting and grief or sadness are combined (1 Sam. 17:2; 2 Sam. 12:16-22). Not because fasting is a cause of sorrow, which would be pure hypocrisy, but fasting is a sign or consequence of sorrow.” Therefore, it would be absurd for everyone to come to the wedding in black clothes, with tears in their eyes, not eat (the ancient fast was a complete abstinence from food) and not drink. On the contrary, if it happened that the groom died unexpectedly, then fasting began as a sign of mourning for the coming disaster. – In the image being analyzed, Christ takes the moment of the wedding, when the bride, covered with a veil, was still isolated (she was directly led into the bedchamber), while the groom was feasting with comrades and friends 765. This explains that there is no mention of it, so that this moment must precede the one about which John the Baptist spoke. The image of the Church-Bride, as we have seen, almost turns into the image of the Church-Wife. But this latter also appears clearly in other places. Christ, reminding the Pharisees of God's Law on Marriage, pointed out to them the mysterious merging of husband and wife into one being, from which it is clear that divorce is impossible “not for adultery” (Matthew 19:9). “He answered and said to them: “Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female (Gen. 1:27)?” And he said: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24), so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4–6 = Mark 9:6–9. Cf. Eph.5:31). Of course, in the realm of the spirit, “where they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30 = Luke 30:35), the idea of ​​marriage cannot be understood literally, just like the idea of ​​the body, the plant and the building, but that unity of the two, for the sake of which marriage exists, is realized most perfectly in the spiritual marriage of Christ with the Church. “Just as a husband leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, so Christ left heaven and did not retreat from any sacrifice in order to surrender to the Church and reveal his love to her. Just as a wife must recognize in the one who surrenders to her her head and her patron, so the Church must be subordinate to Christ and feed on his love as the very substance of her life. Finally, as the head of the family owes the joys and treasures of his hearth to the one he loves, so Christ, giving himself to the Church, waits for her to give him, in turn, a spiritual family, through which the kingdom of God will develop on earth and through which he will be able, according to the beautiful proverb of ancient prophecy: “enjoy the labor of his soul” (Is. 53:11)” (24:27-28). Thus a series of detailed symbols arises: the Church-Wife, the Church-Mother, the Church-Mistress. If Christ left heaven, then He demands from the members of the Church that they “leave their father and their mother” (Matthew 4:22, 8:21–22, 10:37, 19:29 = Mark 10:29; Luke 14:26; Matthew 23:9), even “hate” them. And so, about such disciples, Christ said: “I am the good shepherd, and I know (γιώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ) Mine, and Mine know (γινώσκουσί με) Me: as the Father knows Me (γινώσκει με), so I also know the Father (γιώσκω τὸν Πατέρα), and I lay down My life for the sheep...” (John 10:14-15). To understand the true meaning of this text, it is necessary to delve into the verb γιώσκω standing here. In contrast to abstract, rational cognition, the verb γιώσκω (in a strengthened form - ἐπιγιώσκω), corresponding to the Hebrew yāda, usually means the personal relationship of the cognizing subject to the cognizable object, when the subject is determined by the cognition of the object, the object, so to speak, invades his being and cognition of it turns out to be important, meaningful, influential. This is not just cognition, but rather cognition-perception, essential cognition, which is especially evident in the Hebrew yāda. So, for example, Christ says: “you will know the truth (γνωσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν), and the truth will set you free” 766. Truth turns out to be real power. As personal knowledge, face to face γιώσκω (and ἐπιγιώσκω) sometimes means marital relations between husband and wife. So in Genesis 4:1, 19:8. It's the same in the New Testament. So, Miriam said to the Angel: “How will this be (i.e., the birth of Jesus Christ), since I do not know the husband, ἄνδρα οὐ γιώσκω” (Luke 1:34). Also, “Joseph did not know Her (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν) until she gave birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25). In the words of the Lord: “No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son “Πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱὸς” (Matthew 11:27) - since ancient times they have seen an expression of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, an indication of a special personal closeness. Therefore, in the words: “I know Mine, and Mine know Me” (John 10:14) - it is necessary to see an indication of the special, exclusive, as it were, marital intimacy of Christ and the members of the Church - such knowledge of each other, in which there is interaction and mystical penetration of personalities into each other, a certain beauty of them 767 768. Christ wants “all to be one” (John 17:21). “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, so do you love one another; Therefore everyone will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). “I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (John 14:20). “Abide in Me and I in you” (John 15:4). The two (Christ and the Church) are made into one flesh. The Bride becomes a Wife. The motherhood of the Church begins. And the symbol develops further. In a conversation with Nicodemus, Christ tells him about the second birth: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus says to Him: “How can a person be born when he is old? Can he really enter his mother’s womb another time and be born?” Jesus answered: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God: that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised at what I said to you: you must be born again...” (John 3:3-7) 769. And this “birth of the Spirit” is mentioned many times in several places in the New Testament (John 3:8; John 3:5, 4:7). “To those who believe in His (Christ) name he gave power to become children of God, who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13) - ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. “Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him (Christ)” (1 John 2:29) – ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται – “and everyone who loves is born of God” (1 John 4:7) – ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1) – ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. In all the above texts there is a preposition ἐκ with the genitive case, showing that the subject with it (Spirit, Christ, God) is considered as the Father of the one born. When Nicodemus asked how a person could enter again into the womb and be born a second time, Jesus only confirmed the need for a second birth and explained that it was necessary to be born by the Spirit. Such a fertile womb for spiritual birth is the Wife of Christ - the Church, which gives birth to His children. “...If Christ Himself represents natural birth as an image of the spiritual, and if for natural birth a mother’s womb is needed, then for spiritual birth is not a mother’s womb needed, not in the literal meaning of this word, as Nicodemus thought, but in a higher sense, corresponding to the subject? “This question is justified and resolved at once, if we say that the mother’s womb and treasury of life for the new man is Christ’s Church and Her, although made by hand, but filled with the spirit of grace, mystical Church” (8:514-515). “Because all who believe in Christ are children of God, as St. John the Theologian: “having received Him, He gave them the domain to become children of God, believing in His name” (John 1:12), then it is clear and certain that all believers or, in other words, all partakers of the heavenly calling, all Christians, from first to last, are brethren, not according to the flesh, but according to grace, not according to earthly, but according to heavenly kinship, as children of the Heavenly Father, as children of the Mother of the Church” 770 . That is why the Apostle John often mentions “the children of God, the children of the Church” (1 John 5:2; 2 John 4; 1 John 2:1, 12, 3:2, 10, 4:4, 5:2, 2 John 1:13; 3 John 4; 1 John 3:1; 2 John 1:1, cf. Paul: Rom. 8:21); 1 Cor.4:14; Gal.4:27; Rom.8:16, 17, 9:8; Gal.4:19, 28, 31, and in Peter: 1 Peter 1:14, 3:6). These texts also include those where the Apostles call believers “their” children, this is because they gave birth to them by preaching, which is from God, and by “the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15; cf. Phil. 10): believers are “regenerated, not from corruptible seed, but from incorruptible, from the word of God, which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). And since all believers are children of one Father, God, and one Mother, the Church, then they are naturally brothers - a name so often used in the New Testament that it is not possible to cite all the passages here. This is how spiritual birth from the Church and Christ takes place. “When a woman gives birth, she suffers grief, because the hour has come; but when she gives birth to a child, she no longer remembers herself for joy, because a man has been born into the world” (John 16:21). Finally, the symbol makes the final transition and represents the Church-Mistress, leading the household of her Spouse, in His Father’s house, where “there are many mansions” (John 14:2). “The kingdom of heaven,” says Christ, “is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was all leavened” (Matthew 13:33 = Luke 13:20–21). Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον . – Here, first of all, it draws attention to the fact that the leaven (ζύμῃ) does not fall into the flour by itself, but is taken and hidden, hidden in the flour (ἐνέκρυψεν - hidden) by the woman, who is thus the organ for the implementation of leavening. The woman is the Church, taking the leaven from Her Husband. It was she who “took” (λαβοῦσα) the leaven and “hid” (ἐνέκρυψεν) in flour, because leaven can come either from leaven or from yeast, but does not become itself. After all, the process of leavening dough, like fermentation processes in general, occurs only in the presence of special enzymes secreted by the vital activity of certain microorganisms; when the latter are not present, i.e. yeast fungi, then there is no souring of the dough, no fermentation. But a fermenting fungus, like all living things, cannot be obtained otherwise than from a fungus: omne vivum ex vivo, omnis cellula ex cellula! 771 A woman can only transfer yeast fungus into flour - bring the Word of God into the world, but not create it. When the bearers of the Word of God - the Apostles and charismatics in general - are brought into the world, they themselves develop everything that is needed for fermentation. The concern of the Church-Women is to mix flour with leaven and then monitor the general progress of fermentation - temperature, absence of shocks, etc. Christ used the image of leaven to designate “everything penetrating and transforming power” (69, II, 1378) of the Word of God - the firstfruits of the Kingdom of Heaven; after all, the Word of God is spirit-bearing, and “the Spirit breathes where it will” (John 3:8) and “permeates all things” (1 Cor. 2:10). But if the dough by itself, without leaven, cannot leaven and, therefore, cannot become essentially unified (for only leavened dough is made into a single, and not an aggregate of individual lumps), then, once the leaven is introduced, it leavens everything, for each leavened part of it itself becomes a new leaven 772: “don’t you know that a little leaven leavens the whole dough ( μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ)" (1 Cor. 5:6). The process of souring is the process of disintegration of more complex molecules into simpler ones, and in this sense it has an affinity with decomposition and putrefaction, with that which relates to death. This property of leavening, as in general of all phenomena associated with death, was the basis for the recognition in the Old Testament of leavened bread as ritually imperfect, even unclean (it could not be sacrificed, for example), while, on the contrary, “sweet”, unleavened bread (mazzot) was considered ritually pure 773. This is probably why Christ speaks of leavened bread as something despicably bad in the eyes of the Jewish nomists and, however, more valuable as a food product. The Kingdom of God, beginning with ritually unclean tax collectors and sinners, was most naturally likened to ritually unclean leavened bread. “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and destroy the understanding of the prudent” (Is. 29:14)... It pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe... We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks... because the foolish things of God are wiser than men, and the weak things of God are stronger than men. Look, brethren, who you are who are called: not many of you are wise according to the flesh, not many of you are strong, not many of you are noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong things; God has chosen the base and the despised, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are...” (1 Cor. 1:18-28; cf. 2 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor. 4:10, 3:18, etc.). Living, powerful and invisible, unclean leaven, of course, best conveys the idea of ​​​​the bearers of the Word of God. But not only how the leaven was looked at, but also what its power was, matters for the parable. Sourdough, on the one hand, decomposes starch molecules, that is, it changes the very essence of these molecules, makes them a “new creature,” and on the other hand, it merges individual particles together. Likewise, the word of God: decomposing consciousness, releasing, like gases from dough, from it everything unnecessary - national, social and religious prejudices, all worldly differences, everything separatistic, heavenly truth thereby caused the union of purified personalities into one (cf. 2, 134-137) (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16-17, where again a parallel is drawn between the unity of the eaten Bread and unity of the Church). From the power of leaven, people recognized each other, “remembered” each other (Plato’s ἀνάμνησις), suddenly saw the image of God, and when this happened, unification also took place? 774. Thus, under the influence of a magnet, each particle of iron filings itself acquires magnetic properties, excites them in another, etc., so that all particles are united into a harmonious (along the lines of magnetic force) unity, which is already given in the magnet itself, and here it is only filled with specific content: the filings make visible hitherto invisible lines of magnetic force - invisible, but no less real than when they are visible. The force field of a magnet in relation to a magnet is the Church in its relation to Christ; the sawdust is the believers who have entered into unity with each other and wholly accepted the Church 775 into themselves. The leaven, as Christ said, is hidden by a woman in three measures (εἰς σάτα τρὶα) of flour 776. By three sats we mean, according to John Chrysostom 777, many sats, since this number is used to denote multitude. According to Svetlov 778, the number three “expresses the ideal of completeness and completeness, like seven,” so that three sats have the meaning of “the comprehensiveness or cosmic nature of the Kingdom of God.” Actually, the number three can, in the spirit of Chrysostom’s understanding, be interpreted as a designation of the three main directions in Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. Other Sts. the fathers turn their gaze inward, seeing here a mysterious indication of the three main powers of the soul: heart, soul and spirit (Augustine) or its three well-known abilities: cognitive, sensitive and desirable (Blessed Theophylact. See 2:134). Thus, the three sats usually mean completeness - either the external world or the internal one. But, without excluding the 779 proposed interpretations, we note the following: judging by all the available data, three sats of flour is a rather insignificant amount. The treatise of Pea (Rea VIII, 7) 780 even says that “they do not spend (in the sense of should not, it is not proper, it is not moral to spend) on the poor less than 2 pound bread of 1/6 shekel), where 4 sats go for 4 shekels” - “Non erogant in pauperem minus quam panem dupondii (1/6 sicli) ubi IV. Sata veneunt IV. siclis" (quoted from (67, 1:405)). Therefore, it should be thought that the indication “three sats of flour” in the parable of the leaven marks the poverty of the Housewife: she kneaded less than what was needed for alms to the poor - three sats instead of four. If leaven, base in the eyes of the Jews in its quality (for it contradicts ritual purity in the view of the Jews), means e contrario 781 the Divine nature of the new factor of history - Christianity, insane in the eyes of the Jews, then the three-hundred-size dough, pitiful in its quantity in the eyes of every lawyer (for even the poor are given more), can mean the universal composition of the Church of Christ - insignificance in the view of everything linguistic-Jewish world. Just as a mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds,” but grows into a tree, so “unclean” leaven in an insignificant amount of dough is a leaven that multiplies infinitely as it is “hidden” into new dough, i.e., carrying within itself an endless supply of dough-leavening power. The parable of the leaven is quite similar to the parable of the mustard seed, and it is remarkable that the first appears in both Matthew and Luke immediately after the second. This is how the parable of leaven was understood by the listeners of Jesus Christ. Having inserted a remark relating to the entire narrative that Christ “passed through the cities” (Luke 13:22), the Evangelist notes: “Someone said to Him: “Lord! "Are there really few who are being saved?"" Obviously, the parables about the grain and the leaven were one-sidedly understood in the sense of the exclusivity of the Kingdom of God. That is why, in response to a question asked that exposed the misunderstanding, the Lord told a parable (Luke 13:25-30) about the rejection into the Kingdom of all those who were "workers of wickedness" and "having been first, they became last." The meaning of the parable is to eliminate the above-mentioned bewilderment: the Kingdom of God is not narrow, but only the worthy get there. This is the teaching of Christ Himself about the Bride Church. In general, it is of a tributary, allegorical nature. However, we considered it necessary to present it here, in the chapter on the symbolic definition of the Church, because the further development of thought (in Paul and in Revelation) brought forward the primacy of these tributary images over others and revealed their symbolic core: tributary in appearance, they carry within themselves a more symbolic essence of the matter. Image of the Betrothed Church UAP. We find Paul in the following words: “I,” says the Apostle, “are jealous of you 782 with the jealousy of God, because I have betrothed you to one husband, in order to present you to Christ as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, just as the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning, so your minds will be corrupted, deviating from simplicity and purity in Christ. For if someone came and preached another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not receive, then you would be very lenient towards him” (2 Cor. 11:2-4). Further, the Apostle proves that he has all the signs of a True Apostle - “patience, signs, wonders and powers” (2 Cor. 12:12) and, therefore, anyone else cannot give the Corinthians anything new compared to Paul, (ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς θεοῦ ζήλῳ ἡρμοσάμην γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ, παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ. πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ, [οὕτω] φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος [καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος] τῆς εἰς Χριστόν) κτλ. Here the Church is presented as the Betrothed of Christ, and she, with canvas (29:408) must appear to Christ as a pure Virgin 783. The bride of the first Adam, Eve, appeared to her groom, Adam, already deceived, as if corrupted by the Serpent 784. If the Corinthians begin to listen to just anyone, leaving their Apostle, then they risk corrupting the Corinthian Church, depriving it of purity and innocence. They must remember that their first Teacher - Paul - has everything necessary for an Apostle: therefore, they have no reason to turn to other preachers of the Gospel, because they can attack false teachers and, unnoticed for themselves, abandon the simplicity and purity of the faith. This is why the Apostle, as one who spoke the word of God, as a representative of God, is jealous of God’s Bride of these possible molesters of her. “Just as a lover is jealous of his beloved person, so that she never belongs to anyone, or so that no one else tries to attract her to himself, so am I,” Bishop paraphrases the words of the Apostle. Theophanes (46, 315–316), - I am jealous, he says, for you, and I cannot allow the thought that you belong to someone else. However, I am not jealous that, not belonging to anyone else, you belong to me; no, not to me, but to God, so that they belong: I am jealous for you with God’s jealousy, the kind with which God is jealous for you, not even if you are carried away by any superstition, but follow the one truth, proclaimed by Him everywhere through us.” St. Chrysostom says: “He did not say: for I love you, but he used a much stronger expression. For jealous souls are intensely passionate about those they love. And jealousy comes from nothing else but from strong friendship...” “Betrothal occurs when the bride says to the groom: from now on I will belong to you alone; and the groom, who had previously loved her, accepts her and appropriates it for himself. Christ the Savior redeemed all souls, having loved them first, and prepared everything for them. Then he sent the Apostles to call souls to a marriage union with Himself. The apostles walked around the world and preached this joy to everyone. Those whose souls believed and, leaving everything, surrendered to the Lord, were betrothed by the Apostles to Him through St. baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation)” (ibid., 316–317). The marriage union of the Church with Christ is also meant in the words: “Don’t you know, brethren, for I say to those who know the law, that the law has power over a person while he lives. A married woman is bound by law to her living husband; and if her husband dies, she is freed from the law of marriage. Therefore, if she marries another while her husband is alive, she is called an adulteress; if her husband dies, she is free from the law and will not be an adulteress, having married another husband (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). So you, my brethren, died to the law through the Body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, who was raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God” (Rom. 7:1-4) εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι, ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ (Rom.7:4). Here the main words for us are: εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, which undoubtedly mean the marital union of husband and wife. This is proven primarily by parallels: (ή γυνή) ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ – if the wife marries another (Rom. 7: For), ( τήν γυνὴν) γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ – a wife who married another (Rom. 7:3b), εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ – to marry another (Rom.7:4). This parallelism justifies the translation we have given for verse 4 - “so that you may marry another, one who has risen from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God.” Fruitfulness to God is a natural consequence of a new marriage - marriage with the Risen One, τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι, i.e. with Christ. The Apostle does not say ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ 785, but simply ἑτέρῳ 786, because he does not want to call Christ, the God-man, by the name ἀνήρ 787 (especially since this would not go well with the further phrase about “bearing fruit to God”: fruit bearing can be the one whom the woman married), and to call it by any other name would mean breaking the verbal parallelism with the previous verse. Therefore ἑτέρῳ ​​stands without further definition. But our understanding of this place can also be proven by direct analysis of the verb γίγνομαι or (later: γίνομαι) with the dative case in the meaning “to get, belong to someone; to pass into the power of another, to become the slave of another” (a woman who passes into the power of a man is his wife) (64:145). So let’s translate some (according to Stephen) 788 γίενεσθαι ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ ​​–jungi alio viro 789; on the contrary, γίενεσθαι ἀπό τινος – ad aliquo disjungi 790 . We find a phrase similar to Paul’s in Demosthenes, who says: γενομένῳ 791. In the interpretation (43. 356–363) on the text being analyzed, Romans 7:4 ep. Theophan explains that the law died for believers, became invalid and without force, since believers in baptism died for it; “died to be different; or they died because they gave themselves to someone else. In baptism this is done publicly: were you united with Christ? - Matched. Obviously, here a new marriage takes place: the soul is united with Christ the Lord - freely, self-willingly, but as decisively as death” (ibid., 362). “...We were separated from the law, but at the same time, at the same time, we were united with Christ the Lord. They moved from one marriage to another; from one obligation to another. But why was there a transition when this transition is not to free will, but to new obligations - from subordination to subordination, from work to work? Then, that in the new union we will bear fruit to God. The previous union did not make us fruitful: we submitted to it, but did not bear fruit, we were fruitless for God. Now, having united with the One who rose from the dead, we received in Him the power to bear fruit to God. This word is very strong and required confirmation: how is it that the law is fruitless?” (ibid., 363). Therefore, the Apostle further explains that previously people bore fruit of death. This reference in Romans 7:4 to the marriage union in other places unfolds into a whole picture of the marriage life together. Husband and wife should show mutual favor to each other (1 Cor. 7:3); neither the husband nor the wife has power over his own body, because the husband has power over the body of his wife and the wife over the body of her husband (1 Cor. 7:4); they must not leave each other (1 Cor. 7:5, 7:10–11), and their unity is so great that the Christianity of one of the spouses purifies the other, even if he were a pagan (1 Cor. 5:12–16). The wife is the glory of the husband (1 Cor. 11:7; cf. Prov. 11:16), and therefore must be covered, as a sign of the husband’s power over her, while the husband is “the image and glory of God,” “for man is not from woman, but woman is from man; and man was not created for the wife, but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 1:5-10). “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). “Nevertheless,” says the Apostle, “there is neither husband without wife, nor wife without husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God” (1 Cor. 11:11–12). Being physically, morally and mystically one, husband and wife must not violate this unity. Wives should submit to their husbands “as is fitting in the Lord” (Col. 3:18; cf. 1 Peter 3:1, 5; Eph.5:22) and study in silence (1 Tim.2:11), and husbands should love their wives and not be harsh towards them (Col.3:19). Everything said about husband and wife, mutatis mutandis 792, applies to Christ and the Church. “Wives,” the Apostle writes to the Ephesians, “submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church, He is the Savior of the body. But just as the Church submits to Christ, so do wives to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, in order to cleanse and sanctify her with the washing of water, through the word; to present it to Himself as a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it might be holy and without blemish. So husbands should love their wives as they love their bodies: he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it, just as the Lord does the Church, because we are members of His Body, from His Flesh and from His Bones. Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). This mystery is great: I speak in relation to Christ and the Church. So let each of you love his wife as himself; but let the wife fear her husband” (Eph. 5:22–33) 793. For Ephesians, the marriage of Christ with the Church was given as the starting point for establishing the relationship between husband and wife. For our purposes, these relationships are given and they explain the marriage of Christ with the Church. Just as an ordinary marriage is a “great mystery” 794, prefiguring the union of Christ with the Church 795, so the union of spouses into one flesh is prototyped by the relationship of Christ to his Body. Therefore, the members of the Church are called “members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones” (Eph. 5:30), just as Eve was “bone of bones” and “flesh of flesh” of Adam (Gen. 2:23) 796. The moral unity of husband and wife is derived from their mystical unity. The image of the Church-Bride receives the greatest consistency in development in Revelation. Here this image is presented in its evolution, which is why it has a very different character in different places of Revelation. Chapter 12 features the Wife and the Dragon. “And a great sign appeared in heaven—a woman clothed with the sun; under her feet is the moon, and on her head is a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and screaming from the pain of birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his head seven crowns; His tail carried away a third of the stars from the sky and threw them to the ground. This dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth, he would devour her baby. And she gave birth to a male child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and His throne. But the woman fled into the wilderness, where a place had been prepared for her by God, so that she might be fed there for one thousand two hundred and sixty days” 797 (Rev. 12:1–6). The image of the Woman, opposed to the image of the Beast, according to the unanimous interpretation of commentators, represents spiritual humanity in its opposition to carnal humanity. The Old Testament is full of references to believers, considered in their entirety, as the Woman. In the Pentateuch, Israel's unfaithfulness to God is called adultery, and God's Holy jealousy towards Israel is depicted as the jealousy of a husband towards his wife with whom he entered into a marriage union (Ex.34:15, 16; Lev.17:7, 20:5-6; Num.14:33, 15:39; Deut.31:16, 32:16:21). Also, the prophets very often talk about betrothals, marriage, adultery, divorce, widowhood - in a word, they revolve in the sphere of marriage concepts (Is. 1:21, 50:1, 54:1 ff. Jer. 2:2, 20, 23–25, 3:1 ff. Eze. 16:23; Hos. 1–3). The totality of all this is expressed by the word Woman (γυνή) (Rev. 12:1). This Wife gives birth to a “male child”, more precisely: a “son-husband”, υίός ἄρσεν. This is Christ, who is at the same time the Son of spiritual humanity and his Spouse - the son and husband of the Church. Despite all the intrigues against Him, He escapes from the mouth of the Beast and is caught up “to God and to His throne” (Rev. 12:5). Others, for example Methodius of Patara, Andrew of Caesarea, do not agree with this interpretation, seeing Spiritual Israel in the Child. But the latter opinion is not excluded by the former, but is necessarily included in it. If the Child is Christ, then at the same time the Newborn Church of redeemed humanity is also, for this Humanity is the Body of Christ, inextricably linked with Him. Thus, the birth of the Child corresponds to what Isaiah (9:6) and Micah (4:9, 10, 5:2) spoke about. The Child is Christ, the firstfruits of the Church Triumphant, and the Woman is the Church Militant. She is clothed in the sun, that is, in this world she is the bearer of heavenly light - revelation, grace, purity (cf. Ps. 83:12; Rev. 1:16; Judges 5:31; Matt. 13:43, etc., from the comparison of which it is clear that the sun means Divine powers). If each private church is a lamp, and its Angel is a star (see Chapter 17 of Revelation), then the Woman clothed in the Sun is, so to speak, the focus of all lamps, the lamp par excellence. The moon under your feet means the dominance of the Church over earthly powers, earthly wisdom, religion, etc. The Church is in the world, but not of the world. The stars of the crown mean the Angels of the local Churches, the Apostles and the tribes of Israel. This is partly confirmed by the fact that the Woman and the Heavenly Jerusalem are essentially identical, and on the bases of the latter are written the names of the 12 apostles, corresponding to the names of the 12 tribes written on the gates of the Heavenly Jerusalem. The Wife rests on earthly things, and Heavenly Jerusalem, also a Wife (Rev. 21:2, 9:10) - on heavenly things, the Apostles. The first is the Church Militant, and the second is the Triumphant. The flight of the Woman into the desert means her stay among the pagans. After the dragon was cast to the earth (Rev. 12:7-12), “when the dragon saw that he was cast to the earth, he began to pursue the woman, who gave birth to a male child. And the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place from the face of the serpent and there be fed for a time, a time and half a time. And the serpent sent water like a river out of his mouth after his wife, in order to carry her away with the river. But the earth helped the woman, and opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon had let out of his mouth. And the dragon was angry with the woman and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” 798 (Rev. 12:13-17). Apparently, this flight of the Wife is the previous flight. But, without stopping to further interpret the passages cited (interpretations can be found in the sources below), we move on to chapter 14. Here, as in the subsequent chapter 15, the worship of 144,000 “virgins” is depicted, “who follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Rev. 12:4). These are the faithful to Christ. And, as the opposite of this Church of the elect, in chapter 17 the Great Harlot is depicted, over whom (chap. 18) judgment takes place. This harlot is not this or that state, this or that local Church (52, 347-352); this is the totality of all the tares of the Church, while the 144,000 virgins, who further appear as the Bride of the Lamb or the Jerusalem on High, are the totality of the wheat. The previously described Woman is a field in which, for the time being, wheat and tares, indistinguishable from each other, grow (Matt. 13:24–30; cf. Matt. 13:47–50). Thus, with the latest events of world history, the Church is differentiated into the Harlot - the Church of the fallen and into the City of God, described in Chapter. 21. This is the “Woman, the Bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9), into which nothing unclean will ever enter 799,800. Here the Bride appears in all her heavenly and radiant beauty. Chapter six. Allegorical definition of the Church and its relationship to the Kingdom of God 801 If it is difficult to draw a decisive line between the definition of metaphysical and symbolic, then it is even more difficult to do this for the definition of symbolic and allegorical. In the last chapter we talked a lot about allegorical definition. Now we will give a few additional comments, mainly aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Church to the Kingdom of God. This can be achieved by reviewing some allegorical definitions of the Church. As is known, there are many disputes regarding the relationship between the Church and the Kingdom of God, and the exact definition of the Kingdom itself is still objectum litis 802. Whether this is something only internal or only external, present or future, achieved through human efforts or given from above and suddenly, catastrophically, etc. - all this has been and is being discussed repeatedly. But, apparently, the very thoroughness of microscopic analysis confused the matter, wanting to introduce into the Holy Scriptures that definiteness and immobility of terms that is not and cannot be there. We must not forget that neither Christ nor His disciples were learned theologians who gave definitions with all philological scrupulousness. For Christ and the Apostles, the meaning of words was determined by the context of speech, and this allowed them to use terms with quite significant variations in content on different occasions. Therefore, complete unity of religious content does not exclude significant diversity in terminology. Therefore, even the general synonymy for the expressions Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven does not exclude certain nuances (28, I, 378). This is especially true for the expressions Kingdom, Church and Eternal Life. As is known, the concept of the Kingdom “forms one of the essential elements, the organic center around which the doctrine unfolds” (ibid., 377–378). So - for weather forecasters. But in the Gospel of John such an essential element is already the concept of Eternal Life, and in Paul’s Epistles - the concept of the Church. This circumstance alone suggests the closest internal connection between these three terms: Christ and His Apostles could not talk about different things. “Despite the numerous differences relating both to the nature of things and to the form of Sacred teaching, both expressions (Kingdom and Church) have a close similarity (identité foncière), which has always been recognized for them. They equally mean Christian economy on earth; and it is only from this side that we must take them here” (26:35). The same should be said about even closer expressions: Kingdom and Eternal Life, for “The Kingdom of God is the life given to us in Christ” (16:77), or also “The Kingdom of God is the life given to us with God in Christ or the communion of man with God” (16:80) and “The Kingdom of God is the totality of all the blessings given to us in Christ” (16:81). Taken together, all these definitions of the Kingdom will give this; “The kingdom of God is the unity of every person and all people together with God, given to us in Christ, our King and Lord” (16:81). These three concepts: Kingdom, Church and Life - sometimes approach each other to the point of merging, and sometimes, on the contrary, significantly diverge from each other, scattering in different directions. Let's take, for example, the place where Christ promises Peter to “build the Church on him” and “give him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 16:18:19). Here one cannot help but see the usual Jewish parallelism; this is “a double certification of the same fact, a double symbolic representation of the same privilege” (27, 39; cf. 41), from which it follows that the Church in this case is almost the same as the Kingdom. But Christ promises Peter that the Church founded by Christ will not be overcome by the “Gates of Hell.” As we found out, “The Gates of Hell” (see Chapter 4, § 1) is a metonymic designation for Death. In order to be absolutely irresistible to Death, the Church must be the antipode of Death, that is, Life, Life par excellence, Life Itself or Eternal Life. Here all three terms converge in one focus. The same has to be said about the text of Matthew 18:15–20, where power in the Church is compared with power in Heaven 803, i.e. power in the Kingdom of Heaven, which again establishes the synonymy of the two sayings. “Eternal Life” (ζωὴ αἰώνιος) or simply “Life” (ζωὴ) means the greatest good to which a person is called to possess. Therefore, in the same Christian revelation, the words ζωὴ αἰώνιος are contrasted with κόλασις αἰώνιος - eternal torment, σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον - outer darkness, ἀπώλεια - destruction, which expressions, on the contrary, deny what constitutes the bliss of man, and, on the contrary, affirm what is evil for him (17, 1903, II, 675). If so, then of the two possible points of view on the Kingdom of God, namely objective-religious and subjective-ethical (ibid., 651) (or subjective-mystical and objective-mystical), the second forces us to equate the Kingdom of God, as a summum bonum 804, as a pearl of a parable (Matthew 13:45–46), as a treasure found in a field (Matthew 13:44), and eternal life - the very essence, color and soul of this Kingdom. But, while coinciding in one case, the living concepts of the Kingdom, Church and Life diverge in another. Thus, the words ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν - “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20–21) have a double meaning, and a subjective-ethical one ( ἐντὸς ὑμῶν = in your souls, in your hearts, in animis vestris), and objective-religious (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν = among you, between you, intra vos) (16:59): in its subjective aspect this passage means that “the Kingdom of God is not food and not drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God” (Rom. 14:17–18; cf. Col. 1:12–13; 1 Thess. 5:5). Here, of course, it cannot be identified with the Church, for the Church is primarily a transcendental religious, objective quantity. On the contrary, the second aspect of the text being analyzed, which sees the main point in the objective meaning of the Kingdom of God and, therefore, interprets ἐντὸς ὑμῶν as intra vos, understands Christ Himself as the firstfruits of the Kingdom of God, and in this sense the Kingdom of God is identical with the Church. And if some parables, speaking about the Kingdom of God, directly relate to the Church (such, for example, is the parable of a field sown with wheat, among which tares grew (Matt. 13:24–30); the same parable of a net thrown into the sea and capturing good and bad fish (Matt. 13:47–48; cf. Matt. 13:49, etc.)), then the impossibility identification (16, 89:90) of the terms: Kingdom and Church “is clearly demonstrated by the impossibility of replacing one term with another in most sayings of Holy Scripture” (ibid., 100). It is impossible to say: “Thy Church come” instead of “Thy kingdom come,” just as it is impossible to say “The Church is within you” instead of “The Kingdom of God is within you” or “The kingdom of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth” instead of “The Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth” (Acts 20:28) 805, etc. So, the concepts of the Kingdom of God and the Church are mobile, and therefore one cannot say anything about them indiscriminately, except that they have the closest connection with each other. For a more definite answer, it is necessary to take a closer look at the use of the word “Kingdom”. The Kingdom of God is used in the New Testament in three rather separate senses 806. 1. “The Kingdom of God is, first of all, the totality of those who obey God or who are considered to serve Him - it is, in general, the totality of people, near or far, enveloped in the radiation of the Gospel. From this point of view, the infidels and indifferents, whether they join the churches of the multitude or the communities of chosen disciples, are all those, in a word, who have not openly renounced Christianity, are recognized as members of the Kingdom. This is a historical Christian society, such as it is described in the parables of the tares and the net.” 2. “Next, the Kingdom of God is the totality of those who truly belong to the Lord and obey Him” (see Matt. 21:31, 11:12, 5:20, 7:21). This is the exact idea of ​​the Kingdom - the idea of ​​a people whose God is the supreme ruler and who unconditionally obeys the will of their king: this is the ideal kingdom, the center and principle of continuity of the historical kingdom; it is also an invisible kingdom in the sense that angels can also be included in it, and that those who belong to it remain unknown to people and known only to God. 3. “But the assembly of these chosen ones is not a collection of isolated disciples; it is an organized body, which enjoys now and forever glorious privileges: thus the name of the Kingdom signifies, finally, in some texts the benefits bestowed on the people of the redeemed.” a) “In the first place is the spiritual wealth that they possess from the bounties of God, that inner treasure that no power in the world could take away from them. When Jesus exclaims, for example: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3; cf. 5:10), this formula of possession signifies less the community of Christ’s servants than the prerogatives that apply to them: if Jesus wanted to talk about the community itself, he would say that the humble are part of the Kingdom, and not that the Kingdom belongs to them. However, the contradiction is only apparent, for both meanings are united in the characteristic saying of the Gospel: “Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a child will not enter into it” (Mark 10:15), which means that one must accept the grace of God in one’s heart in order to be included in the assembly of believers; in other words, the Kingdom of Heaven becomes a historical organism only under the condition of being first an internal state, a disposition of the soul, similar to the disposition of a child, who submits because he believes and because he loves” (Matthew 18:3). 6) “So, such surrender of oneself to the will of God carries within itself its reward, and this reward is in no way limited to this (actuel) world. Likewise, the Kingdom, thus understood, is not only the sum of the spiritual benefits now bestowed upon the faithful, but also the eternal glory which they will ever enjoy in heaven. The just, said Jesus, “shall lie down (seront à table) with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11; cf. 26:29) - a broad and rich meaning in which the various designations are concentrated, in a higher synthesis, the relationship of which we have established. Is not the kingdom completed in heaven, in fact, the assembly of the true servants of God in possession of the inheritance that is due to them and the guarantees of which they already have on earth? And do they also magnify the mercy of their Master forever and ever? (First idea: the body of confessors.) Moreover, if they glorify their God with praises, it is because they certainly belong to Him. (Society of true believers: the second meaning of the term.) Finally, transformed through the presence and through the action of the Lord, they enjoy an undisturbed happiness, which is only the radiation of their life: in this, third, sense, the kingdom is the totality of spiritual and heavenly blessings, bestowed on faithful servants, the sharing of which will be eternal glory in holy communion and before the throne of the supreme King. “Such is the incomparable breadth of this essential formula, which summarizes the good news of the Gospel (Mark 1:15)” (28, I, 388). From here the relationship of the Kingdom of God to the Church becomes clear. “The gates of heaven open only from within,” says one researcher (18, I, 52). But, once opened, they cannot and should not close. A sprout that has sunk into the heart grows into a tree; he who drinks from Christ himself produces rivers of living water (John 7:38); the leaven that gets into the dough raises its entire mass. The Word of God, having filled the soul, begins to multiply and develop in the soul, overflowing, and the believer, without thinking about it, becomes the source, center and starting point of beneficial influences on the people around him and even on all surrounding creation. And he must multiply the talents he has received. He is an organ for the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God, that is, a member of the Church. In the final state, the Church and the Kingdom of God are one and the same, for Jesus Christ will head everything (Eph. 1:10). Now these are two circles, partly covering each other. Only about a certain part of the earthly Church can we say now together with Delitzsch (cit. according to 16:130): “in the great, all-embracing circle of the coming Kingdom of God, the circle of the Church is in the very center; more precisely, this can only be said about the Church, but not about church humanity; Church humanity is as long as there is a field sown with wheat and tares, a net with good and bad catch, a Woman who has not yet differentiated into the Harlot and the Bride-Jerusalem. This Woman is the “mother” of the coming Kingdom of God and its “Mediatrix” 807; she is Holy as the Firstfruits of the Kingdom of God in the person of Its Head – Christ, but she herself, the Church, is not wholly this Kingdom, but only becomes it” 808. “The historical life of mankind began with the Babylonian pandemonium (Gen. 11); it will end in the perfect harmony of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21) 809. Between these two extreme opposites, noted in the first and last books of Scripture, a process of world history took place, a symbolic image of which is given to us in the sacred book, which can be considered the transition from the Old Testament to the New - in the book of the prophet Daniel (Dan. 2:37-38)” (13:146). But this process at a certain moment, at the moment of the redemption of humanity, underwent a turning point: a completely new factor was introduced into the world - the Church 810. Now the crystallization of humanity around this Divine-Human principle has begun. The Church was a special organ through which spiritual energy flowed into the world, the content of which is Eternal Life. Eternal Life is the Fullness with which Christ fills His Body – the Church. The totality of all creation that has to enter the Heavenly Jerusalem is the Kingdom of God 811. Chapter seven. Etymological definition of the Church 812 Now, having analyzed the essence of the concept of the Church, we can begin to analyze its name - the name of the subject in the definition of the Church (Eph. 1:236). However, in this dogmatic-exegetical study we do not consider it possible to dwell on etymology in particular detail, especially since similar analyzes can be found in the sources listed above. The Russian word church, as well as the Slavic tsrkva, tsrkv, tsirkeven; German Kirche; English church; Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, etc. kirka; Anglo-Saxon cyricc; The Scottish kirk comes, in all likelihood, from the Greek word κυριακὴ (implying οἰκία) or κυριακόν (implying οἰκίον) and means, therefore, literally translated, the house of the Lord or the dwelling place of the Lord, i.e. exactly what the Jews were called heykhāl or beyt yāhweh. Luther derived the “blind and unclear” word Kirche (L. Werke, E. A. 25, 354, 2 Aufl. S. 413 f.) from the Greek κυρια, which is equivalent to the Latin curia. In essence, this production differs little from the first, but the guttural at the end of the word Kirche and the like indicates the first production as having an undoubted advantage over the second. Without going into the history of this word, we will only note that St. makes an interesting play on words. Sophrony, Patriarch of Jerusalem, about the word κυριακὴ. “Sunday,” he says, “is so called because on this day Christ was resurrected; and his name, κυριακὴ, means healing from the Lord, ἄκος παρὰ Κυρίου, since on this day the Lord healed Adam’s illness.” Thus, the Russian name of the Church comes from the place where church life is predominantly found, through the expansion of the meaning of the word; the same name was retained for the building itself. On the contrary, in the Romance languages ​​(and in some others) the name for the building, the Church, arose from a narrowing of the meaning of the name Church in the true sense. Namely, the Greek ἐκκλησία gave the Latin ecclesia, the Italian chiesa, the French l’Eglise, in the translation of the Bible by Ulfilas aikklêsjô. However, the Greek κυριακὴ and ἐκκλησία are to a certain extent identical with each other, at least in some cases. For example, Canon 28 of the Council of Laodicea: And since the Church itself - ἐκκλησία is at the same time a church, the church - κυριακὴ, it is possible to assume that initially these words were almost identical, especially since there were no real churches in the sense of buildings. Hence, it is possible to present the development of the word “church” in the following diagram. In the most cursory outline we sketched the question of new names for the Church. But our job is to deal with the Greek term. At the same time, in our presentation we will mainly adhere to the considerations of Prof. Rud. Zoma (all quotes without references are from him). The honorary name of the early Christian community was the name ἐκκλησία, more fully: ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χρίστοῦ and ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ 813 ( 1 Cor.1:2, 10:22, 15:9, 11:16; 1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 20:28; 1 Thess. 1:1, 2:14; Moreover, the use of the word ἐκκλησία is not a feature of the “Paulian school”, as it is found in Rev. 1:4, 1:20, etc., Matthew 16:18, 18:17; James 5:14, and even Weizsäcker (Jarb., S. 481), who would like to indicate “his homeland in the Pauline literature” 814, himself points out that the word ἐκκλησία has an independent use in Revelation. The very word ἐκκλησία comes from the verb ἐκ - καλέω - I call, I choose, I call to a meeting, I convene a meeting - and therefore, in a literal translation, it means a meeting, a gathering, a convened multitude of people, a convened society, coetus, multituda, conventus, Gemeinde, gahal, etc. In classical Greek, ekklesia means a people's assembly of free citizens convened by a herald (ἐκκλὴτοι the ruling people's assembly of the Greek republic. No other assembly bore this name, nor did the assembly of unions 815. In post-classical times, this expression is transferred to any popular assembly, also to a crowd of people gathered for a holiday or even a rebellion 816 But there always remains a connection to the national assembly. This usage is associated with the image of the expression LXX 817 and later Hellenistic Judaism. In the translation of the LXX, ἐκκλησία means the people of Israel (“kahal”) festively gathered before God, it makes no difference whether in this case a real gathering is thought of or the ideal unity of Israel (before God). The ecclesia of Hellenistic-Jewish usage is the people of Israel, since they are the people of God, the chosen people, in whom and through whom the power of God is effectively manifested. The “community of Israel” is called in the Old Testament (in the LXX translation) alternately συναγωγή 818 and ἐκκλησία. But later Judaism, apparently, made a difference in the use of both concepts, and moreover, in such a way that συναγωγή began to designate community more from the side of its empirical reality, and ἐκκλησία - more from the side of its ideal meaning; συναγωγή is a communal community established in some place, ἐκκλησία, on the contrary, is a community of those called by God to salvation, just as “Kahal” is the ideal corporate community of Israel: συναγωγή expresses only the empirical essence of the matter, ἐκκλησία also includes a dogmatic judgment of value” 819. Thus, a whole abyss opened up between the classical Greek word usage ἐκκλησία and the word usage ἐκκλησία in LXX: a significant new, infinitely more sublime content was introduced into the term ἐκκλησία. “This is where the word usage of the Christian community arose. Ecclesia now means New Testament Israel, the New Testament people of God, that is, Christianity (cf. Gal. 6:16: “To the Israel of God”). This expression contains the idea of ​​a national (and not union) assembly of the new people of the covenant (Christianity), and, moreover, the idea of ​​a national assembly before God and with God. The fact that a meeting of Christians is called an ecclesia does not express its actual form (numbers or small numbers), but its spiritual value: this is the meeting in which God (Christ) is effectively manifested with his grace-filled gifts, a meeting of the elect, a meeting of the people of God.” “In the Greek Republic there is, of course, only a single ecclesia: a complete assembly of all citizens. According to the usage of LXX, in turn, there is, of course, also only a single ecclesia: the national assembly of Israel. According to Christian usage, only a single ecclesia should be conceivable: the national assembly of all Christianity (New Israel) as a whole.” “At first glance, New Testament usage seems to contradict this conclusion. In almost all the cases where the word ecclesia appears here, it seems to mean local congregations, and not all of Christianity (although the word ecclesia appears several times in the New Testament to mean all of Christianity: Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:28; Phil. 3:6; Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 10:32; Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:24, 25 - contrary statement of Krause and Weiss) 820. There is an ecclesia in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), and another in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), a third in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1), etc. - Hence the frequent use of the plural (1 Thess. 2:14; Rom. 16:4, 16:16; 1 Cor. 7:17, 11:16, 16:19; 2 Cor.8:18, 19; Rev.2:7, etc.). There is not a single ecclesia of Christians, but many, countless ecclesias throughout the vast boundaries of the Roman state. Ecclesia (and not church) is apparently the name of the local community. This is the basis of the prevailing view, according to which the concept of the local community (legal concept), and not the concept of the church, the collective community (spiritual concept) was of fundamental importance for the early Christian structure.” “Moreover, not only the body of Christians in any locality, but even just a home community (Christians usually meeting in the same house) bears the same name ecclesia (Rom. 16:4; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phil. 1:2; Col. 4:15; cf. Rom. 16:14:15).” “But it is precisely this last circumstance that leads to the right decision. It clearly shows that the word ecclesia does not express any specific value, no social concept (also the concept of a local community), but expresses a single dogmatic judgment of value. Ecclesia means every assembly that represents in dogmatic terms, for faith, in its spiritual value, the assembly of Christianity, the assembly with God and before God (Christ) of the new people of the covenant.” The situation is the same as with Jewish word usage. A separate meeting of Christians, according to Harnack's research 821, is called συναγωγή. By the expression συναγωγή the Christian community is characterized as an empirical value, in its external form, as an assembly, while by the expression ἐκκλησία (almost always used) - as a spiritual value, as it appears to the eyes of faith, as an assembly of the people of God. The basis of this idea is the word of the Lord (Matt. 18:20): “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them.” “Where the Lord, the Head of the body, there is Christianity: where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, there is the people of God, New Testament Israel, there is all Christianity with all the promises that befall it, because Christ, who is all in all, is in the midst of it. Where Christ is, there is the ecclesia (the people of God). Hence the position that early became a proverb: ubi tres, ibi ecclesia 822. The Christian faith sees in every gathering of Christians the whole of Christianity, the people of God, the corporate community, spiritually assembled. On this basis, every gathering of Christians, great or small, who come together in the name of the Lord is called ecclesia, the national assembly of New Testament Israel.” “The general meeting of Christians in one locality is called ecclesia (1 Cor. 11:18, 14:19, 23, 28, 35. Perhaps Matthew 18:17 also applies here), because it represents the meeting not of this local community, but of all Christianity (Israel). The home community meeting is exactly the same.” “Thus, there is still only one ecclesia, the collection of all Christianity as a whole, but this one ecclesia has countless forms of phenomena. She appears in the local community meeting, but also in the home community meeting and in countless other Christian gatherings, even when they do not necessarily represent the local or home community meeting.”823 Appendix I. The word ἅγιος and its history 824 We want to show, using the example of ἅγιος, the insufficiency of philological research alone, especially when it comes to understanding the Holy Books. The proof will consist in the fact that we will find out a significant difference in the use of ἅγιος in the classical and biblical languages, despite the complete sound identity. The word ἅγιος is the rarest of the five synonyms: ίερός, ὃσιος, σεμνός, ἅγιος, ἁγνός, which the Greeks had for the concept of holiness, as far as they knew it; in Biblical Greek, on the contrary, is the only word by which the biblical concept of holiness is expressed, permeating all of Holy Scripture - a concept that can rightfully be said to be concentrated in it the main guiding principles and purposes of Divine revelation. What makes the essence of holiness in the biblical sense is not precisely contained in any of the listed synonyms; this concept grew entirely on biblical soil, and for the fact that the Greeks sensed and thought about the holiness of the Divine in a somewhat similar sense, as well as for the sense in which the Holy Scripture speaks about it, the Greeks did not have any separate and definite word at all; and since the real word was not enough, it was therefore subsequently necessary to use ἅγιος purely formally, filling and imprinting it with completely new content. The word ἅγιος most obviously shows the radical influence of revealed religion, its shaping and restructuring power. And before this influence, ἅγιος is certainly devoid of the main point with which we characterize holiness - the ethical one. Homer specialist Nägelsbach, Homer. Theologia, 1:12) says that in the Homeric period holiness is nowhere spoken of as a constitutive element of the Godhead, and the gods are never given a definition that would indicate recognition of their holiness, as God is understood in the Bible. Subsequently (Nägelsbach, Nach Homer. Theol. 1, 28 ff.), although all moral and ontological perfections are attributed to the gods, and the Greeks began to realize that the Divine not only externally punishes evil (for example, for the sake of order), but also inwardly hates it, however, next to holiness, the Divine takes into itself the opposite, satanic moment, for It looks with hostile jealousy at all greatness, at any happiness that a person receives beyond the usual measure. A man (Theogn. 401), who is petit virtutem ultra quam satis est 825, is suspicious of the gods, and the immensity of his aspirations is a sufficient reason to plunge him into sins. Thus, despite the initial affinity, the biblical concept of the holiness of God forms a diametric opposite to all others, because the ancient concept of holiness excludes love, 826 and the biblical concept arose and can be understood only in the closest connection with Divine love. But what is especially important for us is the fact that for “the totality of ontological and moral perfections” (which Isocrates and Plato demand for the Divinity) 827, the Greek language does not provide any simple and adequate expression. In fact, none of the words under consideration: ίερός, ὃσιος, σεμνός, ἅγιος, ἁγνός 828 has no similar content etymologically or in word usage. They can be used to designate Divine holiness only formally, terminologically (so to speak, according to a predetermined condition, but not in themselves), and from this it is clear that the rarest of them, the word άγιος, as the least associated with pagan ideas, served as the “purest vessel” (das reinste Gefäss) for the new wine of Revelation; On the contrary, the word ίερός, which is most often found in classical Greek, is completely excluded from the biblical vocabulary, and the reason for this is not difficult to see in the too strong connections between the word and its usual content. How rarely the word ἅγιος is used in classical Greek is evident from the fact that among the tragedians, this highest point of Attic word usage, it does not appear at all, with the exception of one controversial place (Aeschyl. suppl. 558). On the contrary, ίερός is not at all common in Biblical Greek; in LXX it is so rare that these translators deliberately avoid this word, calling the sanctuary τὸ ἅγιον, τὰ ἅγια, τῶν ἀγίων, ναός ἅγιος, while the Apocrypha and the New Testament designate it like τὸ ίερόν. Only σεμνός in biblical Greek is even rarer than ίερός. As for ὃσιος and ἁγνός, they have a definitely limited area in it, much narrower than in classical Greek. Let us note first of all that the actual cultic, therefore religious, meaning of holiness is ίερός and ἁγνός, as well as ἅγιος, where it occurs; further, only ἁγνός and σεμνός are predicates of the gods, moreover, in such a sense and in a way that shows that holiness in the biblical meaning is not associated with the religious ideas of the Greeks. “Οσιος speaks of what is sanctified by divine or human law, use and custom, but does not at all have a specifically religious meaning. Ἱερός refers to divine, divinely sanctified things, laws, etc. Finally, σεμνός (from the root σεβ) contains as its main element awe, amazed veneration and, accordingly, that which produces reverence and amazement. Σεμνός is an epithet of the gods and everything that belongs to the gods, comes from them, or is under their special care. But this word is not at all characteristic of the biblical language: it is not found in LXX, and in the New Testament it is found only in four places (Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 3:8, 11; Titus 2:2). So there remain: ίερός, ἅγιος and ἁγνός. Ἱερός, in its main meaning, refers to “the external manifestation of divine sublimity and is associated with the Sanskrit ishiras - fresh, blooming, in its main meaning - strong, powerful, great. This is a predicate of everything that stands in relation to the gods, comes from them, is dedicated to them, but a predicate of such little defined content that in a completely general and normal sense it designates what is divine, θεῖον: through ίερά even things are designated that are thought of as the direct and original possession of the gods. Ἱερός is never a definition of the gods themselves; and when it is applied to other objects, the relation to the deities is conceived as purely external. So, for example, kings standing under the protection of the gods bear the epithet ἱεροί (Hom. II. 2:205), a person initiated into the mysteries - ίερὸς ἄνθρωπος (Aristoph. ran: 652), etc. The ethical character of the biblical “saint” completely absent from the Greek ίερὸς in voce ίερὸς nihil aliud cogitatur, quam quod res quaedam aut persona deo sacra sit, nulla ingenii mirumque ratione habita; imprimis quod sacris inservit (Tittm. Syn. N. T.) 829 . In the same way, ἅγιος is neither a predicate of gods nor is it used of people. It is apparently associated with a certain quality of ἱερόν (i.e. θεῖον), revealing those sides of ἱερόν that require moral respect and reverent fear from people; This, by the way, is indicated by the occurring combinations of ἅγιος and σεμνόν. An etymological examination of ἅγιος clearly and with complete certainty proves that it is characterized by moral and religious reverence (the same initially applied to ἁγνός), so that ἅγιος remains the only word that has been adopted by the purely religious concept of holiness. It is associated with ἅγος, ἅζομαι and derivatives. The verb ἅζομαι (mainly in Homer and the tragedians) is a rare word that serves to denote pious fear and reverence for gods and elders, piety and is equivalent to σέβομαι. – “Ἅγος – dedication, sacrifice (which should not be confused with ἅγος – guilt, curse, Sanskrit âgas – annoyance, difficulty) has a connection with Sanskrit jag, jagāmi, – sacrificio, colo; jagus, jâgam, jagnam - sacrifice, cf. Zandese уaz – to honor, to make a sacrifice: уаzu – great, sublime. Thus, ou is something that is an object of religious veneration. Here is the starting point for choosing this word in order to express the biblical concept of holiness. And in all other words belonging to the same root, this point is repeated. Now we need to determine the content and scope of the biblical concept of holiness, transferred to the Greek language (in LXX using ἅγιος). The further development of this concept, which, however, does not break with LXX, is the New Testament use of the word ἅγιος. First of all, it should be noted that the predicate of holiness, in addition to being applied to God, is used only in relation to such people and things that are either especially attributed to God himself, or are assigned to Him by people. To other subjects, this predicate is attributed only arbitrarily, because of the special relationship in which they stand to God, that is, it is attributed purely formally: the holiness of things and persons comes from participation in the holiness of God. But what is said about God through the predicate of holiness? Etymologically, apparently, the meaning of qādoš has not been indisputably clarified. “The most probable view is that the verbal root qādaš, which is related to qādaš (as qāsab, qāsaph with hacaph, etc.), is reduced to the root doš, from which also comes dāšā, and its basic meaning must be taken to be enituit, shining, put forward” (Öhler in Herzog’s R Encyclop 19:618). On the contrary, Hoffmann finds (Schriftbew. 1, 82 ff) that “qādoš is that which stands outside the general flow, outside the usual order of things,” so that the affinity that exists between the roots hādaš and qādaš corresponds to the similarity of their meanings: “both denote otherness (Anderssein); one is in contrast to what was, and the other is in contrast to what is usual.” “In later abstraction, God is called holy, qādoš, as completely special, closed in Himself, which stands in opposition to the world to which He does not belong - therefore, in His supra-worldliness there is der Eigne, Self-existent.” The holiness of God is the negation of any pantheistic relationship of God to the world. Therefore, we must try to conclude about the essence of holiness from the historical discovery and disclosure of it. We talk about it when we imagine the presence of Yahweh among His chosen people, a historical attitude towards society instead of individual conversions. In the guidance of Israel and its salvation, in its mercies and righteous judgment upon it, God reveals His holiness. “In short, God is holy in his selective love, as a God of mercy and salvation.” But it would be wrong and one-sided to identify the holiness of God with his mercies or saving love (Mecken). The holiness of God not only establishes the law, but also judges its violation - the beginning of reconciliation, which also includes judgment. And this second side of holiness is inextricably linked with the first. The holiness of God, which is so powerfully revealed in the salvation of Israel, conditions and produces liberation from sins, for it stands in the most decisive opposition to every sinful being. But only a push is needed for her saving revelation to turn into its opposite. “The light of Israel becomes fire, and its healer becomes flame” (Isa.). Therefore, the correct attitude towards the holiness of God is that connection of fear and trust, which runs like a red thread through all of Holy Scripture. From what has been said, it is clear that the holiness of God is the principle that underlies and forms the entire saving revelation in all its moments. It is now necessary to define these points in order to make a clear connection between them. Becoming a law for people, the holiness of God excludes any society of sinful humanity and, therefore, necessarily elects a certain part of it. The purification of this chosen part determines the possibility of salvation, and in these moments: Exclusion - Election - Cleansing from sin - Redemption - lies the holiness of God. Thus, “holiness is only (lautere) the purity of God, which in itself and for itself excludes all communication with the world and only still allows for an attitude of free, electing love; in this love she then brings about the sanctification of the People of God, their cleansing from sin and redemption, which means - in reconciliation and redemption - respectively - in judgment the revealed purity of God" (Cremer, J. "God is light" - this is the New Testament expression for Divine Holiness (1 John 1:5). From the fact that Holiness is revealed sacredly and historically as sanctification, it also follows in what sense that which God has appropriated to himself through selective love is holy or sanctified - namely, that it is accepted into communion by God. Whether the people of Israel, the Sabbath, the church, or the priesthood are called holy - the same thought passes everywhere: that they are chosen, set apart by the love of God, accepted into special communion with Him. On the contrary, if an object ceases to be chosen, then it is also deprived of holiness. In the same way, everything that people assimilate to God, put in connection with Him, determine for Him, is sanctified, for in this case the exclusive and again elective holiness of God is revealed. Sanctification, whether it comes from people or from God, always involves separation - separation is always a necessary prius 830 or a consequence of sanctification; but the identification of these concepts led to such a vulgarization of the concepts of sanctification and holiness that it would be necessary to derive its entire sacred-historical content from the almost meaningless basic concept, without being able to put forward anything other than an extremely empty logical connection. Generally speaking, “to sanctify” means not only “to set apart,” but “to set apart for God.” Let us now turn to the New Testament use of ἅγιος. Here it is necessary to distinguish between two cases: I. ἅγιος is used in the New Testament about God and the Spirit of God. It may be surprising how rarely the predicate of holiness is spoken of God in the New Testament. If we exclude exact or approximate quotations from the Old Testament, then ἅγιος about God is found only in John’s writings. But it would be extremely hasty and incorrect to conclude from this fact that the idea of ​​the holiness of God disappeared on the basis of the New Testament. On the contrary, its importance is only fully revealed here. The matter is explained by the fact that the action of God on the world, so to speak, the side of God turned to the world, is, as it were, concentrated in the Spirit - the Sanctifier, and the “holy” is therefore the epitheton ornans 831 of this Hypostasis. II. ἅγιος speaks of people and things that stand in a special relationship to God and are either a special organ of the Divine will or perceive salvation from God. They - and this is explained by everything previous - are called “chosen”, “beloved”, “faithful” in their election, etc. Religious sentiments of 1 Corinthians by Clement of Rome 832 1. After the fiery whirlwind of inspired images of the Apocalypse, after the passionate, intense, uneven persuasion of Paul, after the hieratic, sacred-mysterious speech of the 4th Gospel, after the Synoptic Gospels, full of vital concreteness and a series of falls, turning points, victories, we find ourselves in the kingdom of children, in the paradise country before the Fall, in the country of innocence, childishness, simplicity and gullibility. There is no torment, emptiness (?), punishment... Everything is equal. Catastrophic there and organic, natural here 833. 2. For the authors of the New Testament, their Christianity was hard-won. It was unexpected, it surprised and delighted. A certain habit is immediately felt. Christianity came without a struggle. Therefore, his feelings are pure, high, but elementary. No polysyllabicity. Monotony and monotony. 3. There is no tragic break, no struggle with oneself is visible, no inevitable is visible. Theoretically, questions did not arise in this consciousness. There wasn't anything exciting. 4. Calm, even joy, or better yet, deep inner peace. There is no bright beam, but there are no shadows either. This is a white, cloudless sky. 5. Monotheism. The universal, good, loving and even God reigns over everything. He is the Father of everything, protects everything, cares for everything, and most of all for those who do His will. 6. He created everything, harmonized everything, subordinating it to perfect laws. All nature obediently fulfills his good and reasonable will. The luminaries flow in their own ways, etc. The sea. There is no disharmony anywhere. Everything is from Him. He holds everything in His hands. He also established church regulations. 7. Complete optimism. All evil is only moral evil, brought about by people. There is no metaphysical evil. There is no sinfulness. 8. Heavenly innocence, simplicity. God revealed His face through Jesus Christ] as through a mirror. He conveys our prayers (offerings to God). By his Spirit he spoke through the prophets. By the Spirit he spoke to Christians. The spirit searches the womb. 9 . God is omniscient. No sin is hidden from Him. He who does not do His will will not receive the reward - resurrection, or he will be ashamed to receive his bread. 10. The loving God is gentle; He showers everyone with His gifts. He cares for all creatures. He loves humility, and Christ came to earth in a humble form, and not in a shining manner. 11. God does not need external brilliance - no pompous speeches, no arrogance, no exploits, no strength. He looks at the meek, quiet, humble, condescending. He justifies not those who want to be justified by their works, but the humble because of their faith. 12. Most of all, he hates pride, self-exaltation, and impurity. 13. Next to God there are no other forces opposing him, no evil spirits. 14. We are nothing. How from the tomb we were born into the world, created from “what substance.” And, being nothing, we must thank God for everything and be humble before Him. 15. By submitting ourselves, we will involuntarily love each other. Both laws in the physical world and love in the moral world are central points. Christianity introduced the idea of ​​regularity, the uniformity of the laws of nature 834. 16. People have been given the true words of the Holy Spirit—the Holy Scriptures. 17. There are no sudden transitions, no disasters. And Christ was not a turning point, and He will come without a catastrophe - quietly, organically, naturally. We will rise just as naturally - as night comes after day or as a grain sprouts. St. James, Brother of the Lord (Characteristics of the “Epistle” and personality) 835 Sketches with notes † M. D. Muretova 836 Pavel Florensky, 4th year MDA student Finished May 5, 1908 It is a pity that there is no description of St. James, as (nrzb.) Epistles. But what is there is extremely curious and original 837 . “..they say about him that in face, life and manner of speaking he is very similar to the Lord Jesus - as if he were His twin brother from the same womb. They say about him that to see him means to see Jesus Himself in all the features of his body, secundum omnia corporis ejus lineamenta” 838. This is the rumor that circulated among the Christian world about James, the Brother of the Lord, already during his lifetime - if you believe the tradition that recognizes the authenticity of the Letter of Ignatius the God-Bearer to John the Theologian. Even the slightest, even dubious shrine associated with the name of the Lord is infinitely dear to us, and even more dear is the image of His Brother, in which - according to legend - the most exact likeness of the Lord Himself is given “in life, face and manner of speaking.” To look closely at the “lineamenta” 839 of James means to acquire something for the specific representation of the Chief of Life. And therefore, it is enough to say this to understand the pious greed of Ignatius the God-Bearer, with which he sought to “see and speak” 840 with the Brother of the Lord. “Who, if only he is a friend of our hope and our faith, who,” he exclaims, “will not give the pleasure of seeing and talking with him” 841. The task of this work is to take a closer look at the “lineamenta” of James. But, they will say, is it possible to equate the Lord with His Brother? Should we take man as the starting point for representing the God-man? - Yes, and if Jacob’s lineamenta in relation to the Lord would be nothing more than childish strokes in comparison with Raphael’s painting, then they would require the most careful observation of themselves - as genuine, albeit rough, outlines of the human nature of the Savior. So, what is the Lord's Brother like? Take a closer look at St. James - this means first of all taking a closer look at his “Epistle”. And here, like the nearest passes, preliminary questions arise. What is the form of the Message? What is its internal structure? What is the method of thinking of the Author of the Message? What are your stylistic preferences and features? These and other similar questions are not the subject of inquisitive vanity, but vitally and essentially included in the main question about the personality of the Brother of the Lord. And I will say more - these questions are perhaps even more important and significant than the question of the ideological content of the “Message”. The content of mental life changes - it comes, goes and comes again, like the waves of a restless sea; is absorbed into the soul, assimilated, transformed into the spiritual body and lived out as the substance of our members; grows, fades and sprouts again. But the form of mental life, the internal rhythm of the soul, the seed word of the soul is the eternal and unchanging, incorruptible and unfading property of the individual. To know a person means, first of all, to know not what she thinks, feels and wills, but how she thinks, feels and wills. Didn’t Saul, after the greatest spiritual revolution, after the catastrophe of his entire spiritual content, having become Paul, remain himself in his “how”? And the more profoundly what is expressed in speech, the more directly the soul is poured out, the brighter, the more characteristically its “to á to?” is expressed. " Music, in an incomprehensible way, tearing apart the veil of phenomenality, exposing to us the “soul of things” - music in which and for which things “speak” their deepest secrets - in its pure and meaningless “to á to?” there is lyricism par excellence, because it gives live and in reality an eternal, pure scheme of mental life - outside of its variable, random and external content. The types of musical creations, or the so-called “musical forms”, are the prototypes and patterns for mental movements - the laws of the dynamics of the 842 soul. That is why the less mental life is constrained by ideological content, beliefs introduced from outside and into it, the more freely mental movements are revealed, the more accurately they correspond in their internal structure to one or another musical form: in this case, the laws of the dialectical development of ideas give way to the laws of the musical, thematic development of feelings. Here, in this correspondence, one cannot see only a more or less successful analogy. No. This is an essential connection, conditioned by the very nature of the musical form, as completely surrendering to the flow of pure, pointless and weak-willed lyrics. Rhythm is in the division of the total mass of a given impression into private groups, which in turn are divided into subgroups, etc., until this consistent fragmentation reaches simple impressions that are no longer divisible. The form of a work is one or another type of its external and internal rhythm 843. Understanding “how” a work leads to understanding its internal and, perhaps, external rhythm 844. The Epistle of James, despite its insignificant volume, is extremely rich in this rhythmicity - saturated and permeated through and through - not with external sound rhythmicity that forcibly embraces the content, but with the internal, immanent-inherent rhythm of the work, organically revealed by it, the rhythmicity of experience. At the first immediate impression, the outlines of its four parts emerge from the general mass of the Epistle. These four parts, which we will denote as α, β, γ and δ, are separated from each other by red lines in good editions. But, one might ask, what is this division based on? The guiding principle of this four-part division cannot be the ideological side of each of the parts, for the ideas are arranged in a nest-like manner and there are no definite milestones for drawing the boundary between the parts; from the ideological side, the entire Message falls apart into separate, self-contained ideological pieces, and there is no data to combine them into certain sections. The principle of division here is musical: the tempo of mental movement in parts, the tonality of the emotions sounding there, the image and manner in which ideas and emotions are replaced by each other - this is what clearly distinguishes one part of the Message from another. But, despite all this, these parts grow as members of one organic, articulated whole, and therefore, in formal terms, they are built similar to each other. The beginning of each part is accentuated by an appeal to the readers, whom the Author almost sees in front of him; Moreover, parts one, two and four α, β, δ) are addressed to the “brothers” (1 2, 2 1, 5 7), and the third (γ) is addressed to the rich and merchants (4 13). And so, when the reader has already noticed that a new part of the Epistle has begun, the Author takes advantage of this moment and immediately, while attention is fresh, enters in medias res 845 - expresses the theme of the presenting part (except for 3, which is structured somewhat differently), that is, he gives, as it were, an inscription, its title and then, developing and dividing it, ends with a repetition of the theme, but in a new key, with enriched content and with enhanced significance. “As he examines a well-known subject, his words seem to heat up as the writer himself becomes heated,” 846, and for the end he saves the most significant of this cycle of experiences. The “proof” of the expressed maxim lies in its analysis and in the final synthesis, returning consciousness to the starting point. This is approximately the structure of each of the parts. The structure of the entire Epistle is similar to this, because in it 1 1, or, better said, the word χαίρειν 847, is the theme not only of the first part, but also of the entire Epistle, which develops this theme, leading it, having processed it thematically, to an in-depth expression of the same feeling. The end of the Epistle (5 13–20) is a ronda-like return to the beginning of 1 2–12, but in a new key. The circle closes after the emotions have been expressed with all their power and significance. But the same is the structure of the departments into which each part is divided. And the finer the division, the simpler and therefore more obvious and tangible this rhythm of sacred speech. Let us now consider each of the parts separately. α (1 1 – 1 27 ). The theme of this part is given by the greeting “rejoice”, χαίρειν (1 1), introduced from the greeting into the very body of the Epistle through the figure of duadiplosis - through the repetition of the word. The topic is revealed through an explanation of the meaning and specific life conditions of joy, as a result of which the tone of speech, although spiritual, is even, calm and filled with restrained, important benevolence towards the listeners. The movement is fast, even fluent, consistent with the explanatory tone and can be roughly described as allegro con spirito 848. – This part α is naturally divided into three others, which we denote by a, b, c. Part a (or I) (1 1) - greeting - forms the introduction to α and together to the whole Message. The Epistle itself begins with happiness (1 2–18), speaking about temptations as the environment in which joy arises. And this part b splits into two, each cyclically closing in on itself, knees. The first of them (II: 1 2–12) develops the theme of joy, which appears through victory over temptations, and clarifies the psychological conditions of this victory - internal steadfastness. The end of the knee (1 12), according to custom, is a return to the beginning (1 2) and speaks of the bliss of the victor. The second (III: 1 13 -1 18) develops the idea of ​​​​the immutability of God's decisions and, following the path, like II, through the overshadowing thought of the development of sin in man, ends (1 18) in the same way as the beginning (1 13). From here follows the third part, in (1 19–27), in which the attitude to the word of truth is clarified. Starting with a businesslike, even tone, the α part gradually deepens. Despite the objectivity of the presentation, in the general maxims one can hear either affection or censure. But in part β, both become fully explicit. β (2 1 –4 12 ). The Holy Author admonishes and exhorts. The tone, at first meek and almost calm, becomes clearly sharp towards the end. As counterconditions for joy, deviations from the “law of freedom” are revealed, under which there can be no joy. In other words, what is being discussed here is inadequacy to the work of faith. Part β, in turn, breaks down into three smaller parts: g (2 1–26), d (3 1–18) and e (4 1–12), respectively, speaking against partiality, teaching and internal strife. In this case, r is composed of knee V (2 1–13), giving a negative picture of church life, and VI (2 14–26), revealing a positive general idea about the need for active faith. Part e is constructed according to the same plan, in member VII (3 1–12) speaking about the dangers of unrestrained tongue, and in member VIII (3 13–18) positively revealing how wisdom is manifested. – I note that in part β, knee VI (2 14–26) is clearly constructed cyclically, in the form of a rondo: 2 26 repeats the theme of 2 14. Part γ (4 13 –5 6) begins with an unexpected forte 849. The theme of this part is denunciation, at first sharp and severe, then prophetically angry and filled with the power of Old Testament pathos. Accusations fall like heavy stones on the heads of those convicted. And, moving crescendo 850 with a series of irresistible heavy blows with majestic royal slowness, the angry speech, more and more powerful, turning into the roar of a lion, ends with the gravest (5 6) and irrevocable accusation. The angry forte fortissimo 851 suddenly turns in the next, final part of δ to the tone of warm speech, to foret-piano 852. This entire part of γ is written in a movement that could be designated as andate grave con molt’ espressione 853. It splits into two, of which the first, X (4 13–4 17), speaks in a less severe tone, denouncing those who rely on their own strength, and the second, XI (5 1–6), expresses reproaches to the rich oppressors. δ (5 7–20 ). Here, as said, the tone changes dramatically. This gives the impression as if the speaker suppressed sacred anger in himself and, having denounced the rich, in a fit of supreme indignation, immediately turned away from them and began to speak in the other direction, to others whom he calls brothers. Here the theme, as in part α, is the feeling of joy and submissive acceptance of temptations, but now mysterious means are already indicated to heal the wounds of the soul. In an infinitely affectionate, fatherly-tender, although delayed in his tenderness, tone, he consoles, encourages and reassures the humble and oppressed brothers in need of help. The original theme of joy (part α) enters again. But now that the storm of purifying wrath has passed, the spiritual atmosphere is fresh and light. Now it is clear what should be done (part β) and what should not be done (part γ) to gain joy. Now you can breathe easily and freely. The movement is performed at a rather fast pace - at a pace imbued with spiritual warmth, so that it can be approximately described as allegretto con fuoco 854. The development of the topic is divided into two passages - XII (5 7–12), where the need for long-suffering is revealed, and XIII (5 13–20), where the means of grace-filled help are indicated. And in conclusion (5 20), the Author reveals the source of the highest joy - the sinner’s turning away from his false path. Thus, the entire Epistle is written in the form of a sonata or symphony (for a symphony is almost the same sonata, but in a larger size and in greater complexity and therefore intended for orchestra). It would be inappropriate to prove this idea in detail here. I will only say that the musical arrangement is amazing and extends not only to the whole, but also to small parts of the Message. For greater clarity, I will give a diagram according to which the Message is divided. Here it is: Not only the general treatment of the Message, but also a number of particular features have in mind an undoubtedly musical effect. This includes, first of all, the articulation of parts and knees through the figures of duadiplosis (or repetition of the idea just expressed, and sometimes even a word. Such a repeated link is: in 1 1 and 1 2 - joy, in 1 2 and 1 3 - testing, in 1 3 and 1 4 - patience, in 1 4 and 1 5 - lack of wisdom, etc. (cf. e.g. 1 13 and 1 14, 1 14 and 1 15, 1 19 and 1 20, etc.). This also includes the sudden invasion of a new theme (see 4 1, 4 13, 5 1, etc.) or a fragmented presentation of a number of ideas, that is, the figure of asyndeton 855, as a non-union adhesion, sometimes giving an effect equivalent to stoccatto 856. This asyndetism imparts a special power of thought, because the independence of each concept, its isolation, emphasizes it in consciousness. These are, for example, places 2 13, 4 1–6. The entire place 5 1–6 is also asyndetic. This also includes the strengthened linking of parts through several unions - the polysyndeton figure 857, which is something like a strengthened legato 858. This is, for example, place 4 13. The effect of the opposition of a- and polysyndeton in the γ part is remarkable: polysyndeton is in direct contact with asyndeton, which makes the contrast of coherence and incoherence even more vivid. This also includes the already mentioned rondo-shaped returns of the theme, such as 1 2–12, 2 14–26, partly 1 19–26, 4 1–12. This also includes the very method of presentation: first give the main idea in the form of a thesis - either affirmatively (1 2, 1 19, 2 3, 3 1), then in the form of a rhetorical question (2 14, 4 1), and then subject it to thematic development. If the construction of the Epistle is rhythmic, then its language is highly artistic, so that it seems even surprising what a wealth of poetic and rhetorical beauties is condensed over the course of small five chapters. The speech of the Message is expressive, colorful and varied in its shades. Sometimes she is merciful, sometimes tender and affectionate, sometimes harsh, accusatory and punitive. The author now disgusts, now consoles, now reasons, and not without the subtlest victorious irony, or strikes with an irresistible blow of reasoning, then, finally, in the tone of a seer, he utters what he sees in the spiritual world (1 6–12). For the sake of liveliness of speech and out of modesty, so as not to talk about his personal affairs, he speaks on behalf of the defender of his views (2 18). Jacob's adversary boasted of faith (2:14); There have already been objections to this. And someone, says the Brother of the Lord, can also ask him, this supporter of faith alone: ​​“Show me your faith apart from your works; and I will show you my faith from my works” (2 18), i.e.: “You boast in faith. Well, show it to me? What could you show it in, other than in business? How will you convince me of the existence of this pretended faith? As for me, a supporter of active faith, I am not devoid of faith, but, despite you, I can prove it from my deeds.” Through this dramatic introduction of the speech of an outsider, the reader's interest is immediately raised. And then Jacob, taking advantage of the attention that has come, finishes off the enemy with murderous sarcasm that blocks his lips. “But what? Even if you really have faith, we will yield to you. Yes, you are doing well; and the demons believe and tremble.” The irrevocability of sarcasm lies in the fact that it states facts and only bare facts: it is good to believe (this is the first fact); demons believe and tremble (here are two more new facts). The author distances himself from discussing the facts; he does not want to weigh them, leaving this judgment about the facts to the opponent himself. The conclusion, and an inevitable conclusion at that, is only hinted at by the magnificent “καί”, inviting us to consider the facts not separately, but together, to compare them. This καί means: “I did not want to offend you, opponent of deeds. But you yourself, by your own confession, bring upon yourself an offensive comparison. Yes, you are good with your faith; but this is not enough, because demons are so good; and they do believe. However, despite their faith, they only have to tremble. By claiming that you only have faith, you compare yourself with demons, you yourself declare that you should be horrified by the awareness of its insufficiency.” In another place (5 6) the effect is achieved by a figure of silence, a pause. The preacher piles up accusations against the rich. “You have condemned and killed a righteous man,” as he buries those already killed by his accusations with a block of grave earth. And then in a dull, lowered voice, almost calm in appearance, he adds the most terrible accusation: “He did not resist you.” Here the listeners are waiting for a conclusion from everything that has been said - they are waiting for threats and anathemas. But Jacob does not draw this conclusion, but simply, meekly and kindly addresses the oppressed: “Therefore, brothers, be patient” (5 7). This “therefore,” of course, does not refer to the immediately previous one, but to what was said to the “brothers” at the beginning of the Epistle. Creating a great contrast with the previous one, this “therefore” ends the wrathful rebuke and is more terrible than any curse. It says: “The deeds of the rich are obvious; they speak for themselves. The conclusion suggests itself. But there are no words, no strength to express all the indignation that the rich deserve. From now on I have no dealings with them at all. I forgot about them and everything I just said. I turned away from them, I turn to you, oppressed, beloved brothers, I remember only about you. The rich have already been erased from the Kingdom; they are not even worth talking to us. They are like non-existent to me.” We find a similar antithesis in verses 3 17, 18 -4 1. The apostle speaks of the signs of wisdom from above: “The true seed is sown in the world by peacemakers.” And so, this “world” - without any alliance - is contrasted with the fights and quarrels that reign among the listeners. And, in strong excitement from such an unexpected contrast, the writer seems to be lost, and this state of mind is emphasized by a perplexed question, reinforced by the double “where from?” “Where does the abuse come from? Where do the quarrels come from among you” (4 1) 859, - this question, by its contrast, gives an answer to itself: “from lack of wisdom.” The same rhetorical intensifications and revitalizations of thought include parallelisms and antitheses within one sentence. Thus, the Brother of the Lord answers the previous questions: ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε (4 2), i.e. “if you desire and do not have, then you kill, and if you strive strongly for something and cannot achieve, then you fight and are at war.” There is obvious parallelism here; similar parallelisms are scattered in many other places; like this: 4 8: “Draw close to God, and He will draw close to you.” 4 8: “Cleanse your hands, you sinners, correct your hearts, you double-minded.” 4 9: “Let laughter turn into crying and joy into sadness.” 4 10: “humble yourself and he will exalt” (ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον). 5 2: “the wealth has rotted and the clothes are moth-eaten,” etc., etc. Or here are some examples of antitheses: 3 9: “With it (the tongue) we bless God and the Father - and with it we curse men, created in the likeness of God.” 3 10, 11 et seq.: blessing and curse, sweet water and bitter water, etc. 4 7: “Submit yourselves to God; resist the devil,” etc. Finally, frequent addresses (?), sometimes accompanied by particles, should also be included among the methods of enlivening speech: ιδε (?), ἰδού (5 4, 3 4, 3 5), αγε νῦν (4 13, 5 1). The artistry of the Message is reflected in the extraordinary specificity of the presentation. Constant examples and everyday scenes illustrating the general idea, numerous images and comparisons, historical examples, well-chosen quotes, and finally even individual words full of energy and artistic power - all this, taken together, makes us involuntarily agree with one of the exegetes, who said that everything in the Epistle is ideal. The author, for example, talks about partiality; but the bare fact unfolds in him into a subtly noticed picture of church life: some visiting Christian enters a prayer meeting, into a synagogue. And so, seeing a husband with a gold ring on his hand and in shiny clothes (which indicates his wealth and, perhaps, some nobility), respectful local Christians look favorably at him and obsequiously indicate to the newcomer a comfortable place: “It’s more convenient for you to sit here.” When a poor Christian enters, in dirty clothes, they do not even deign to look at him, but only casually say: “Stand there,” or: “Sit at the footstool of my feet” (2 2-3). Or here is another scene, below, obviously captured from life. Here a clear example is shown of the internal falsity of faith without works. The brother and sister are naked, and some believer will tell them: “Go in peace, be warmed,” and will not give them the necessary food and clothing (2 15-16). Or here’s another aptly captured image of traders, self-confidently counting on earthly things, as if time, life, and the achievement of their intended goals are in their power. “Come on,” Jacob addresses them, “listen, you who say: “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city and live there for one year, and we will trade and make a profit,” you who do not know what will happen tomorrow... Instead of saying to you: “If the Lord wills and we live, we will do this and that,” you, in your arrogance, are vainglorious” (4:13, 14, 15). Elsewhere, the impending fate of the rich is depicted, and many individual details characterize their life: your wealth (i.e., grain reserves) has rotted, Jacob tells them, and your clothes (another type of valuable property) are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted away... behold, the wages that you withheld from the workers cry out from you, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You rejoiced on earth and lived in luxury; they fattened their hearts for the day of slaughter; you condemned and killed the righteous” (5 2–6). Everywhere in these examples, a few words capture everything essential. But careful analysis would be needed to find out the subtlety and meaningfulness of these examples. Very often the Author resorts to images and metaphors, borrowing them from all areas of nature and life, but always artistically and with exquisite nobility. To characterize the instability of a doubting person, he remembers the sea and says that he is like “a wave of the sea, tossed and tossed by the wind” (1 6). On another occasion, he was reminded of maritime affairs. He compares the relationship of the tongue to the body with the relationship of the rudder to the ship. “Ships, no matter how large they are and no matter how strong the winds blow, are guided with a small rudder wherever the pilot wants; so the tongue is a small member, but does a lot” (3 4, 5). The fragility of the life of a rich man, outwardly beautiful with his wealth, is expressed in the image of a wild flower, withering under the scorching breath of the simoom, which appears with the sunrise. The rich man “will pass away like the color of grass: the sun rose in a rush and dried up the grass, and its color fell, and the beauty of its appearance perished; so the rich man will fade away in his deeds" (1 10-11). The destructive power of not holding your tongue is compared to the power of fire engulfing a pile of combustible and flammable material, or even a forest. Just as a small spark of fire starts a whole forest fire, so a small member of the body - the tongue - starts a fire of a person's entire life. “This is what a small fire kindles what a large forest: and the tongue-fire is the world of untruth (i.e., the fire of the tongue is the whole world of untruth)... This is exactly how it acts among our members, since it defiles the whole body, igniting the wheel of life and, for its part, being ignited by Gehenna” (3:5, 6). Pointing out to the arrogant merchants the fragility of all their undertakings, Jacob compares their life to smoke quickly dissipated by the wind or an easily melting cloud from the rain. “What is your life like! - he exclaims. “After all, you are breath (or smoke, fog), appearing for a short time, then disappearing” (4 14). Wanting to say that God does not tempt anyone and is not tempted himself, i.e. that there is no evil in Him, Jacob resorts to astronomical images and calls God the magnificent name “Father of the luminaries.” The heavenly bodies undergo changes, appear and disappear as a result of their circulation, become darkened, for example, during eclipses; but God, as standing above the phenomena of heaven, as the Father of the luminaries, is certainly alien to all this: “With the Father of the luminaries... there are no changes or eclipses from conversion” (1 17), He is always equally clear and pure. Does the Author need to express the dangerous properties of the tongue - he calls it “fickle” (ἀκατἀστατον), changeable, twisting, like a snake, comparing its movements with the movements of a snake, and then continues his comparison, calling the tongue “full of deadly poison” (3 8): in the tongue, like in the gums of a snake, the poison that kills the slandered is hidden. The Author often turns to the plant world and the activities of the farmer. Thus, the activity of a teacher is compared to the peaceful sowing of ploughmen. Just as false, demonic wisdom is sown in hostility and by hostile, angry teachers, so heavenly wisdom is sown in the world by peacemakers; “but the true seed is sown in the world by peacemakers” (3 18). The farmer comes to mind again when Jacob wants to clarify the need for patience - the need to endure before receiving what is expected and desired. “Here the farmer waits for the precious fruit from the earth and for it he endures for a long time until he receives it (the fruit) early and late” (5 7). And again an image appears from the field of agriculture. “The wisdom that comes from above,” says Jacob, “is full of mercy and good fruits” (3:17); she is like a garden full of trees with fruits. In the same way, the spiritual perception of the Gospel word is likened to the earth’s perception of a plant planted in it (1:21). To show how bridling the tongue gives a person power over all the sinful afflictions of the body, St. Jacob uses the image of a bridled horse, so often used when traveling around the East: “behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths so that they obey us, and we guide the whole body” (3 3). Mention is made of lost travelers and those who doubt the accepted path. “A man with double thoughts is unsteady in all his ways” (1 8). “Brethren, if any of you deviates from the truth, and someone converts him, let him know that he who converts a sinner from the wrong path will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (5:19, 20). These last words of the last chapter, symmetrical with the words (1 18) of the first chapter - words full of deep love, perhaps reflect the feeling of a person traveling and understanding the joy when someone shows the way to a tired traveler. – Let us also note that the words: “covering of sins” (5 20) hint at a new image – the covering of a book. Communal squabbles and quarrels remind the Author of military operations, and anger reminds him of murder. “Where,” he asks, “come from the wars? whence come the battles among you? Is it not from here, from your delights that war in your members? If you desire and do not have, then you kill, and if you strive strongly for something and cannot achieve it, then you fight and be at war” (4 1,2). Then this image continues in a slightly different light: “So, submit to God, resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (4 7). The correction of sinners is presented in the Epistle under the image of Levitical purifications and approaching the altar: “draw near to God, and he will draw near to you; Cleanse your hands, you sinners; straighten your hearts, you double-minded” (4 8). Elsewhere, liberation from moral shortcomings is likened to stripping off dirty clothes (1 21). The author freely takes material for images from all spheres of life. Thus, he likens the word of God, which allows a person to know his spiritual appearance, to a mirror showing “the image of his external existence” (πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως). “Whoever listens and does not perform is like a person looking at the natural features of his face (or: the image of his external being) in a mirror: he looked at himself, walked away - and immediately forgot what he is like” (1:23, 24). People who always peer into the law are likened in the Epistle to the cherubim on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, leaning down to peer at the commandments contained on the tablets (1:25). He who endures temptation is likened to a competitor in a lists who receives a wreath for victory (1 12). The moral law of love, as the fundamental law that lies at the root of all commandments, is compared with the king by what is called the “royal law”, or “king-law” (2 8). The proximity of the court is expressed by the image of the Judge standing at the door and about to enter for judgment (5 8). Addiction to the pleasures of the world is called “friendship with the world,” which is at the same time enmity against God (4 4). Sometimes the Holy Writer borrows images even from the field of physiology. To express how much the thought of the imminent coming of the Lord should encourage the soul, he says: “Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is drawing near” (5 8), that is, the thought of the coming of the Lord also gives support in long-suffering, just as reinforcement with food adds vital energy to the body. Elsewhere, faith is compared to the body, and works to the spirit: “just as a body without a spirit (i.e., without a vital principle, without vital power) is dead, so faith without works is dead” (2 26). Often images are taken even from the sphere of family life. Believers are, according to the Message, in a filial relationship to God. “God gave birth to us by the word of truth, to be (us) the firstborn (or: firstfruits) of his creations” (1 18). At other times, these relationships are depicted as the relationship of spouses, and therefore love for the world (instead of God or along with God) on the part of believers is designated by the name of betrayal, adultery (4 4). In the spirit of the same metaphor, God’s love is characterized by a sign of jealousy: “Or do you think that Scripture says in vain: “The spirit that dwells in us loves with jealousy”? But grace gives the greater” (4:5, 6). Likewise, the soul’s fascination with sin is depicted under the magnificent image of carnal fall. The source of temptation to evil is a person’s own sinful desire, although arising from original sin, but developed and strengthened under the influence of man’s free will; she, this lust (ἐπιθυμία) attracts (ἐξέλκει) and seduces (δελεάζει) a person, and both verbs are taken from the area of ​​artis amandi 860: lust is likened here to a harlot, arousing passion. When the fall has taken place, lust and will are united, then sin begins. He is formed, born into the world and, having reached full development, in turn gives birth to death: “Everyone is tempted, being carried away and deceived by his own lust; lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, having reached full development, gives birth to death” (1:14, 15). These are the main images found in the Epistle. But they are far from exhausting the artistic techniques that enliven the presentation. So, for example, sometimes St. Jacob resorts to personification. Hinting at Genesis 4:10: “The voice of the blood of your brother (Abel) cries out to Me from the ground,” Jacob says to the rich: “Behold, the wages withheld from the workers who reaped your fields cries out from you; the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (5:4). Withholding the wages of day laborers, and, in addition, day laborers-reapers who work in the most difficult conditions, under the scorching sun, is tantamount to murder; this payment, in the figurative expression of Jacob, is spattered with the blood of the brothers, and their cries not only rise, but have already reached the ears of the Lord of hosts, that is, the God of heavenly powers, heavenly armies, to whom the whole universe is subject and to whom it costs nothing to punish the rich. The language of the Epistle is so rich that it includes, in addition to the biblical vocabulary itself, many classical words or (?) also words representing neologisms. And even individual words paint entire pictures. Thus, it is said about demons that they tremble, φρίσσουσιν, and φρίσσειν means such strong fear that even the hair on the head stands up (Job 4 15). – It is said about Abraham that he lifted up Isaac over the altar, and with this one word an expressive reminder is made of the rite of symbolic sacrifice through lifting over the altar, or the so-called terumah 861. – Rahab ὑποδεξαμένη spies [and] [?] ἐκβαλοῦσα them in another way; ὑποδεχεσθαι means to welcome, and ἐκβάλλειν means to throw away. Ἐκβαλοῦσα means the quick and almost violent removal of spies in order to save them. – It is said about the language that it is μεγαλαυχεῖν (3 5), which literally means: μεγάλα αὐχεῖν. Αὐχεῖν - I raise my neck, and μεγαλαυχεῖν (?) - to boast about great deeds, to boast about great things. – It is said about hearts: στηρίξατε (5 8), reinforce with food. – Etc. The author repeatedly supports his thoughts with evidence. Either he refers to Holy Scripture or actually uses it, and with such skill that the Epistle seems chiseled from solid stone, although there are more quotations in it than in all the Epistles combined. Either he resorts to historical evidence, refers to famous people, and then in one or two words he outlines their characteristic feature, which made the person a type. So, he remembers the “true” prophets, Abraham, “our father” and “friend of God” (2 21, 23), Rahab the “harlot” who released the spies “by another road” (2 25), Elijah (5 17), Job the long-suffering (5 10, 11) makes a hint of Abel. He does not neglect cosmological evidence either. Thus, in order to prove the demonic, supernatural power of language, capable of combining in itself such opposites as blessing and curse, Jacob proves that for everything natural the combination of opposites is unthinkable. He points to mineral springs; “can a place (receptacle, source) where salt water produce sweet water?” (3 11). He further refers to the fruit bearing of fruit trees. “A fig tree, my brothers, cannot bear olives, or a vine of figs; neither can one spring bring out salty and sweet water” (3 12). Another proof of the demonic nature of the tongue is that it is indomitable, while everything natural is tamed, and James lists all kinds of living creatures, according to the biblical classification: “every nature of beasts (all four-legged animals) and birds (all flying and feathered kingdoms), reptiles and sea creatures (all inhabitants of the sea) is tamed and tamed by human nature; and none of the people can tame the tongue” (3 7, 8), which confirms the idea that the true focus of his energy is not natural force, but the fire of Gehenna (3 6). On a superficial reading, the Epistle of James may seem adogmatic and pursuing only moral goals. In view of this moralism, some researchers refused to see the Epistle in it and took it for a homily, for a moralizing word. But such a view is certainly wrong. Jacob's views only seem moralizing and adogmatic in the spirit of the Richleans 862; in fact, they are built entirely on faith. But only the general creed forms a deep-lying subsoil layer on which the instructive element grows - a foundation into which threads of a halachic character are woven into patterns. “We,” says Farrar, “always assume the existence of a bottom in the ocean, although it is invisible to us and although no one has spoken about it.” But, looking deeper, we can notice this self-evident bottom, these essential elements of the doctrine, which is briefly presented as follows: God is one (2 19); He is merciful and compassionate (5:11), He has no change (1:17) and He is not tempted by evil (1:13). He gives simply and without reproach (1:5), and to those who love Him he will give the crown of life (1:12). He is the only author of the commandments (2:11), the only Lawgiver and Judge, able to save and destroy (4:12). Everything depends on Him (4:15), every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from Him (1:17). In addition to God, there is also an evil force that fears God (2 19) and is powerless before those who obey God (4 7). – People are created in the likeness of God (3 9) and born of God, according to His free will, by the word of truth (1 18). This birth consists of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 1), Who will appear (5 7, 8) and is already standing at the door as Judge (5 9). The Author calls himself a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 1). The author recognizes the power of prayer (5 14, 15), the mystical significance of repentance (5 16) and the act of anointing with oil (5 14, 15), which for him has the undoubted character of a sacrament. From this we can conclude that in general he recognizes the sacramental side of religion, especially since he mentions representatives of the church hierarchy (no matter how you define it) ritually performing the Blessing of Anointing (5 9). On the basis of this dogmatic teaching, moral and church-social conclusions are developed. However, it is impossible to give an analysis of the Epistle, because this would amount to a detailed exegetical overview of it step by step. Let us now turn to the Author of the Message. The first thing that strikes the eye is what could be called his culture 864 . This is a person with a finely developed taste, who knows the sense of proportion well and, through observing the measure, achieves the strongest effect on the soul. Listening to him, you won’t think: “This is hyperbole, this is true.” On the contrary, you are constantly aware that he could have said stronger, brighter, but natural tact and cultivated restraint do not allow him to raise his voice or emphasize his words without obvious need. His refined 865 speech is filled with importance and meaningful authority - not claims to power, but precisely that power actually realized in the word, which cannot be disobeyed. St. James speaks as with an equal, but the holy power of his word places him above equality - he demands for him and has the right to demand. In the presence of Jacob, internal rebellion, self-will and argument must fall silent. The heat (?) of falling in love will not arouse towards him, but you will be completely imbued with involuntary reverence and respect. The most remarkable thing is that in the speech there is not the slightest putting himself forward on Jacob’s part; on the contrary, having modestly and restrainedly called himself (“James, servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 1)), he does not say anything further about himself - he goes entirely into the objective, into questions of faith and church life. And yet, not for a single moment can one forget about the speaker. “I” does not exist for him, and his modesty is impeccable; he, not recognizing himself as an apostle - which, however, he was not 866 - does not call himself a bishop, the head of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, which he was, and does not even mention the current nickname “Brother of the Lord,” which in his eyes was, undoubtedly, higher than any other. Jacob's character is full of nobility and spiritual clarity. The moral seriousness and integral, chaste “nature” of the Author shines throughout the Message. Its strength is not in an instantaneous flash or in bright brilliance, but in an even, constant burning. Its light is not the light of gas, but the light of a fragrant candle of yellow wax, glowing evenly and meekly before the Lord. The inflexibility of Jacob’s character is also evident from the fact that his Epistle is the only message without a greeting and without an afterword. He seems to indicate in every possible way ( ) that he is doing the work of God and only God and therefore does not consider it convenient to mix human relationships into it, just as it would be inconvenient for a clergyman during the Liturgy to talk about something extraneous, even if it is pure in content. “This is a work of God that speaks for itself. If you want, take it, if not, take it as you wish. I will not pull you in one direction or the other with neither pathos nor greetings. You yourself must understand that I am not speaking in my own name.” This is the meaning of his restraint. A high natural intelligence, extensive reading in the Bible and skillful use of quotations, and finally, extensive life experience and subtle taste complete the characteristics of Jacob. He uses the sayings of the Savior, canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament and, apparently, works of a secular nature or, perhaps, religious monuments of other religions. But for all that, his Epistle, which in the hands of less skilled people would have been a motley conglomerate of heterogeneous passages and pretentious rhetoric, comes out of his hands as if forged from a single piece of metal. He "strikes fire out of everything he borrows." There is no area that he would not use in one way or another in his Message, from cult to everyday trifles. And in every image, in every example he gives, upon analysis it is easy to reveal superficial knowledge and deep thoughtfulness. But this encyclopedia of knowledge, casually placed in the Message, looks so modest and unassuming that an inattentive reader will not even notice it. The author of the Epistle, it seems, uses the most heterogeneous material without any intolerance. And, despite this, he is further than anyone else from the possibility of suspicion of being a Gnostic. In every word of his there is a glimmer of knowledge of God and a direct relationship to the heavenly world; but at the same time, not a single word is colored by abstract, rational theosophical speculation. In the same way, the form of presentation is more removed from dialectics than anyone else; speech comes directly from the heart, directly through rational analysis, although this does not exclude subtlety in processing and rigor in construction: the laws according to which speech flows are the laws of cardiac activity - musical laws. Such speech in its essence cannot cause resistance in the heart. It goes straight to the soul. This is not the speech of a theologian or philosopher, but of a shepherd and a bishop. Indeed, the Author of the Epistle is a bishop in the proper and strictest sense of the word. He does not captivate souls with a sudden onslaught, but warms the hearts of those living with him and with a firm hand leads them to a goal well known to him. He does not live by premonitions and moods of the moment, but all his activities and life are subordinated to the main tendency. Jacob cannot be imagined otherwise than with a shepherd's staff - unyielding, wise, most graceful. Innate elegantezza 867 characterizes ( ) his appearance, starting from his mind and words and ending even with his appearance. Episcopus elegantissimus 868 - this may be one half of the characteristics of the first Patriarch of Jerusalem. And its second half can be expressed through Episcopus justissimus 869. In order to more clearly imagine the type of ideal bishop, which was almost completely realized by James, it is necessary to compare with him the type of ideal Apostle. The Apostle par excellence, the Apostle in its purest form, is Paul. The Apostle Paul and Bishop James, as the α and ω of church life, frame the face of “12,” and among the servants of the Word there are no two others as opposed to each other as Paul and James. They are opposite in character, in kind of life, in mentality, and absolutely in everything. Pavel is expansive, choleric with sharp transitions from elation to depression, all in extremes. His nature is painful, unbalanced, combining opposites in everything, restless, feverish, broken, with inexplicable premonitions and urges. Pavel discharges his feelings and thoughts. His writings are angular and bizarre in general, uneven in parts. Of the writers, F. M. Dostoevsky comes closest to him. Pavel is a lyricist, philosopher, dialectician. He is a mystic, contemplative, apostle κατ έξοχήν 870 and a most typical representative of the charismatic side of the Church. On the contrary, Jacob is a self-possessed, important, majestic, prophetic nature; he is healthy, balanced, capable of the whole gamut of feelings in their natural development, in their modulations, in their gradual flow. His writing is round, rounded as a whole and in parts, cyclical, elaborate. Jacob is an artist, an epicist. He is a church leader, representing the second side of church life - bishopric; he is a bishop κατ έξοχήν, a representative of the hierarchy. He is wise, slow, firm. If Paul is a romantic, then James is a classic. If Paul infects with inspiration, then James educates with wisdom. While his commitment to Judaism forced Paul to persecute Christ, Jacob’s no less commitment did not provoke decisive action in him: he remained silent and watched. Paul had to be broken for conversion, Jacob quietly crossed over himself. While Paul moved from nomism 871 to blasphemy of the law, James, without abandoning the works of the law, transferred the center of gravity to the works of Christ. While Paul went around the whole world for the sake of preaching Christ, James, remaining within the walls of Jerusalem, was the head of the heads of the church - the chairman of the Jerusalem Council and an authority for everyone. In short, while Paul was building up faith, James was building up community. These are the features of the differences between these antipodes of church life, which made Paul and James absolutely necessary for each other, as mutual complements. To make the characterization of Jacob more complete, I will provide several data about his life and personality from other sources. There seems to be no doubt that James was the eldest of the often mentioned four “Brothers of the Lord”: James, Joses, Simon, Judas. At least he is always placed at their head (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). His upbringing can be judged by the name of his father Joseph as a “righteous man” (Matthew 1:19) 872, which epithet means not only moral height, but, above all, strict observance of the entire Levitical canon. It is clear that the entire family was imbued with this respect for “righteousness.” Every year Joseph went to Jerusalem for the Passover holiday, and he was accompanied by the Virgin Mary (Luke 2:41), which in general was an overdue merit (according to Hillel). It is necessary to think that Jacob received a strictly nomistic upbringing. Egesippus even testifies (Evs. Kes. Tserk. Ist. II 23) that “Jacob was a Nazarite from his mother’s womb,” and this message is in good agreement with both the nickname “righteous” (Evs. Kes. Tserk. Ist. II 23), which circulated among Jews and Christians in relation to Jacob, and the greatest respect that he enjoyed among his fellow tribesmen 873. The legends created about Jacob among the strict Jewish sects prove better than anything else his “righteousness” in the matter of the law. It is also necessary to take into account that it was he who advised the apostle. Paul to perform the rite of purification and take upon himself the vow of a Nazirite (Acts 21:18–26). The summary of the council debates, which authoritatively reconciled the party of circumcision and the party of freedom, does not in the least destroy the idea of ​​Jacob as a “righteous” man. The essence of his speech did not at all boil down to the overthrow of the law given to the Jews, but to the fact that it is not necessary to hinder the pagans who turn to God with the yoke of this law (Acts 15:19), but it is enough for them to keep the Noahic commandments (Acts 15:20); however, he offers them too in the form of advice; “By observing these things you will do well” (15 29). In other words, Jacob was not violating a legalistic norm here; he viewed pagan Christians as “strangers of the gates” 874 . But he himself apparently strictly observed the Jewish law. It is not for nothing that the destruction of Jerusalem was considered by the Jews as punishment for the death of this righteous man (Evs. Kes. Tserk. Ist. II 23). It was not for nothing that supporters of circumcision spied on Paul in his name. It is not for nothing that his closest successors in the department, up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem, were from the party of circumcision. What was Jacob's relationship with the Lord Jesus? Judging by the words of the Savior that “there is no prophet in his house,” even His brothers did not believe Him (Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24, John 4:44). John directly says: “His brothers did not believe in Him” (John 7:5). From this we have to conclude that they were not included in the number of 12,875. Apparently, Jacob's conversion occurred after the resurrection of the Lord. At least in 1 Cor. 15:7, 8, ap. Paul clearly compares the Lord's appearance to himself with His appearance to Jacob and contrasts himself with James to the other apostles. Jacob's further Christian activity is clear from the fact that St. Paul places the “brothers of the Lord” between the “other apostles” and “Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5). Besides Peter, ap. Paul saw only “James the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:17–19). This is hardly an accident. One might think that with this Paul wanted to “introduce himself” to the entire Church - both to the 12 apostles, in the person of Peter, and to the local Christians, in the person of James, their bishop. From this it is clear that by that time Jacob’s position in relation to the Church had become quite definite: he was among the “pillars” (Gal. 2:9). But, despite this, Jacob did not enter the circle of 12. The apostolic decrees (2 55, 6 12, 14) clearly distinguish him from the number 12. “We, the twelve, having gathered in Jerusalem, appeared to James, the Brother of the Lord” (Post. 6:12). His position, like Paul’s, is outside circle 12: in Post. 6:14 the names of the apostles from the number 12 are listed, and then he adds: “James, Brother of the Lord and Bishop. Jerusalem, and Paul, teacher of languages." In the same way, Eusebius of Caesarea (C. I. I 12) ranks James among the number 70 and says (7 19) that he, James, “was the first to receive the bishopric over the Church of Jerusalem from the Savior Himself and the apostles,” i.e., in other words, excludes him from the number of apostles. In the Chetiy Menaia (Oct. 23), Jacob, the Brother of the Lord, is also numbered among the 70. In the Gospels, the brothers of the Lord are almost always mentioned together with the Mother of Jesus and are contrasted with the disciples, believers, hearing the Word of the Lord and doing it (see Matt. 12:47-49; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3, 5; Acts 1:13-14). Obviously they didn't believe. But there is no reason to think that they, like Paul, were completely hostile. Most likely, they did not have a final view of their Brother and, amidst uncertainty and doubt, they spent all the time until the resurrection of the Lord, when doubts were dispelled. Judging by the Epistle of James, one can think that he heard the Savior’s sermons and composed His words in his heart. Indeed, the Epistle is permeated with the spirit and even the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount. One feels that this is not a book study of the Good News, but an assimilation of it gradually, in life, when words and ideas become part of the soul. Here are some parallels between the Message and the Words of the Savior: This is the Epistle of James, “the best that there is in Jewish Christianity,” this Christian response to the silent prophecy of the ancient prophets. And the death of this last prophet and first bishop was similar to the death of the prophets. His last words were the words of Christ: “I pray to You, O Lord God, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Evsev. Tserk. Ist. II 23). Both during life, and especially at the moment of death, the similarity with the Lord was felt with irresistible force. In conclusion, I will give a description of Jacob’s appearance, according to the iconographic original of the 18th century. : “Month of October, 23. Holy Apostle James, brother of the Lord according to the flesh; in the likeness of gray hair, a brad longer than Vlasie’s, at the end of the bracelet, a saint’s robe, white, streaked with azure, with venison underneath 876, in an omophorion, he blesses with his hand, and in the other Gospel, he always has a hair shirt on his body, etc.” 877. The salt of the earth, that is, the Story of the Life of the Elder of the Gethsemane Skete, Hieromonk Abba Isidore, collected and presented in order by his unworthy spiritual son Pavel Florensky 878 A Warning to the Godly Brother Reader Father Isidore is no longer with us; is gone - he is gone. It smelled fragrant like a flower, and it’s boring now that it has faded. It shone for us like a clear sun, and the light dimmed. Was a stone of faith; – where is our support? One can be amazed at everything in him - love, meekness and humility; impartiality, directness and independence; unpretentiousness, unselfishness and poverty; clarity, peace, spirituality; finally, prayer. But even more amazing is its transcendence. I was in the world, and not of the world; was with people - and not as a person. He did not disdain anyone or anything, but he himself was above everything, and everything earthly hung low and pitiful before his quiet smile. With his gaze he destroyed all human conventions, for he was above the world - he was free with a higher, spiritual freedom. It seemed that he was not walking on earth, but suspended on invisible threads to another country; That’s why he was all filled with inner lightness, and everything heavy and earthly, approaching him, itself lost its oppressive heaviness. With a slight smile, as if playing, he could upset the human conditions of life and - with impunity, to joy. He could allow himself to do things that were above the conditions of righteousness from the law, and he did it with such clarity that they were always marked actions. Simple and everyday things were not just like that for him; no, from this everyday and simple thing long roots stretched into other worlds, to the “new earth” 879. Now, with your thoughts and hearts drawn to “what our eyes have seen and what our hands have touched” 880, you involuntarily delve deeper and deeper into the life of Fr. Isidora. The significance of this life becomes more and more noticeable, and the work of writing becomes more and more difficult. That subtle fragrance of spirituality that always followed Fr. Isidore, indescribable in any words, especially since verbally, outwardly speaking about Fr. Isidora has too little. After all, his life was outwardly simple - you will not find any interesting incidents or fascinating words in it. Forgive, gentle reader, the inept attempt being made; and if o. Isidore will not seem to you like an Angel from heaven rather than a man from earth, then lay the blame for this not on the revered Elder, but on the ineptitude of the compiler of this Legend. You feel something; It seems that you are about to catch the true word about Fr. Isidore. But what is written each time turns out to be completely different from what it actually is. Isidore. Chapter 1, in which the pious reader is informed about the cell of Father Isidore So that you know, inquisitive reader, how Father Isidore lives, let’s get together to see him. We left the Monastery of St. Sergius of Radonezh, passed Posad and then crossed the field near the monastery ponds. Then, having crossed the bridge, God-loving Kinovia and the forest, we found ourselves between the monasteries of Gethsemane and Chernigov. Just before heading to the Elder, let’s not forget to pray in the underground church of the Chernigov Mother of God, the miraculous shrine of these places. After all, the Elder loves Her so much that he will certainly ask us whether we visited Her, as he asks absolutely every guest of his. Well, now let’s go without embarrassment to the Skete of Gethsemane. We go up the wooden stairs and pass through the cemetery. Over there, you can see Fr.’s house. Isidora. The house in which Fr. lived twice 881. Isidore, where he died, is located in the right corner (counting from the main entrance) of the Skete, near the wall. Previously, this house belonged to the Athonite elder Samuil, among the hieromonks Ioannikios, and after Ioannikios - Fr. Abraham, who had previously spent many years underground, in the so-called “caves” adjacent to the underground church of the Chernigov Mother of God. House o. Isidora is a small log hut, consisting of a cell, in which with great difficulty four or five people sat closely together, and only on small benches, a “hallway” (as Father Isidore called it), in which two could barely sit, and a senichek; in addition, there was a cage adjacent to the hallway (in which Father Isidore kept a samovar). Both the Senichki and the cage were small: the samovar occupied the entire cage, and two people, and not fat ones, could barely separate in the entrance hall. The last two years of Fr. Isidora added a cold canopy to his house - so small that two people could hardly stand in it. But this toy house has many nooks and crannies. You enter it - and it’s as if you remember and remember, but you can’t remember everything, some half-forgotten, sweet, dear dream. Everything is the simplest, most beggarly; and everything is special, warm to the eye, quiet. Things have their own eyes; and the situation about. Isidora greeted her with such cordiality and saw her off with such welcoming glances. As you enter, the holy icons are looking straight at you. Each has its own story; each is associated with some important name, but important not here on earth, but in the Kingdom of Heaven. Under the icons is a stand with a Jerusalem mother-of-pearl cross, an old battered Gospel in a worn and shiny leather binding, and a lamp on a blue glass stand. All the walls of the cell are hung with photographic cards - all of people connected spiritually with Fr. Isidore, paintings, poems, pieces of candy. All this is a pittance, but Fr. Isidora nothing is fruitless. Everything is a symbol of the heavenly, everything reminds of the highest. Likewise, the venerable abbot of Mount Sinai, Saint Abba John the Climacus, says that lovers of God tend to be excited by both worldly and spiritual songs for joy and divine love and tears, while sensualists, on the contrary, 882. I even think that if on the walls of Fr. Isidora is not popular paintings, but real painting - the cell woman would have lost her meek grace: God loves humility, and His power is perfected in poverty. Behold, you have entered the cell. To the right of the icons is a window, and under it is a table with scribbled books, letters, and papers. To the left of the icons there is a bench, then a table on which lay the usually worn stole, armbands with frayed edges and various necessary things, and then a shelf. There are two windows above the table. On the windows there are, as Father said, “flowers”: jars with moss, cans of canned food, with some weeds weeded out by the gardener, the neck of a bottle, plugged with a cork and filled with water to serve as a vessel for some “flower,” a bottle with a broken willow branch; - you can’t remember everything that’s on Fr.’s windowsill. Isidora. In the hallway there was a small cupboard with dishes and a table on which tea was sometimes served. There are also wooden hangers made from gnarled sticks, like deer antlers; and Fr. must show them to the visitor. Isidore. If you walk right through the Senichki, you will come out into a small garden, no more than two arshins wide, divided between the monastery wall and the house, going around the house and fenced on the other sides by a high plank fence with a gate. This is the so-called “Inner Desert” of Fr. Isidore, where he retires for prayer and spiritual reflection. Tall willows grow above the “Inner Desert”, sometimes whitening the entire “Desert” with the fluff flying from them. And Father, with childish joy, looking around, says: “I have snow.” Herbs, nettles, and onions, weeded by the gardener, still grow in the “Desert”; some are in cans picked up by the Elder from the rubbish, others are right in the ground. Toads and every living creature live here at the Elder’s place. There is a table on a stump of a tree, another stump for sitting, a seat made of stones that the owner of the “Desert” stole here from different places. But everything that your eye sees here has its own symbolic meaning: the willow is the oak of Mamre, under which the forefather Abraham received the Holy Trinity; the stone seat is the Thebaid rock 883; branchy branches with a wooden cross between them, nailed to a tree (which is directly opposite the gate) in the corner of the “Desert” and resembling deer antlers - this, according to the Elder, is a vision of Eustathius Placis 884. There is not a single corner in the “Desert” without meaning. The very air is dissolved with memories of the lives of the Forefathers and Saints, and for Fr. Isidore, the events of Sacred and Church History are much closer, brighter and more vibrant than the bustle of the world. If you open the gate, you can exit from the “Inner Desert” to the “Outer Desert”, which lies in front of the house. This is an unfenced place, only slightly protected by trees and bushes. Here, under the canopy of trees, a round table is dug into the ground, and around it there is “furniture,” as Fr. Isidore, that is, “sofa”, “armchair”, “chair” and other things made of crooked branches and boards. O. Isidore put together this furniture himself. It's hard to imagine anything more awkward. In the summer, Father sometimes served tea in this “Outer Desert.” He would sometimes lead a guest to the “furniture” and say with a smile: “I also have a sofa. It's very nice to lie down and relax here. I often relax here. Fine". “Here, father, lie down,” he sometimes addressed the Bishop. And what a good place to lie - on branches, some of which rest with their points on the sides! Around the “furniture” there were several small beds: two with vegetables, and one with strawberries. A currant bush grew right there. Chapter 2, which tells how the Elder would have met the pious reader if the latter had visited the Elder when he came to venerate the shrines of the Gethsemane Skete That's all of Father's possessions, Fr. Isidora. Let us now go and visit him, patient reader. After all, he receives everyone kindly, untimely and well-timed, and even greets a stranger as if he had known him for a long time, as if he were close, as if he were family. You don’t seem to believe it, reader, but, really, everything is for him - close and dear; everything for him - father and mother, brother and sister, even more. We approach the door. If the key sticks out in it, it means the old man is at home. However, it is rare that he is not at home; and if not, then he will probably return soon. After all, he only goes to church, to worship, and, very rarely, to Posad, to the Bishop at the Academy, or to some of his other spiritual children. But, fortunately for us, the key sticks out of the keyhole, which means the owner is at home. We knock timidly with our fingers. Doesn't open. He probably doesn’t hear - he doesn’t hear well. And then, maybe - he already has someone - he confesses, or wants to talk in private. Let's knock harder. So it is,” he did not listen to the knocking, “maybe because he was immersed in prayer. You can hear him approach the door with an old man’s gait and open it. He will never ask who is at the door; - accepts everyone, and although this has already caused him trouble, he still does not abandon the established order. It turns out - in a white canvas robe and a white canvas skufa. It often happens that he greets guests in white canvas trousers and in the same untucked shirt; over the shirt there is a paramant, and the legs are bare or in pistons, rarely in boots. He greets you and asks you to welcome him. We go in and undress. The owner shows off his clever hangers. We are baptized together with him on the icon and ask for his blessing. He blesses and kisses each of us, and then sits us down. For some reason, we all already felt that this blessing was not like others, that it was special. But no one will say what is special. At first it seems that she is in complete sincerity and conviction of the Elder; and it’s true: the Elder is deeply convinced that the blessing is full of power, and not at all an empty rite. Then I want to see the reason for the peculiarity in the internal, not saying unnecessary words about itself and yet obvious to everyone, Father’s love for the one being blessed; but this turns out to be not everyone. There is something, but the mind has no idea what. Finally, you give up reasoning and say simply: “This is the grace of God. Such power has always emanated from the saints.” With this rejection of a rational decision, you completely calm down, and then everything seems to be something self-evident. O. Isidore will always say something encouraging. If we came to him together, then he will remember the Emmaus travelers 885; if there are three of us, then this is especially good: “And God appeared to Abraham in the form of three strangers.” Sometimes Fr. Isidore will warmly note that it was us that he was waiting for, that today, as if on purpose, they brought him some tidbit, or else that God Himself brought guests, because it is necessary to ask them to carry out this or that task, often almost invented for the occasion, so that the guests would cheer up. Yes! If we have not forgotten to bring him a gift, then we will not be shy in conveying: Father takes as easily as he gives, he will thank you and be happy. After all, he always has guests, but there is almost nothing to treat them with, and there will be plenty to give them as gifts (and the Elder does not let anyone go without a gift). Now, he begins to walk around the cell. New, first-time guests will certainly be explained the history of the different faces depicted on photographic cards. He will say some poems with religious content. Pay attention to your flowers. Then he will make you read aloud a poetic arrangement of psalms made by one blind priest, or he will invite you to sing together something from the book from the rite for the burial of the Mother of God, which takes place in the Skete of Gethsemane; He will even ask you to take the book home and make an extract from it so that you can sing from it later. He will say something from George the Recluse 886. Mention will be made of N.V. Gogol (Fr. Isidore’s brother was a valet for Count Tolstoy and was present at Gogol’s death), whom Fr. Isidore greatly honors - mainly, it seems, for the intensely spread about. Isidore poems: To you, O Most Holy Mother, I dare to raise my voice, etc., which Fr. Isidore attributes it to Gogol. Then he leaves the guests alone, and he goes off to put on the samovar and prepare a treat, which he serves with all his heart. We prayed and started drinking tea, sitting down on Fr.’s bed. Isidora, some are in the chair, and some are on the bench. After the treat, Fr. Isidore gives something, teaches his prayer about the five plagues of the Savior, expresses his innermost thoughts (about which below), gives everyone handwritten leaves with prayers and poems, blesses and says goodbye. Chapter 3, which describes the treat of Father Isidore When someone comes to Fr. Isidore, then the gray-haired Ava will fuss and run around like a young servant, trying to feed and water the guest, whoever he may be. Ava is so afraid that the visitor will not leave without being treated. The samovar is put on, everything that is there is pulled out onto the table in the hallway. And when inexperienced guests, embarrassed by these troubles caused to the Elder, stop him, ask and beg him to run less, the Elder always refers to the example of Abraham, who, for the sake of his hospitality, was honored to receive the Most Holy Trinity, and continues to run. Nothing can calm him down here, and those who have visited him several times no longer make any attempts to stop the troubles. If you stop him again, then Father will say, as always, that not only Abraham, but also us, God can visit as a guest, and again he is busy, And God forbid you, reader, to be shy and refuse anything offered. Believe me, your refusal would hurt the Elder. He will tell you then that you cannot refuse love. Indeed, this is not a treat on the table, but materialized love. Given his poverty, everything he has is taken out to the guests; if he remembers something else, he will be all overjoyed, jump up and run after what he had forgotten. A piece of watermelon brought by a previous visitor, an apple, a cracker, gingerbread, a few candies - everything is shared by Fr. Isidore is divided equally among those who came. He will not leave anything for himself, citing the fact that he has already eaten. But if you ask him to take part in a meal, he is afraid of offending the guests by refusing and takes something for himself - as long as the guests are calm. O. Isidore likes to mix together what is considered unmixable. So, he had a pot of the famous jam - a mixture of the remains of ordinary cherries, wine berries, cranberries, raisins, kvass and, it seems, radishes. O. Isidore sometimes talks about how he prepared this jam and says with a smile: “Some people don’t like it, but I don’t mind, it’s delicious.” He treats this jam only to the chosen ones, the “perfect” ones, as he jokes, in whom he is confident; Otherwise, he gives ordinary jam. Indeed, there are reasons for this: those who are not accustomed to restraining themselves can hardly swallow a spoonful of ascetic jam. And o. Isidore eats several spoons of it and praises it. Even in such little things as “furniture” Fr. Isidora, his “jam”, etc., one involuntarily sees a subtle, but very instructive irony over the luxury of the world - the Elder’s independence from the world, his supra-worldliness. “You think to surprise me, the bearer of the Spirit of God, with your furniture, your jams, your worldly conveniences, but I don’t pay any attention to you with all your comforts, because when the Spirit is there, then both my furniture and my jams are good, but when He is not there, then all yours is worthless.” Here, I think, is what the Elder silently said with his “furniture” and his “jam.” However, this silent speech, being, so to speak, the very flower and juice of Christ’s foolishness, was outwardly completely different from it in its subtlety. But if we apply the name of foolishness to this subtle irony of the world, then Father Fr. Isidore can be called a fool for Christ's sake. This foolishness, it seems, was innate to him, and therefore not a single line of such foolishness was invented, deliberate, or made. Sometimes food was prepared like jam, into which Fr. Isidore mixed salad, olives and whatever else he wanted. The mixture turned out such that when Fr. Isidore tried to treat her to it, but everyone refused, and Father, with a gentle smile, said: “Well, at least try it.” Both here and in many other cases, it is impossible to draw a line that separates his simplicity and love from his independence in relation to everything in the world. He overturned everything in such a way that it was impossible to see even a shadow of self-will or anything ostentatious here. Its simplicity was ironic; his irony was simplicity itself. He could overturn all existing conventions, look at everything with the eye of eternity; and, amazingly, he did it without offending anyone. He smashed everything his interlocutor had; he pushed everyone down from the heights of human complacency and placed them level with the ground; he trampled all conceit into the dirt. And (amazingly!) it was impossible to be indignant at this defeat: Fr. Isidore looks at him with childlike clarity, as if unaware of what he has done. He knocked him down from all positions, and not a single ray of complacency, or self-love, or pride flashed in his open, clear eyes. He did it and... as if it wasn’t him. He knocked down his conceit, but it’s unclear how he did it, or with what. It is best to compare this with a person charged with electricity: he touched his hand to someone, he felt a shock, but did not believe his eyes. After all, the one who touched him seemed like a simple person, and remained so. So is our Father: he sets off a spark, but he himself stands as before, in a white robe, or in a shirt and ports, smiling affectionately. So you’ll think again: “Just a good old man, and nothing more!” However, let's return to the story about Fr.'s treat. Isidora. One day they come to Fr.’s cell. Isidora's eminent guests find him at the samovar - Ava is boiling potatoes in the samovar. He offers the guests tea, but the guests, in order to get rid of such a treat, resolutely refuse. Then Fr. Isidore turned the samovar over, poured out the water and scattered potatoes on the floor. “Don’t be afraid of the water, it’s warm, it won’t be available now. “I’ll finish cooking the potatoes later,” he told the guests, and he began to put the samovar back on, realizing the reason for the guests’ previous refusal. Somehow he comes to Fr. Isidor the Bishop, and Father, in only his underwear, digs around his beds. The bishop laughs: “Well, a dandy, well, a dandy.” “Okay, okay, sit down, father,” the Elder laughs. The meal begins. I don’t remember whether it was this time or what other time that Fr. Isidore with His Grace Bishop E. in the “Inner Desert”. On the lame table there are glasses of tea in front of them and, in a rusty sardine tin, several crackers and one and a half old gingerbread cookies. They started talking, but at this time it began to rain, so that both the guest and the host hid “under the oak of Mamre” and continued the conversation under its shade. After the rain o. Isidore collects the tea utensils and finds the crackers left on the table floating in the tin. A few days later, the same Bishop again drinks tea at Father’s. And again the Elder brings out a tin of crackers, offering to eat what was left from the last time. “But they got wet then,” the Bishop declares in bewilderment. “And I drained the water and dried the crackers, now they are good again,” explains the Elder. Here is another incident that remains in my memory. One day, His Grace Bishop E. 887 was walking through the forest near Bethany. Two Bethany seminarians come across them. “What are you doing?” - asks the Bishop. - “We’re walking.” - “You’d better look at people instead of counting trees.” - “And who?” - “Have you heard about Fr. Isidora? A conversation ensued, and the Right Reverend led the disciples to the Elder. He met them, as always and everyone, with greetings and love, took out rye crackers and gave them kvass to drink, and then talked. The seminarians left beaming and delighted. Yes, reader! You probably won’t believe that even now, when I write these lines, tears of gratitude and tenderness come to my eyes at the mere memory of these treats from Fr. Isidora. After all, these slices of watermelon, crackers or pieces of apple were not just food: no, they always seemed like slices and pieces of love and affection. Chapter 4, informing the reader about the gifts that Father Isidore gave to everyone with whom he came in contact If the extreme degree of passion for doing good can, not entirely accurately, be called a passion, then about Father Isidore we can say that he had his own passion - the only one - namely, the passion to give. No one left Father’s cell without a gift. He never visited anyone without a gift, and never showed up empty-handed. He will always bring something with him: either a prosphora, or oil from the Mother of God, or a piece of paper with a prayer, or an icon. Even in someone else's house, he was not left caring about food. Sometimes, for example, he would come to the Most Reverend Bishop or someone else and pull out a radish tail, an ice-cream apple, a jar of jam, gingerbread or something else. When giving gifts, he did not think about the benefit, but showed his love, and therefore was not embarrassed by the insignificance of the gift; It happened that in the summer he would bring a cucumber from his own garden or ten or fifteen of his own raspberries on a burdock tree and hand it over with joy. Even without seeing someone in person, he tried to give him a token of love - some kind of gift. Sometimes you’d come to him and he’d give him something, and then he’d give instructions: “Here’s another gingerbread, take this to Sergius. But the prosphora is for so and so.” One day someone came to him after the summer months of absence from Posad. The elder rejoiced: “Ah, here you have come. And for you, how long have I been keeping two berries here on a bush?” And indeed, on the raspberry bush, despite the autumn time, two berries were still hanging. The elder picked them, put them on a leaf of some kind of grass and gave them with love. But then I remembered that I also needed to send the long-planned radish to His Eminence Bishop E. I went to drag it out of the ground. The one present at the time offers him his help, because old Avva can barely walk and pulls the radish leaves in vain. But Ava refuses: “Since it’s a gift, you have to make it yourself.” He pulled and pulled the radish leaves and tore them off. Stands over the radish in bewilderment. But then I found it. He ran for a knife and a mug, filled the mug with rainwater from the tub, began pouring water around the radishes to soften the soil, then dug the radish with a knife, pulled out the radish and, triumphantly, went to wash it in the tub. He washed it, wrapped it in clean paper and handed it over to the Bishop, with the words: “Let him eat it: it’s delicious.” And the Bishop, having received the radish, kissed it and hid it in a place of honor. But especially Fr. Isidore loved to give gifts to those who came to him. He was clearly suffering until he figured out what to give his guest. He will examine all his property and will not rest until he finds something suitable for a gift. And so - not only with the laity or non-skete clergy, but also with the skete brethren. “I brought him dinner,” says one novice, “and each time he gave him three candies: “Here’s a consolation for you: you brought it, you worked.” But he had to buy it. I was ashamed to take the gift.” There are a lot of such cases, for who has not been consoled by Fr. Isidore, and having consoled whom he didn’t give a gift. As a last resort, if he had nothing, he was ready to give what he needed most, just to give it. Shortly before his death, he divided all his property. But this will be discussed below. Chapter 5, revealing to the reader how lovingly Father Isidore treated all people Showing love for people - rich and poor, noble and simple, official and non-official, pure (if there are pure people) and sinners, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, even non-Christians, even pagans - was for Fr. Isidora has such, and even greater, necessity as breathing. He did good right and left, without thinking or thinking, simply and naturally - as if not suspecting that he was doing something special, something exceptional, the only thing. It never happened that he let a person go without telling him something edifying, comforting and encouraging. If he passes by, he will certainly say something good; If he sees a darkened face, he will certainly remove the sorrow. If anyone needed help - Fr. Isidore gave everything he had. If this was not enough, he asked - carefully, humbly, meekly, even shyly, from others. If this was not the case, he was ready to give away everything that came to his hand. And since those in need of help always crowded around Fr. Isidora, then nothing ever happened to him. As soon as he receives a few money from someone, the next day there will probably be nothing left of it. Knowing the impossibility of refusing help, Fr. Isidore, having received some three-ruble piece of paper, always hurried to exchange it for smaller coins, so that it would be enough for several people in need; otherwise he would have given all the money to the first person who came to him. He often sent money to different parts of Russia - to some one languishing in prison, to some soldier driven away far from his homeland, etc. Often he would give the newcomer his meager lunch, but he himself would remain without eating. “The poor man comes,” Fr. justified himself. Isidore, says that he hasn’t eaten for three days, and to prove his words he kisses my dirty hem. Well, why not give it to him.” But this is how Fr. justified himself. Isidore. Often he himself gave what he had, without waiting for a request. And he was often deceived. The monastery authorities made him a servant in the monastery, that is, the manager of the clothing and linen warehouse, and he distributed everything there. “The whole life of Fr. Sidora,” says one of the monastery brethren, “his whole life was based on love and dedicated to the poor. Who is poor, who is downtrodden, rightly or unjustly, come to Fr. Sidor, no one else. No one left him unconsoled. He gave everything away like the widow of the Gospel. At one time, one asked him for boots to go where, and then he disappeared. And o. Sidor wore shoes and stockings in winter. Knowing that Fr. Isidore will still give away his clothes; the monastery authorities have stopped giving him new clothes. This is how he talks about Fr. Isidora has one brother from Skete: “He had childlike simplicity and unlimited love for people for a long time. There was poverty... No one can deny this. How many years have I lived here, and I haven’t seen a brand new cassock on him! No one will say that he saw Fr. Sidora in new boots; I wore what they gave me. But they didn’t give anything good, because they knew they would give it back.” Indeed, Father did not even have a decent duckweed, and when it was necessary to leave the Skete, for example, to the bishop, to the Academy, Father borrowed duckweed from Fr. Abrahamia. And this duckweed was with the past, for Fr. Galaktion in the Lavra, and then bought Fr. Abraham. With him Fr. Isidore was pretty close. According to Elder Abraham, “Fr. Isidore was more attached to the worldly... He had all kinds of people.” All kinds of people - monks and priests, artists and teachers, students and seminarians, soldiers, townspeople, peasants, workers - whoever visited him. People came to him for financial help, for consolation, with perplexed questions, out of weariness of life, fear of punishment, with grave sins, out of great joy, wanting to give something to the poor, to make peace with enemies, to arrange family affairs, to heal an illness, to cast out a demon - for everything they came to him. He met everyone with love and tried to satisfy everyone. But he especially loved the outcast, even the guilty. If everyone has turned away from a person, it is here that Fr. Isidore began to show his love more than anything else. Here's at least one family. There were rumors about his various dark deeds - that he had deceived many, that he was being pursued by the police. But oh. Isidore treated him with some special care; sent them gifts; whatever I received, I gave everything to them; took care of them as best he could, and instructed others to do the same. This is probably why Fr. treated him with special tenderness. Isidore and to the Jews. Whenever you come to him, he always tells you something about one of the “Jews” attracted to Christianity through his love, as he used to say. He had “Jewish” godchildren, and he continued to take care of them for the rest of their lives. In his cell there hung a photograph of one such Jew with his family (I remember, a hairdresser), and Father always explained to new guests what a good person he was, as if he was afraid that they would offend his “Jew” and say something bad about him. One of these “Jews”, who was to be recruited, out of simplicity of soul (at least that’s how Father explained) did not show up where he should and left, for which he was sent to prison. From there he sent letters to Father, filled with melancholy and mortal horror, complaining about his miserable situation, begging for prayer and money, reporting that only the memory of Fr. Isidore and the icon he gave him do not allow him to commit suicide. ABOUT. Isidore was worried, as if it were “about his own son,” he sent the last thing he had, and asked those who came to him to send something to the “Jew,” wrote to him in his barely readable senile scribbles. This is one of many cases; You can’t remember everything, and even what you remember, you can’t write: there was too much good in the life of Father Isidore. In the same way, two years before his death, Father tinkered with a young Korean, despite the fact that because of this he was accused of receiving a Japanese spy. It often happened that for a long time he fed someone with his own lunch. So, he fed one all winter. But he stole the Elder’s alarm clock and, moreover, the Elder caught him in the act. O. Isidore complains to one brother: “Everything would be fine, Misha, nothing, only, here, he took a hammer, there’s nothing to hammer in a nail with.” The hammer, however, was later found. But when they later asked the Elder: “What, Father, was your alarm clock stolen,” he, smiling guiltily, said: “I didn’t steal anything, but took it,” and switched the conversation to something else. Likewise, Fr. Isidore spent about three years, until his death, working with one worker whose arm was torn off by a machine. Father Isidore usually called him “armless.” He himself fed this “armless man” with a spoon, undressed and dressed him, got him money and repeatedly saved him from suicide attempts. He receives some alms and, without wasting time, hurries to give it to the “armless man.” Whomever did Fr ask? Isidore for this cripple! No matter what the conversation was about, Father would certainly turn it towards the “armless” and begin to intercede on his behalf. The Elder had a lot of trouble with him. But, choosing a few from many, I will tell you, reader, about a certain case. One day he comes to Fr. Isidora is one student and sees this sight: a worker excitedly assures Father that he, a worker, must shoot himself or hang himself, because the revolutionaries supposedly sentenced him to this. The priest then turns to the student who has entered and complains about the worker. But if the “armless” one did not take the Elder’s words into his heart, would he really have listened to the student? So, of course, he did not heed his persuasion. Well, not having achieved peace, the Elder and the student kneel and pray for the cripple to come to his senses. Then Fr. Isidore hurries to Elder Barnabas 888 in order to attract him to help; but oh. Barnabas, probably seeing what was going on, refused to participate in the conversation with the “armless man.” Then the old, old Abba Father Isidore, together with the “armless man,” again trudges behind the skete fence - to the student’s room, which he rented in the monastery hotel. Here they again treat the worker to tea, persuade, ask, beg him to leave his plans. Father invents more and more new means: he brings prosphora, gives it piece by piece to the worker, takes off himself - the great shrine - his own mother-of-pearl cross, brought to Father from Old Jerusalem by a certain wanderer, and, taking it off his neck, puts it on the worker’s neck; then he brings money from somewhere (he, of course, didn’t have his own - as always!) and gives it to the worker and tells him that the Lord sent this to you as a consolation. But a hardened heart is not hurt by love. Then the eighty-year-old Elder bows to the ground to the worker and asks him to come to his senses. The student and his young wife, who was present at this admonition, also bow to the worker. And the worker bows to the Elder. How all these requests would end is unknown to anyone except God. Suddenly the bellhop knocks and asks the student to vacate the room, because it has become known that the armless man was politically unreliable. The student had to pack his belongings and quickly leave the hotel. And Father stood at the gates of the Skete and, seeing off the leaving student and his wife, said in the words of the Savior: “Blessed are those who are exiled for the sake of truth.” Chapter 6, in which the Orthodox reader is told about the mercy of Abba Isidore, which likens man to the Creator and his Creator God, to all of God’s creation - to dumb animals and to earthly plants and to everything in which life breathes Father Abba Isidore was merciful to everyone and even to foolish creatures. He cared not only for those who had the image of God, but also took pity on dumb animals; - I cared about the creature that sighs with man. He looked after and fed animals and birds; He even had reptiles: frogs, mice and rats. And if Old Avva was ill, then even then he did not forget his younger brothers - he forced others to feed his family. So, even before his death, I asked a family friend about the health of the cat. “Well,” he says, “has the cat recovered?” – I’ve recovered. - “Well, thank God, thank God.” It happened: a cat would bite some bird, and it would lie on the road. Father Isidore will bend down with difficulty and will certainly pick up the wounded woman. Here is a little sparrow with a damaged wing that lives in the Elder’s cell until he is cured. Somebody once asked him: “Father, aren’t the mice bothering you?” The elder smiles: “No, nothing, they don’t interfere. I give them dinner and lunch, and they sit quietly. It used to happen: everyone scrapes the cell. And now I put something for them to eat, near the hole, and they don’t even run. No, nothing, they don’t interfere,” “Now I have a guest, I don’t live alone,” the Elder once said to the Bishop. The bishop looked, questioningly. “The frog has come running to the Hermitage,” explains Fr. Isidore with a joyful smile. “They are running away,” says the Bishop. “Yes, she ran away and then came back. Now I’ll sing to her, talk to her, and she won’t run away.” And indeed, on one of the stones of the Thebaid (which the attentive reader already knows about) sat a large frog. Abba, bending his gray beard low over the dumb creature and looking straight into the eyes of the frog with his clear eyes, sang to her in an old voice the psalms of the Meek King David. Another Abba, Saint Macarius the Great, repeatedly says that just as the sun, illuminating with its light both impurity and dirt, does not become defiled, but remains pure, so the grace of God enters every soul and remains unsullied. So from Abba Isidore of Gethsemane, grace-filled power emanated to everything that came close to him, to man and to cattle, and yet Abba remained supra-mundane, with the help of the Mother of God, “created above the merging of the world.” The Elder had a special love for plants, herbs, flowers, and everything generated by the earth. He would sometimes see weeded weeds, pick them up and plant them in his “Inner Desert” or in his room, in a sardine box found somewhere on the road. He did this because he pitied the silent and quiet children of the earth. For the same reason, he poked nettles into the “Desert”. For the same reason, he picked up broken branches and put them in the water. The elder did not allow others to destroy God’s creation in vain. “After the rules, we somehow got together,” says one of the monastery brothers. - And the Elder had grass growing under his window (they make sikalki from it) - reindeer moss. And without asking, we cut it off. Father Isidore comes out and says: “Who did this?” The one with me says: “Mikhail cut it, but I brought it.” - “Well, pray for the Church of the Resurrection.” He kneels down and prays. Then Fr. Isidore calls him to his place and gives him three candies as consolation for what he told him sternly. And o. Isidore looked after this reindeer moss and watered it.” Much more could be told to you, reader, about the Elder’s mercy to all creation. But what has been told is enough to testify that he was truly a mourner for the world and an abba (which means: father) not only for people, but also for everything that breathes and lives on earth 889. Chapter 7, showing how meek and gentle and peace-loving Abba Isidore was, and also telling about his forgiveness of any offense inflicted on him Father Isidore was independent and free. But he was full of meekness and gentleness, forgiveness and non-judgment. He did not condemn anyone, was not angry with anyone, he endured everything; there was no end to his forgiveness. If he noticed that someone was irritated or offended by him, he immediately asked for forgiveness, even if he was not guilty of anything. If someone insulted him with a word and, despite all the efforts of Father, the heart of the offender still did not soften, then Father would quietly go aside and wait for a favorable opportunity. And he also encouraged others to do what he constantly gave them an image of. If words of condemnation were spoken in Father’s presence, he meekly, but firmly and with authority, stopped them—he stopped them so much that not a single word could be said further. If he saw that someone was in a quarrel with another person, or even that their mutual love had simply cooled, then he always encouraged them to make peace and ask for forgiveness - he encouraged the one who was talking to him, even if he was completely right. Father Isidore asked for this, begged, finally demanded this, demanded it quietly and meekly, but persistently and decisively, so that no one would dare to disobey this Elder. What happened between this spiritual Father and his spiritual children is known only to those who spoke, and their Heavenly Father. And not a single person about. Isidore did not let this matter slip with even a single nod of his head. These denunciations sank forever in the spiritual depths of the Elder, like a pebble in a deep lake. After the matter was over, he seemed to completely erase it not only from his soul and memory, but expelled it from existence itself 890. This means that now there is none of this, and there is nothing to talk about. But it’s worth telling you, reader, a few incidents from the life of Father himself. There was no time for him to keep, feed and support one expelled seminarian for a long time. But the seminarian turned out to be ungrateful, and a bad idea came into him from the primordial enemy of the human Devil: he decided to kill the Elder and rob his beggarly property. In the absence of the Owner, with whom this seminarian lived, he began to rummage everywhere, looking for money. Then Fr. comes. Isidore. The seminarian, here, swings a knife at him, demanding: “Give me the money!” However, the money is about. Isidore was not there. After all, he gave everything to the first person who asked. So, while the seminarian, with a knife in his hands, demanded non-existent money, the brethren came running and defended the Elder. Father Abbot says to the Elder with reproach: “Why do you accept them (i.e. those in need)?” “Father, you can’t demand God knows what from me, an old man! After all, this is my only consolation!” So Fr. didn’t do anything with him. Hegumen, Fr. Isidore continued to let in people who sometimes treated him badly. But only Father carefully hid the latter; and this was somehow discovered by chance. What happened next? Here's what: the seminarian was put on trial, but Fr. Isidore saved his villain from punishment. At the trial, when they began to take Elder Isidore’s testimony, they asked him if he wanted to stab you. And Father: “No,” he says, “he didn’t even think about stabbing me.” Well, the court, of course, is surprised: “But how did he swing a knife and shout that he would kill him?” “He was screaming... You never know what they’re screaming about, unless they definitely want to kill you.” The seminarian was told at the trial that he was being released because of Isidore’s testimony. Here's another case that happened one day. Father Isidore was insulted once in the kitchen. He came to the kitchen to ask for something, and his assistant Fr. The cellarer so rudely refused what he asked. Think for yourself, reader, would a person like Father Isidore ask for anything extra? But, if he really asked for too much, who dares to judge him? And then he was refused so rudely that the insult was obvious. Whether for this sin, or for some other reason, it so happened that the offender, soon after the said incident, became very ill, lay down on his bed and was near death. As soon as I found out about that Fr. Isidore comes to his offender to ask for his forgiveness: “I supposedly insulted you, I asked - which, perhaps, was not necessary...” After that, Fr. The cellarer recovered. Father o. Isidore not only forgave others for their sins against him, but also covered his brother’s sin with his love - he tried to hide it from others. For example, a frequent visitor was a certain novice, or layman, who wore novice clothes. Father constantly gave him tea, helped him, fussed over him. But this “novice” did wrong to Fr. Isidore: he will come to one of those who honor Father and ask for something on behalf of Father. It is not known whether Father knew about this, but one day the matter was discovered. The said “novice” comes to a certain spiritual son, Fr. Isidora and on behalf of Father Isidora asks for envelopes, postal paper and stamps. He says: “Okay, today I’ll be with Fr. Isidora, I’ll bring it myself.” He comes to Father, hands him the package and says: “Here, Father, you asked...” And Father denied: “No, I didn’t ask...” “My brother named so told me so.” The priest thought for a moment, then immediately realized that there was an abuse of his name, but he wanted to cover up his brother’s sin. Greatly embarrassed by the unexpected discovery, and with a clear sense of shame on behalf of his brother, he decided not to insist that he had not asked for postal supplies. “It’s good that you brought the papers, I’ll need them,” he said, took the bundle and turned the conversation to something else. So he did not betray the sinner, did not condemn him. And not only Fr. Isidore forgave others’ offenses, but he also encouraged others to do the same. Making peace was a necessity for him. Here is one example of this, and from this example the reader will learn at the same time the attitude of Fr. Isidore to the famous elder Fr., who later became his spiritual son. Barnabas. A certain deacon, a student at the Theological Academy, says that shortly before the death of Father he visited the Elder. This latter was reading at that time the Biography of Fr. Barnabas and therefore spoke about this book, approved of it, but, by the way, pointed out the inaccuracy of the story placed on page 17. This is how Fr. relayed this incident. Isidore. One day to Fr. Barnabas, then still a novice Vasily, received a visit from a soldier he knew. Father Barnabas warmly received him and gave him the Holy Gospel as a souvenir, which he himself received as a gift from his Elder Daniel. The latter, having learned what had happened, called his novice and asked him about St. Gospels and when Fr. Barnabas told the whole truth, then Elder Daniel became angry and did not order the novice to show himself to him. This is where Fr. helped. Isidore. Fr. came with deep sorrow. Barnabas went to his friend and teacher (Fr. Isidore taught Father Barnabas to read by lines, that is, by accents) and told his grief, seeing no way to correct what had happened. But oh. Isidore has been found. “Don’t worry,” he said, “I have this Gospel; you take it and give it to the soldier who is still in the hotel, and take yours from him. Then together we will go to the Elder to ask for forgiveness.” And so they did. On his knees before the Elder Daniel, he begged for the forgiveness of his friend Fr. Isidore, while the guilty one cried. The elder softened at such a touching request and reconciled with Fr. Barnabas 891. Chapter 8, from which the sincere reader will see that great humility about the Holy Spirit is combined with great independence Let it be known to you, attentive reader, that great modesty and deep humility dwelt in the heart of our Father, Elder Isidore. He rarely spoke of his works to God for, and then only for, edification; generally hid them. He never showed off, never spoke about himself in such a way as to place himself above his interlocutor. He hid his goodness not only from others, but also from himself: he did it and, as it were, forgot about what he had done. Truly, according to the word of the Lord Jesus Christ, Our Savior, his right hand did not know what his left hand was doing. Therefore, he never thought about himself, but always considered himself to be nothing and was quite sincerely confident that there was not a single person worse than him. Sometimes in the heart of the interlocutor, sitting with Abba Isidore, joy leapt up at the contemplation of this dense heavenly beauty; It happened that an exclamation escaped from the lips: “Father, how good you are!” But Ava denied it with a bewildered look: “Well, what a good person, he’s a bad, last person.” There was no pride in Ava. He could ask everyone, he could even kneel before everyone, he could kiss the hand of everyone if spiritual healing required it. He humbled himself without tension and without breaking down - simply, as if self-humility was an ordinary thing. But great spiritual humility was combined in Fr. Isidore with great independence. For this Elder there was no person before whom he would be proud, no matter how insignificant and despised and sinful this person was. But for the Elder there was also no such person for whose sake he would betray himself, no matter how influential and official he was. In front of everyone, Ava said what he thought; and especially before famous people. And let it also be known to you, reader, that Abba was not afraid of anyone, did not seek for anyone, did not forget his human dignity for anyone, always felt autocratic, free and obeyed only God. “So, even when he was a beardless and beardless cell attendant of the Viceroy of Lavra Anthony, he once interfered in his conversation with Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow 892. The Great Hierarch and the wise Viceroy sat over tea and thought together about the need for an ecumenical council and about unification with the Catholics. But the question arose as to who would take precedence at the council. It was foreseen that neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics would be willing to give in, and the council would not take place. Enter Fr. Isidore with a tray filled with tea utensils. “And the Mother of God, that’s who will be the First. So leave the chairman’s seat unoccupied: it will be for the Mother of God.” All my life I cherished Fr. Isidore had this idea about the need to unite the Churches 893, and church division was for him a personal pain and personal insult. “We are all children of one Mother, we cannot see the suffering of our dear Mother,” he mournfully recalled some verses to memory, and he did this very, very often; apparently, the thought of the division of the Churches greatly bothered him. Sometimes he added: “But everything is one office, because of one letter: we are Catholics, and they are Catholics 894. We must pray to the Mother of God. This connection will take place through her, but it cannot be accomplished by human forces.” Father connected the union of the Eastern and Western Churches with the final destinies of the world and sometimes, pointing to the anti-Christian movement taking place in Russia and abroad, he said his more hidden and more intimate, mature thought: “The times of the Antichrist are near. Soon there will be such persecution of Christians that we will have to hide.” At these words, Fr. Isidora could not help but believe that this was truly so. His cloudless face became foggy, his clear smile disappeared for a moment, his eyes looked seriously, penetrating the future. It was scary: something was coming, something was approaching... But this moment passed, and the prophetic, prophetic seriousness hid, melted, disappeared. However, this single moment set the mood for a long time. The thought of church unity, in connection with these menacing forebodings, was one of the Elder’s most cherished thoughts. Once he even wrote letters about this thing to Emperor Alexander III, Gladstone and Bismarck. The letters were in pencil, barely literate and, of course, in Russian. The Elder also sent Gladstone and Bismarck some of our liturgical books and a prayer to the Mother of God compiled by N.V. Gogol. It is not known whether the parcels and letters sent to other countries reached, but what is known is that the letter to the Emperor reached the Court and from there a reprimand was sent to the Skete. Subsequently Fr. Isidore himself spoke repeatedly about his exploits and laughed slightly at the unexpected outcome of the matter. But he continued to be fearless and independent. He himself reported other incidents from his life that illuminated his independence with a bright light. During the vicarage of Leonid (there was such a Vicar of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra), 895 monks were overcome by fear. Leonid was previously a military man and brought military morals with him to the monastery. For example, there is a known case of how he forcibly extracted from the ground the last ascetics who had been saving themselves in caves (where the Chernigov Mother of God is now) for many years, and forced them to eat with everyone else. “What kind of posts are these!” - said Fr. Viceroy. Everything trembled at this shepherd, who did not want to break with the colonel in monasticism. From here it will be clear to you, reader, that Fr. Isidore, fearless as always, was soon on Fr. Viceroy. The Elder is called, he enters the viceroy's chambers. Fr. Leonid expects the Elder to come right from the door to kiss his hand, but Fr. Isidore first begins to pray at the icons. O. Leonid flushed all over, and he found a reason to vent his anger. The fact is that Fr. Isidora's right arm was somewhat damaged since childhood, so he could not reach it to his left shoulder. Well, oh. Leonid shouts at him: “Fool! You don’t know how to be baptized!” O. Isidore, clear, calm, looks at Fr. He says straight to the governor’s eyes and simply, without any challenge: “I’m not afraid of you.” He loses his temper and curses. But oh. Isidore declares again: “But I’m not afraid of you.” It seems about. The governor almost pushed the Elder out the door with his own hands. But, they say, this incident had a sobering effect on him, and after that he became more restrained. About his encounter with Fr. The viceroy Father himself told the story with a smile, depicting the whole conversation in his faces. Another similar incident relates to his life in the monastery of Paraclete. O. Isidore decided to install a bulkhead for himself in order to create a closet for excess rubbish. But his superiors, already an old man, began to suspect: “Why?” yes “For what?” The true meaning of these questions was that they wanted to slander the Elder. Then he directly states: “In order to keep women here!” For this answer he was expelled from the Paraclete. Knowing the directness of Fr. Isidora, his courage and independence, was carefully protected from him by all high-ranking persons who visited the Skete. Imitating the founder of the Skete, Saint Philaret, at one time Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow lived here 896. With a staff in his hand, he sometimes walked around the Skete easily. And so, at this time, Father Isidore was guarded in every possible way so that he would not somehow get involved in a conversation with the Metropolitan. They guarded, but once they did not guard. Our Abba Metropolitan met and said to him: “Here, father, what I’ll tell you: they write, in the newspapers, that there is famine in India; Indians are starving, but we have plenty of everything. Send the money (i.e., from the Lavra) there.” Fearing that such a conversation would not be repeated, the metropolitan cell attendant ordered in advance: “When Fr. Sidor, don’t let him in.” Shortly before his death, the Elder again went against everyone. This is how the matter happened: between the Iversky Monastery on Vyksa, founded by Elder Varnava, and the Skete, where Fr. Barnabas, a dispute arose about who owned the body of the Builder. Barnabas himself asked to be buried in the monastery he built, but Skeet wanted to keep the Elder’s body for himself. Then the Iveron nuns reached the Court, and from there a request was made which of the brethren were in favor of handing over the body and which were against. Only two old men spoke out in favor of extradition, one of whom was Fr. Isidore. And in death, Father remained true to himself. Before his death, Abba himself came to one of the older brothers, on whom the well-being of the needs of the brethren depended and who, as they said, was distinguished by hardness, despite his illness, and presented an icon of the Mother of God, called “The Softening of Evil Hearts.” Here, in this gift, everything was united: tenderness for the brethren, and the desire to influence the hard-hearted with affection, and an appeal to the prayerful help of the Mother of God, and a firm, albeit subtle, hint to the sinning brother. As always, meek Fr. Isidore was not afraid of reproof. But he made his reproofs with such love that it could hardly even occur to the one being rebuked to be angry with him. Chapter 9, in which the writer makes an attempt to tell the reader about the asceticism of Elder Isidore If you, a reader who is forgiving of this Legend, want to know something about the feat of the Great Elder, then, to the best of my ability, I will inform you of what I know. But let it be known to you that Fr. Isidore kept his feat in great silence, as if in the Inner Desert of his innermost man. In ancient times, a certain brother, coming to the Skete to Abba Arsenius of Egypt and looking through the door, saw Elder Arsenius all as if on fire and was horrified by his vision. So we can contemplate the feat of Elder Isidore only by secretly looking into the gate of his Inner Desert; What I can say is accidental and fragmentary. Father Isidore never interrupted his fast, he constantly fasted with pleasant fasting and abstinence of words. Of course, he always had to abstain from brushes and drinks, due to the lack of these drinks and drinks. After all, he had nothing, and if they brought him anything, he gave to others not only what he brought, but sometimes even his own meal. However, even the little that he had, he did not eat in such a way as to enjoy the natural and lawful sweetness of the food, but deliberately changed its good taste for a worse one. As he himself said: “It’s impossible for everything to be completely good.” It was already told to you about the jam that Fr. Isidore, and about his salad. And in this chapter, listen from Fr. Ephraim, Hieromonk from the Savvinsko-Zvenigorod Monastery, a story about raspberry jam. “I’m not at all surprised,” writes this spiritual son and friend of the late Elder, “I’m not at all surprised that no matter how much they ask the Skete Fathers about the life of Fr. Isidora, they all find it difficult to say anything clear that would make it possible to recognize him as an ascetic elder. How soon will you guess something ascetic from such an incident? During my residence in the Lavra of Sergius, I remember that once during the Assumption Fast Fr. came from Pustynka Paraklitova to the Lavra. Isidore. Comes to me. I prepare tea and start serving it to him; For tea I serve raspberry jam, perfectly prepared. The old man eats tea with jam and remarks: “The jam is very good; after all, they say it’s also good for colds.” I say: “Yes, eating raspberries is considered a warming agent and a diaphoretic,” and I suggest that he take the whole jar with him to Pustynka. The elder looked at me and the jar so, a little inquisitively, and said: “It’s a big jar (there were 5-6 pounds of jam in it), but if it’s not a pity, I’ll take it, we can save it for the winter.” I carefully wrapped the jar in newsprint, then tied it with a napkin, and Father took it home in a bundle with other supplies. Just the very next day after visiting the Elder, the weather was wonderful, completely summer, and Lavra Hieromonk Father Theodore, also a sincerely devoted Father, and I. Isidora, they decided to take a ride to the Paraclete Hermitage and visit the Elder. We arrived and knocked, as usual, with prayer on the door of the cell. The door opens, and Father greets us with his angelically bright, good-natured smile and greeting: “Dear guests! Welcome! Look how you missed me so quickly! Well, let’s go to the foam 897, I’ll bring a samovar there, and we’ll drink tea there.” Suddenly I accidentally saw in the sensibilities on the shelf the jar of jam given yesterday, in which there was already less than half of the jam, and in the rest fresh cucumbers cut into slices... I couldn’t resist, I shouted: “Father, isn’t it a sin and a shame for you to spoil good jam and chop cucumbers into it?!” The elder answers me graciously: “And you, don’t get too excited!... It’s impossible for everything to be completely fine... you’ll enjoy it very much... But this way, let’s just say, it’s nothing.” I ask: “Where did you put the jam?” Did they distribute it to other banks or something?” “Yes, that’s it, I laid it out: yesterday when I came from you, I put it in a tea cup and took it to our old man, the blind monk, Fr. Ammonia, and gave a little to Ignash the canonarch, and a little to Vanyusha the bell-ringer - they’re all your friends, it seems?” I answer that I have never even heard of them. “Well, I told them that Serenya (my worldly name is Sergius) gave them jam, and remember him in prayer... So it will be good.” I say: “Father, you wanted to save the jam for winter?” “Well, here you are again repeating all your thoughts... Go to the tree stumps and drink tea; and there’s nothing else to treat you with: no one was expecting you today.” This is how the elder fasted. But he valued prayer more; lived and breathed and fed on it. He constantly read the Jesus Prayer in his mind, as evidenced by Elder Abraham, In the corner of his Inner Desert he often prayed for a long time, kneeling on a large stone, competing with Seraphim, the Wonderworker of Sarov. Every all-night vigil and every liturgy, he remained kneeling on the cold floor, in the lower tier of the church of St. Philaret the Merciful. He constantly remembered the Lord Jesus Christ and often, with deep heartfelt tenderness, repeated the prayer about His five plagues, which the reader will become familiar with below, if God blesses the writer to finish the Legend. However, about the most important thing in Fr. Isidora (consider his feat of prayer) don’t even know what to say. Breathing is necessary for a person; but if they asked you, reader, to tell about the breath of your father according to the flesh, how much would you say? – Not much, because breathing is too natural for a person. So, for Father Abba Isidore, prayer was too natural. We did not notice in him this inhalation of the grace of God into ourselves, just as you did not notice the inhalation of air into yourself by your father according to the flesh. It would be a different matter if your father in the flesh breathed air, and our father in spirit breathed grace occasionally: once or twice a day, or, moreover, a week. But this was not the Elder’s prayer life. Everyone felt that Fr. Isidore does not stop praying either in conversation or in household chores; and yet no one dared to ask him about it. Yes, to tell the truth, these questions seemed idle and unnecessary. Chapter 10, which aims to point out to the reader the spiritual freedom of the gracious Elder Isidore, and also tells how he was abused Abba Isidore's deep humility did not preclude his decisive independence from human opinions. In the same way, his asceticism did not deny the fullness of spiritual freedom. Truly, Father realized that “the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” and that “the Sabbath is for man, and not man is for the Sabbath.” It was not legal, but free. He lived by statute; but under every circumstance of his life, he knew what was the spirit of the church charter and what was the letter. And, if necessary, he freely and authoritatively violated the letter for the sake of preserving the spirit. That’s why one could hear opinions about him: “I didn’t see anything special in his life... He didn’t live particularly strictly: he used everything. I’ve also been to the bathhouse, but be careful. He was not ashamed of the bathhouse - to be in the bathhouse. And he drank wine.” But there were also direct violations of the charter. So, one day Elder Abraham comes to a certain house, to a family, and it was a fast day. The elder is offered: “Would you like some scrambled eggs?” “No, I’m afraid,” Fr. refuses. Abraham. “And we fed Fr. scrambled eggs. Isidora." In order not to cause trouble to the hospitable hosts, Father Fr. Isidore grew fat on a fast day. The Elder repeatedly said: “It is better not to fast than to offend a person by refusal.” Another time both Elders were together in the same house. It was a fast day again. The elders are offered butter. O. Isidore spreads it on bread and eats it, but the other Elder does not take what is offered. “Why don’t you eat?” - asks Fr. Isidore. “I order you to eat.” “I’m not your spiritual son,” Elder Abraham objects. One day, during the first week of Great Lent, the Elder himself informs the Bishop: “Here, father, forgive my sin, I was humbled in the first week of Lent.” “How so,” asks the Bishop. “There was some milk left, it was a pity to throw it away, so I drank it.” So oh. Isidore was humiliated twice in the first week of Lent, and this happened just a few years before his death, when he was already of old age. But who knows how to understand these cases? Perhaps he was accustoming himself to the ultimate humility? Or – which is also possible – did he teach humility to his interlocutor? And from the wine o. Isidore did not refuse. He said: “To offend a person by refusing is much worse.” At meals, when offered, I drank a glass and sometimes another half; In his old age he drank three, but never agreed to drink more than that. He didn't seem to adhere to the usual rule either. The bishop sometimes asked him: “What rule do you follow, Father?” “I don’t have any rules,” answered the Elder. “Why not: After all, you served with the charter officers.” “Well, no. When I asked the Elder on Athos (Fr. Isidore lived at one time on Old Athos) about the charter, he said: “What charter do you want? I don’t have one myself. Here's a rule for you - constantly say: “Lord, have mercy.” You’ll forget most prayers, but you won’t forget this one, just two words.” Such a simple rule,” Fr. finished smiling. Isidore, “and I can’t do even that.” However, you need to understand the meaning of these words. Father Isidore did not at all reject the charter and he himself read not only “Lord, have mercy,” but also much more; but with his answer he simultaneously demonstrated his great humility and his great freedom of spirit; and taught others the same. Sometimes he left the Skete without asking. One of the Elders said: “We had one recluse, Fr. Alexander. O. Isidore was close to Fr. Alexander, - they confessed their sins to each other. O. Isidore treated sins lightly. It happened: if you met him outside the Skete, you would ask: “Father, did you ask?” We began to ask Bishop E., but the Abbot would not let us in, saying: “He will laugh at you; I’ll tell him.” And o. Isidore then says: “After all, he, the Abbot, has his own politics, and he continued to go to the Bishop.” How free-spirited Fr. Isidore, you can see, reader, at least from the fact that during confession, sometimes with an epitrachelion on his chest and one bracelet on his hand, Father went to look after the samovar, and forced the confessor to read his sins in private from a list of them pasted on cardboard. Soaring above the world, Father could enter it with impunity. He did not despise the world, did not disdain it, did not fear it; he simply always carried within himself a power that gave him the ability to overcome the world and let it purified into his consciousness. The temptation of the world was not tempting for him, and the charm of the world did not seduce his pure heart. One day, says the above-mentioned Fr. Ephraim,” he enters his cell and sees a novel by Paul de Kock on his table. O. Ephraim guesses that one of the monks planted this book on him as a mockery. But at this time Fr. comes. Isidore, and it turns out, to the extreme surprise of Fr. Ephraim for putting the book here Fr. Isidore. “Do you know what kind of book this is? Where did you get it from?” – the amazed owner of the cell asks the Elder. Father Isidore then explains that the book was brought to him, probably as a mockery, by one of the brethren. “You are a scientist,” Father turns to Fr. Ephraim, “I’m passing it on to you.” “But she’s indecent.” “Nothing, nothing, read. Whatever bad happens, throw it away, and put the good in your heart,” the Elder objects. This is how free-spirited Abba Isidore was. He did everything easily, without tension, as if he were playing. And in every spontaneous movement of his soul, power was felt - greater than the attempts and efforts of other people. Yes - in front of everyone. And what he did, remaining face to face before God, who knows and who can comprehend except his Interlocutor. Chapter 11, giving the reader information about what happened during confession with Elder Isidore No matter what day or hour you come to Fr. Isidore, he will never refuse to confess you. Moreover: when asked, he, depressed by age and illness, does not refuse to come to confession at home, in Posad, although it is three miles from Skete to Posad. “About about. Isidora, says one Elder, was constantly hovering around with all sorts of sins. Well, these are living illegally... He had all sorts of people with swords. He was in danger during the 898 strike. They come and say: “Well, we killed so many people, but it depended not on us, but on the authorities...” He had enough spirit, he could promise anything. I see some people come out with swords - I got to know these people.” “Did you, Father, talk about how someone hacked people to death?” Even a few days before his death, barely having the strength to rise on his bed, Elder Isidore still confessed. The desire of the penitent to be cleansed is what Fr. turned his spiritual gaze to during confession. Isidore: he gave little instruction of any kind. The spiritual simplicity of the Elder softened even old wounds in the soul. Sometimes he himself said: “People come to me. A person carries sin with him for 20 years, but he will tell me.” Even with a simple meeting with Fr. For some reason, Isidore’s gaze warmed the upset soul, calmed it, as if piercing it all through with a gentle ray of sunshine. When someone’s soul was unclean, and Father Isidore met his brother who had sinned and looked into his eyes, it was impossible to meet his radiant gaze. So, one day someone, with a burdened conscience, fell on his knees before Abba, asking for prayer; and he saw Ava for the first time. One of the hermits told about his meeting with Father in the garden: “He took me by the hand and looked into my eyes... It seemed to me that he saw right through everything. I raised and lowered my head, and he said: Usually about. Isidore gave the confessor a special list of sins and forced him to read it out loud and at the same time mentally note to himself what he had sinned. It even happened that during such a reading he left his cell, wearing a tattered epitrachelion and one worn-out robe, to prepare a meal for his confessor. Never got angry; if it was a sin, I grieved with you, but was not angry. He treated everything calmly, simply and evenly, and only said lovingly: “We need to pray more.” In particular, he advised turning to the intercession of the Mother of God. But invariably, he pointed out to everyone the effectiveness of the prayer for the five plagues of the Savior and taught how to pray with it. The Elder’s confession, simple in appearance, was completely special due to some elusive spirit of eternity. Usually during confession you see a person in front of you. But here it was quite the opposite: the confessor saw himself not in the face of a person, not even a witness of the Lord, but in the face of Eternity Itself. Something immutable looks at you, sees you, and at the same time - does not look and does not see. You confess, as it were, before the Universe. No complaints, no reproaches, not even a single movement on the Elder’s face. There were no special questions. In a word, everyone who confessed knew for sure that they had entered the kingdom of freedom. So - in relation to the laity and in general all non-skete. In Skete, Fr. Isidore was not the appointed confessor for everyone, although - earlier - for eight years he confessed to the hieromonks. However, it often happened that the Confessor appointed from the Skete, in the hope of correcting one or another brother, treated him harshly or even expelled him: “Don’t come to me anymore.” The sinner was ready to fall into despair or become embittered, and so, with sorrow in his soul, he resorted to the help of Father Isidore. Father accepted everyone, and from one glance from the Elder, the desperate and bitter soul softened. But oh. The confessor was angry with the Elder, who acted contrary to his intentions, and even complained to Fr. Abbot, saying that it is impossible to correct the brethren this way. But oh. Isidore, despite the prohibitions, still could not help but accept those who came to repent and, seeing desperation, acted with love and not with severity. He did not impose penance, but, on the contrary, tried to console, encourage, calm and bring peace to the soul. So, one of the brothers sometimes drinks. O. Isidore accepted him and drove away the evil despair and hopelessness. But it also happened differently. It happened that they came to Father not because Fr. Confessor, but simply wanting to get rid of the expected penance. And the Elder accepted such people, but prescribed penance. “This,” he said, “is for a double sin: for running away from the confessor and for the one for which the brother came to repent.” I had to eat sausages alone: ​​they offered it at the Lavra, I didn’t want to refuse. My brother was afraid to go to Fr. The confessor comes to Fr. Isidora, tells about what happened. “Are you full?” asks Ava Isidore. “What a meal; I only ate three slices.” “Well, here, three hundred bows.” “Why, Father, there are only three slices:..” “No, otherwise I won’t forgive you. Then go to the confessor. Three hundred bows." “I ate a little, they offered...” “For a double sin: for sausage and for wanting to avoid the Confessor,” But even in this severity of the Elder there was a lot of gentleness: Fr. Isidore knew that the Confessor would appoint more than three hundred bows. The penitent had to agree to the assigned penance. Chapter 12, which contains “Talk about the Stone,” that is, the story of a certain professor about how he visited Fr. Isidora and what happened from here One day, a certain professor called to him the writer of the Tale - which you, dear reader, lies before your eyes - and began to talk about how he visited Elder Isidore and how the Elder confessed him. The memory of this confession greatly agitated the professor’s soul; For a long time he could not find the right words, so he repeatedly returned to the beginning of his story. After some time, he managed to stop the tears that were constantly welling up from the idea of ​​Fr. Isidore, and collect his thoughts a little. Then he - still not satisfied with his words - ordered his interlocutor to write down the following narrative, which he called “I’m afraid of intelligence,” he began, “I’m afraid that my words might seem like Fr. The intellectual simply liked Isidore. This is not exactly... The essence of the matter is that I (a certain professor, a certain intellectual, a certain patient, write as you know) bumped directly head-on into this Elder, and there was nothing between me and him, between me and Christ. I went to the Elder, maddened by church issues, maddened by politics, maddened by the Bishops, maddened by Merezhkovsky, maddened by the Theological Academy with its professors. But no matter how much rationalism and anger I carried with me, it all melted away in Fr. Isidora. Then the same thing happened; then I was sick again. But down to the smallest details, before a clear idea of ​​clothing, eyes, etc., the impression of this blow against something solid remained and remains. Kelly, flowers, doesn’t smell like anything. The air is clean. You breathe freely. I don’t know how to describe cells; I usually don’t remember the details. But there was something terribly bright, clean, light in the cell - something absolutely amazing. Now I’ve gathered my thoughts a little and I’ll tell you about my visit in order. I entered the cell knowing what a cell is. I was about 50 years old. I saw monks and priests, both of them. I came with a feeling of formal humility, sent by the Bishop to his confessor; and the point is not that I was consoled, as I would have been consoled by the first priest I came across, whom I recognize, dictating this, as my father and judge in the matter of confession and my relationships. No, that's what it was. I entered with a friend into a small cell in the corner of the monastery. I was struck by the clarity, purity and simplicity of what surrounded me, and it seemed to me that everything would be as it had always been, that a dear, decent monk would receive me kindly and decently, that I would confess decently, and everything would be as it should be. But here’s what was wrong: it suddenly seemed to me that in this cell, in its simplicity, there was infinite power. I myself did not know what it was about, and with all my doubt I said to myself: “You,” you recite, you are nervous, you draw pictures for yourself.” Then the Old Man, clearly understanding - this now I know - who I am and what I am, met me like a stupid, ignorant monk, and in a conversation of several minutes, when I wanted to prove and explain something to him, I clearly saw that I could not explain or tell him anything. I saw that if I began to explain to him, right now, having entered the cell, he would briefly and clearly answer me that I was smarter than him in theology, in philosophy, in everything, that I knew everything better than him, from philosophy to the catechism, and that why I was brought to him, the Elder, to look for something and ask. Then I felt that I had come to look for someone else, and I just began to cry. The Elder responded to my crying with prayer and the fact that “those who mourn will be comforted.” And again I realized that this answer, both prayers and for those who cry, says to me: “This is what I answer you and what you would answer yourself, since you came to me for a catechistic or homiletical answer.” I felt ashamed again. Then I simply and definitely felt that, by God’s grace, I was where I needed to be, and I asked the Elder to confess me and the friend who had come with me. It was then that I experienced what I call the impression of the Church. The elder stood up and, as he was dressed - in an untucked shirt, ports and pistons on his legs - calmly stood up and said: Taking out the epitrachelion, he put it on himself; He fastened an old brocade handrail onto his shirt with his power and blessed God. Then he, turning to me and a friend, demanded that we begin reading Psalm 50, the Creed and prayers. I could barely read these Psalms and prayers, although I knew them in three languages, stumbling from word to word and feeling, when I was corrected, that strength supported and guided me. When we read the prayers, he handed me a book from which I could read the statutory confession of sins. At the same time, he looked at me and at my friend standing next to me and told me with his gaze that, according to his power, he did not need my chatter and detail, that I should read together with my brother standing next to me what was written here, repenting and confessing what I heard and saw. I was ashamed that I emphasized certain words of the confessional prayer. It seemed to me that the Elder was telling me: “Why is this necessary? Why do I need, smart girl, your logic and your understanding? When he read the prayer of release, I could only tell him one thing: “It’s in my soul right now,” I don’t understand why, “Christ is risen from the dead.” Then he finished singing: “Trampling death upon death and giving life to those in the tombs.” Then I cried again, and he again told me that I would be comforted, and when I left, he kissed my hand. I know only one thing: that I saw the Stone and the Church on it, and that I later attributed all sorts of confusion to that moment. And I can’t say anything more than this greatness. This has always remained with me as a great blow. The Church opened for a moment and then disappeared - the Church in ports and golden bands and stoles on the Stone. Never anything like this... After all, Fr. Isidore was an “unimportant” confessor, as we say, not popular. I knew and saw confessors and elders—“men,” as they say, and “smart men,” as they say. But the fact of the matter is that I, an aristocrat, did not see either a man or a clever girl in him. The fact of the matter is that all my definitions were not useful to me. And I repeat again: “He is neither this nor that; he is more than that. He is not Barnabas (I didn’t know him, but I heard that he somehow knew how to handle things like a man). He is not the sophisticated confessor that I saw so many of in Moscow. He is something in between, that is, great, which cannot be reduced to my definitions. I know one Bishop. He is also gracious. But he must be coerced, grace must be coerced from him. And there, with Father Isidore, there was some kind of extraordinary ease in the relationship. To make it clear what I'm talking about, I'll explain my words once again: The so-called “men priests” are unusually easy. I know very well how easy it is to confess to whatever peasant peasants you want - either fools or Black Hundreds. But you always leave something with you as a plus, something you feel that they cannot understand and understanding of which you do not dare demand from them. That's not it. Here the lightness is direct and immediate. It's terribly rare to not have a double curtain. And my entire impression is summed up in this: I, an intelligent, educated, learned person, know all the conventions with which one can approach another confessing soul. But I was confused by all these conventions: there was nothing of this in that soul,” oh. Isidore was not there.” This is how the narrator ended his story. Chapter 13, from which the reader learns what Elder Isidore taught in his conversations Abba Isidore did not like to give instructions, nor did he like to reason scientifically. And he not only guarded himself, but also stopped others: “Don’t be too curious about this thing,” he used to say, “it’s dangerous for a monk to be too curious.” And about the “Dogmatics” of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow 899 he spoke harshly and said about its Author: “So I drowned myself because of this,” that is, because of the desire to squeeze living faith in the grip of reason. Father was so cautious in his discussion of faith. “I was a little shy against their (i.e., Father Isidore and Father Barnabas) prejudices,” says a certain Elder. “Such, folk. They don’t know anything, and oh. Barnabas, and Fr. Isidore. They do not satisfy the catechism of Macarius. And I from Fr. Barnabas I hear complaints about Metropolitan Macarius. They do not know how to separate dogma from morality. Dogmatic theology is one thing, and moral theology is another; and there is also an accusatory... " The elder who spoke these words is right in his own way. Indeed, Father did not study theology, because he had a spiritual life in God and spiritual knowledge of God, and in this Divine Life it was impossible to draw a line separating different subjects of school teaching. In Father’s soul, any order established by division into books, chapters, departments and subdivisions was violated, because a different order reigned in it - an order that is given not by teachers and professors, but by the Holy Spirit. And I often wanted to ask about Abba Isidore: “How does he know the Scripture without studying?” I repeat to you, dear reader, that the strength of Abba Isidore was not in wise words, but in the spiritual strength that accompanied his words, even the most ordinary ones. But if you are still curious to know what he was talking about. Isidore, then, I’ll give you a few examples; however, when reading them, you must firmly keep in mind that the words of Abba Isidore, taken regardless of who pronounces them, retain almost nothing of Isidore and fade like blue flax flowers torn from the stem. “I remember,” says the previously mentioned Fr. Hieromonk Ephraim, I remember: when the letters of Metropolitan Philaret to the Viceroy of Lavra Archimandrite Anthony 900 came out of print, and in one of them I read the Bishop’s note: “Isidore answered well,” I, at the first opportunity, appeared to Fr. Isidore, asked him what he answered to the Metropolitan, and the Elder told me the following: “Three of us came to the Lord for ordination: me as a hieromonk and two more monks as a hierodeacon. The Bishop began to ask from the youngest, and, turning to the youngest, asked: “How do you hope to be saved?” “Do you have a lot of it?” - and asked another: “And how do you hope to be saved?” "Through your holy prayers." “Where did you learn to be a hypocrite like that?” And then he asked me: “By the suffering on the Cross and the death of Our Savior Lord Jesus Christ.” The Bishop crossed himself and said: “Here, remember this answer and remember it always.” The same person writes about Fr. Isidore: “He was deeply imbued with knowledge of the dogmatic truths of the holy Orthodox faith and to questions about such he always gave completely correct answers, based on sayings from Holy Scripture and the Patristic Fathers.” Most often, Abba Isidore spoke about the Mother of God, about the Church and about the suffering on the cross and the death of the Savior. All this, however, was not for him separate questions, but somehow combined together. He often compared the “birth” of the foremother Eve from the side of Adam with the “birth” of the Mother Church from the side of Christ 901. Adam's wonderful dream. Isidore equated the removal of a rib from Adam to the mysterious sleep of the Lord with the piercing of the Lord in the side with a spear; He timed the miraculous flow of blood and water from the wound of Christ to coincide with the very birth of the Church. And, somehow, this birth of the Church was combined in his mind with a wound in the heart of the Mother of God from the weapon that passed through him. For Father Isidore, the suffering of the Mother of God was somehow connected with the grace of the Church. “Christ gave birth to the Church,” he sometimes added, “and we became one together.” The pinnacle of the theology of Fr. Isidora was his Jesus Prayer, which included these thoughts as a hint. The reader will learn this prayer from the next chapter. The Elder revered and loved the saints of God, and his relationship with them was deep, heartfelt, and living. The elder always lived in soul among the saints - he was close to them as to relatives and even more. But special respect to Fr. Isidore had to Rev. Seraphim, the Wonderworker of Sarov, to the monk George the Recluse, to Tikhon of Zadonsk and to someone else. And he usually referred to these bearers of grace-filled life in conversation: The Elder did not like to speak on his own behalf. Often with deep tenderness he repeated after St. Seraphim: “My joy, my joy! acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands of souls will be saved around you.” When it came to idle words and especially angry ones, he pointed to the power of the word and at the same time often recalled the poems of St. George the Recluse: You, my spirit, hurry to eternity. He said even more often, usually when parting: I convince my soul with my soul: keep yourself from anger and from idle words - and you will be a Christian theologian - and sometimes the first two verses are a little different - like this: With my soul I urge your soul to keep yourself from anger and from idle words - and you will be a Christian theologian. Father Isidore also loved to speak - and with great animation - a poetic arrangement of one of the psalms, which he had read in some magazine, and which he liked very much. At the same time, he became all excited and read expressively and with force. Sometimes he gave the guest a thick book - an arrangement of psalms into verses, compiled by some blind priest, and, drawing attention to this last circumstance (“he’s blind!”), asked him to read his rather ponderous verses out loud. At other times Derzhavin’s ode “God” came to mind. But most often he spoke with great warmth about N.V. Gogol and spoke by heart the poetic prayer composed by Gogol to the Most Holy Theotokos. Each time, first, he will quickly pronounce the epigraph: “No one flows to You, shame comes from You, Most Pure Virgin Mary, but asks for grace and accepts the gift of a useful petition.” Then he began the prayer itself: “To You, O Most Holy Mother, I dare to raise my voice,” etc. 902 For some reason, he loved this prayer very much. I also recalled a poetic prayer about the Cross of Christ: “The power of the Cross of the Lord is glorious, it shines everywhere,” etc. One of his favorite prayers was the following passage in the works of St. Dmitry of Rostov: And “My dear Jesus, sweetness to my heart, my only joy in sorrow! R Say to my soul: “Your is my salvation, O cleansing of sins and entry into paradise!” It is good for me to cleave to You, God, and to hope for mercy from You. n But who will help me in my troubles, a sinner, if not You, O All-merciful Jesus God? x I want to be one with You, Let me always have You, Christ, in my heart! and Deign to dwell in me, appear to me for good, and many sinners, do not disdain the unworthy! and my belly disappeared in illness without You, God: You are my strength, and health, and much glory. “I rejoice in You and am glad, and in You throughout all ages, my God, I glory.” But most often, Abba Isidore forced those who came to him to sing with him “Blessed” in the 5th tone from the Rite for the Burial of the Mother of God, performed in the Gethsemane Skete on August 17, for the Dormition and Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Blessed Lady, enlighten me with the light of Your Son. The council of angels was surprised, in vain you were counted among the dead, your soul betrayed into the hand of God, and ascended with God, Most Immaculate, with divine glory into heaven,” etc. This is how the gray-haired Elder Isidore sang to the Virgin Mary. And, at the end of the poems, he asked his guests to copy them for themselves and sing them more often at home. Father Isidore constantly insisted that purity and peace and meekness come from the Mother of God and that She herself, the long-suffering one, will come to the aid of those who call upon Her. He invariably asked his guests whether they had already been to the Mother of God (of Chernigov, in the underground Church), and if the guests denied it, then Father asked them to go to Her to pray. When to o. When two friends came to Isidore, he always expressed his joy and approval, seeing their friendship, but at the same time persistently repeated each time that it was necessary to live in peace: “We strengthen brother from brother, like a strong city,” he finished, as if he foresaw the possibility of each one breaking apart and falling apart. When someone complained to Abba about illness or some misfortune, the Elder, almost with envy - if I may use this inappropriate word - used to say: “You see how God loves you, he remembers you.” One brother was sick. Elder Isidore meets him once and asks: “Well, Misha, how are you making peace?” “Don’t you know that if God visits you with some kind of illness or misfortune, it means that He loves you? Now the Lord visits us with illnesses, and this will be imputed to us.” Chapter 14 is the most instructive, for it teaches the reader the grace-filled Jesus Prayer of Elder Isidore, which has the potential to provide considerable spiritual consolation to anyone who begins to read it wisely Whoever comes to Fr. Isidora, Father taught everyone to pray the Jesus Prayer, composed by him or, perhaps, revealed to him from above. And Father himself constantly prayed with it. The Elder attached much importance to this prayer (the inquisitive reader will read it below) in the fight against thoughts and considered it full of grace-filled power. One can guess from something that he himself recognized her in a certain vision; but he did not expand on the origin of the Prayer, although he strongly advised everyone to read it. Peace of mind, taming irritability, malice and anger, driving away lustful thoughts and passionate dreams - these are the needs for which this Prayer for the five plagues of the Savior and for weapons in the soul of His Most Pure Mother best helps. This is what the Elder said, and as proof he sometimes referred to how this prayer once shook the demons that possessed a woman. The elder read this Prayer, turning his face to the icon case. He pronounced the first part of it slowly, as if with some expectation, and at the same time looked at St. Crucifixion. While pronouncing the second part, I contemplated the icon of the Most Pure Virgin. This part of the Prayer was pronounced by him quickly, with animation and joyful hope. And, having once said this little prayer, the Elder even changed in appearance. It was as if some light was shining from his eyes, and he himself was all beaming with that banquet joy, which can only be learned from the Song of Songs, and even from the Marriage of the Lamb in the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. The gracious effect of prayer was visible first of all on himself. He knew it. That is why he so often asked others to be treated with this medicine. “Cross yourself wisely,” like this, “and the temptation will pass,” he told his visitor when he complained to him about temptations, sadness or grief, and at the same time the Elder crossed himself while reading the Jesus Prayer. “If you get up, then say this (a prayer followed), turn to the Mother of God. She herself is pure, she loves cleanliness, and she will help you.” With these and other words, Elder Isidore urged to pray the Prayer for the five plagues of the Lord Jesus Christ and for the weapon in the heart of His Most Pure Mother the Virgin Mary. But while the Elder was alive, for some reason this prayer was poorly received by both the monastery brethren and the laity. It’s something surprising, but almost no one even remembers it, although it’s not difficult, and it’s not long, apparently. Some even considered it indecent that the Elder taught such a “common people’s” prayer, as they said, and not taken from a book, to everyone he met—the educated. “I composed a prayer myself,” said one of the brethren. - He will come to the name of the river, I am surprised that he has the courage. Where he is visiting with me, well, he imposes his prayer and notebooks” (i.e., the sheets that have already been mentioned). This was how it was during the life of the spirit-bearing Elder. But as soon as he departed from this world, many realized that they did not know the Prayer for the Five Plagues, they copied it for themselves for prayerful use, and others memorized it. And many testify to the great grace-filled power of Elder Isidore’s prayer, especially against bad thoughts and absurd dreams. “The prayer for the five plagues of the Savior is so strong,” says one of the monastery brethren from his own experience, “such that the demons cannot resist it,” Here, God-minded reader, is this last earthly gift of our Father, the whitened Elder Isidore. Read it for the health of your soul and body and teach it to your neighbors, for the sake of the memory of the Elder, through his prayers may the Lord have mercy on you. Prayer for the five plagues of the Savior, which Elder Isidore taught his spiritual children to pray Place your hand on your forehead and say: Lord, crowned with thorns on Your head, to blood and marrow, for the sake of my sins; Lowering your hand to your right leg, say: Jesus, pierced in the right foot with an iron nail for my sins; Place your hand on your left leg and say: Christ, pierced in the left leg with an iron nail for my sins; Raising your hand to your right shoulder, say: Son, pierced in the right hand with an iron nail for my sins; Moving your hand to your left shoulder, say: God, and pierced into the left hand for my sins; and pierced into the rib with a spear, bleeding blood and water from the rib for the atonement and salvation of our souls; Turning your face to the icon of the Mother of God, say: And the weapon will pierce your soul, so that from many hearts a source of repentant and grateful heartfelt tears of all humanity will open. Chapter 15, written for this purpose, let the humble reader know that Elder Isidore was not alien to the gift of clairvoyance and miracle-working Is there any need to remind you, God-minded reader, that neither the gift of clairvoyance, nor the gift of miracles, or anything else, by itself, instills the Spirit of God in a person? As a good Christian, you, of course, tirelessly repeat in your mind that the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and not miracles or prophecies or healings, as many wise men spoke about in the writings of the Fathers. But you also don’t know that the lover of God, who seeks the Kingdom of God for himself, receives, along with the Spirit, His gifts. And the Savior said: “Seek above all else the Kingdom of God, and all this will be added to you.” Truly this was Elder Isidore. He never chased after what people marvel at, but, like a certain wise merchant, most of all he sought the precious Margaret of his soul. God reigned in her, and with God - spiritual joy and abundant life, promised from the Savior to His disciples. But this living moisture, endlessly pouring out from Isidorov’s heart, made transparent, 903 as if from a crystal vessel overflowing, created signs and gave the Elder unknown powers. For those who visited the Elder, there was no doubt that he sees and knows what is hidden by man; however, these obvious signs were imputed as nothing against Abba himself, for who would look at the decoration of the king’s palace in the presence of the king himself? And Father was reluctant to talk about his spiritual gifts, because he considered them a natural consequence of living in God. So, when they told him about his insight, he answered calmly: “God is with us, He is close to us, He sees with our eyes.” Not once, not twice, not three, but many times, and not just one of Avva’s disciples, but many were convinced that Abba, when visiting him, was the first to begin talking about the matter for which they came to him. You come, and he greets you with advice about the very thing you wanted to ask him about. Such incidents seemed so common to the disciples of the Elder that no one bothered to write them down, and now they have disappeared from memory. But here, for example, are several such stories that accidentally survived for the edification of those who did not have the chance to see the Elder. Someone was leaving far from Sergievsky Posad and, on his way back, there was an unexpected meeting that made him vaguely worried. The fact was that he met the wife of one of his acquaintances, and she spoke about the difficult moral state and despair of her husband. It would be necessary to get off the train at the nearest station and see this acquaintance, but for some reason such a thought did not come to mind or, perhaps, as they say, the devil closed it with his tail. Arriving in Sergievsky Posad directly for the liturgy, this same name during the divine service suddenly realized that he needed to immediately go back to catch up. And since the train left for that city late at night, someone had time to go to Elder Isidore for a blessing. The weather was changing when he approached Father’s house. The priest met him at the door and, not having time to give his blessing, said to the one who had not yet arrived, pointing to the snowflakes circling in the air: “Look, look, good deeds fly like flies! We need to go quickly, otherwise there might be trains!” Then he confirmed the need to go that same night, gave his blessing, and even himself wrote a letter in his senile, trembling and inept letters to the one in need of help. Here's another story. One day a certain spiritual son of Elder Isidore (named Fr. G.) comes to Elder Isidore, confesses and then gives 2 rubles. O. Isidore takes this money. Then the thought flashed through the giver: “Why is he taking it: he knows that I am poor.” O. Isidore did not say a word to this thought. But during further conversation, someone came - from the poor - to whom Fr. Isidore ordered to come for money in the evening, although there was no money at that time. The priest hands over 2 rubles to this petitioner and adds: “Here comes a kind man who gives you money.” Then, seeing Fr. G., says to him in private: “Don’t be embarrassed that I took 2 rubles from you: prayers through them, through the laity, will reach God more easily than from you and me.” This case about. G. interprets it as undoubted insight. If anyone came to Fr. Isidora, with sin in his soul, if anyone had a quarrel with a loved one or a cooling of love, then Father always spoke about this thing himself, or with two or three questions he forced him to confess and repent. This became such a common occurrence for everyone that when someone persisted in sin, they tried not to catch the Elder’s eye. Life in another world was the ordinary life of the Elder. Often in his dreams he saw the Mother of God, the Monk Seraphim and other saints, and the Elder listened to their beneficent suggestions. Here, for example, is how Elder Isidore’s acquaintance with Bishop E began. “Until 1904 I was not able to see Fr. Isidora,” says Bishop EE., “although I heard a lot about him while still a student at the Academy. Our first meeting was in May 1904. It was a wonderful day, I went out into the Academic Garden. A bent old man, with a stick and wearing a scufa, plops towards you. He meets and says: “Father, are you the Eminence?” – I’m very glad to meet you. - I’m on business: tonight the Mother of God appeared and said: “Didn’t you take the blessing from the new Right Reverend?” So I came..." With his high mood, Father also understood the signs of the dumb creature. He repeatedly told, for example, how a ball of fire once appeared in a church in his homeland, scorching the iconostasis, and in this ball Father saw a miracle of God, after which he left the world. And, smiling slightly, the Elder invariably added: “Perhaps they will say that this is so, it happened by itself. But I thought differently..." This is true in reality. Others, free-thinkers (let the God-loving reader not be tempted by such!) will say in a scientific manner that it was “ball lightning.” Well, so what? Can't God speak to us with ball lightning? In His hands is all creation, through which He tells us: but our heart has grown coarse, and so we do not understand the words of God. Father, Fr. Isidore listened to the creature with a pure heart; for him the word of God sounded in creation, and therefore the whole world was filled with wonderful signs and secret suggestions for the Elder. For him, the spirit-bearing one, ball lightning was a miracle 904: an earthly soul will not see the sign of God even at the end of the world. The wicked man who desires to live without God is punished by the fact that the eyes of his heart darken; he no longer sees or knows God and does not understand the signs of His wrath, and therefore nothing pushes him to look around and repent: he lives as if in a dream, but he himself does not understand it and takes his sleepy dreams for true reality. This is not at all how the Elder lived, always sober and alert in spirit. He listened to God's creature, and God's creature listened to him. Invisible threads connected him to the innermost heart of the creature 905. Not only was peace a sign for Elder Isidore, but the Elder himself was a sign for peace. And indeed, something happened around the Elder that does not happen around others. He himself told, for example, such a case. On the day of the Dormition of the Mother of God - when access to the Skete is not prohibited for women - one day a certain woman comes to him and complains of a constant headache. “And you cross yourself wisely,” the Elder said to the woman who came and taught her his prayer about the five plagues of the Savior. The woman began to make a reasonable sign of the cross, but as soon as she raised her hand to her forehead, she shook and fell to the ground, writhing, with black foam appearing at her mouth. Then Father ordered this woman to be taken out of the Skete to the Chernigov Mother of God, to the underground church. There the woman received healing from her illness. Chapter 16, about the cross of Elder Isidore and how little those around him understood him The Elder’s entire life was not an easy cross, but the Elder patiently bore his cross. From this cross-bearing, more than from anything else, one could be convinced that Fr. Isidora has his own, special, supra-worldly world, in which he draws his strength and his strength. Life in God seems to us possible only if various conditions are met; We maintain our balance when we are supported by public respect, when we have wealth and other similar, perishable blessings, like Abba Isaac the Syrian, likened to pus in the saints of our Father. And for Abba Isidore, his faith was a living, self-effective force that never left him. Everything with him was the opposite of ours. A former servant of a manor house, he never mentioned his former owners with a single unkind or even bitter word. Moreover, as long as the princess was alive, he came to her every year with prosphora and a bundle of bagels on a sponge. He talked about how he was persecuted - so evenly and with such a cheerful grin, as if it was not about him at all. And they persecuted him always and everywhere. He had to leave Old Athos because there was no money. In the Paraclete Hermitage, he gathered children from neighboring villages to his place, gave them tea, taught them prayers and gave them a few kopecks from his beggarly funds. This is what the authorities did not like, and about Fr. They began to say to Isidora that he allegedly got drunk, took women to him, and finally they fabricated a lie against him, kicked him out of the Hermitage and transferred him to the Skete of Gethsemane. In his life he was constantly persecuted. And for what? - For confessing the brothers who were ready to fall into despair because of the severity of the confessor; for accepting strangers; for giving bread to the poor; for going out without asking to console someone in Posad; for being straightforward with his superiors. As much as the younger brothers loved him, the older ones treated him just as carelessly, with a few exceptions. She did not like his independence and directness and seemed unbearable, despite the great humility of the Elder; the lack of ostentatious fasting caused disdain for him as a poison and drinker; but what harmed the Elder most of all in the eyes of the brethren, who considered themselves learned, was his simplicity and “lack of education.” Some even considered him strange, kind of a fool and crazy, and called him an “eccentric” - this is when they spoke condescendingly about him. Fr. was sixty years old. Isidore became a monk - and during this time he did not even receive a legguard. The eighty-year-old Elder lived alone in his hut and had to do everything with his own hands, because he did not have a cell attendant. He was so neglected that during his illness his face was covered with a layer of dirt, and Bishop E., who visited him, picked out lice from his gray hair. Only six days before his death, the Elder received help. Poverty, sickness, neglect, insults, persecution - these are the thorns that overgrown the Elder’s life path. But even in these thorns, he retained such calmness, such joy, such fullness of life, which we do not have and will not acquire under the most favorable conditions. What is the most interesting thing in Batyushka? - There is no doubt that he remained a Christian in every situation. His Christianity was his unchanging element, not connected with the world and its natural and social conditions. Christianity was for him not the orbit of life, but its very essence - not the pattern of life or its decoration, but the very fabric of life. Misunderstood during life, the Elder remains, it seems, misunderstood even after death. Until now, those around him had not yet thought about what treasure they had lost. But the light of the Elder shines all the more radiantly in the night of unreason. Chapter 17, which contains meager information from the biography of Elder Isidore, about the place of his birth, about his further life and about the spiritual influences to which the Elder was subjected Now, dear reader, you know what Abba Isidore is like, and therefore you probably want to know more about how he became what he was. To satisfy your question, I will tell you the little of the Elder’s life story that I know myself. Abba Isidore was born in the village of Lyskovo, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province and was named John in holy baptism. His parents were courtyard peasants of the Georgian princes; They were called Andrey and Paraskeva, and by their last name they were Kozins. John later called his last name in two ways: sometimes Gruzinsky, sometimes Kozin, but usually Gruzinsky. The exact year of John's birth is unknown. According to Elder Abraham of Skete, John was born in the same year in which the Venerable Seraphim, the Wonderworker of Sarov, reposed. And John himself, shortly before his death, repeatedly spoke about the conversation with his mother on the day of the repose of St. Seraphim that was etched in his memory. “A wonderful fragrance spread,” he said. I asked my mother what it was from, and my mother told me: Elder Seraphim died.” After 2-3 days, news came of Seraphim’s death. If we rely on the first message, then the year of John’s birth should be considered 1833. And if we accept the second message, then we must think that John was already quite a number of years old in 1833, since only he could remember the event of this year; then, as John himself believed, it will be necessary to take 1814 as the year of birth. One way or another, a ray from the radiance of St. Seraphim entered John’s life. While still carrying John in her bosom, his mother went to Sarov to see Elder Seraphim; The saint called her out from a huge crowd of people, bowed to her in front of everyone to the ground and predicted that a great ascetic would come from her and that his name would be Isidore. And subsequently, in Skete, Abba Isidore had a very close relationship with one of the disciples of Elder Seraphim. Very little is known about John’s childhood, adolescence and youth - what he himself told. This, first of all, includes his participation in the home theater of the Georgian princes. He played “Filka” and other funny plays; It seems that John’s love for poetry and art arose at this time. But despite the taste for such worldly amusements, the young man did not forget his soul. Even then he desired monastic feat. “My father and mother used to go about family affairs at night,” he said shortly before his death, “and I would turn to the wall, look at the picture of the saints Zosima and Savvaty, and I would see green meadows and monasteries.” From one sign these youthful thoughts turned into a firm decision. One day the young man John was praying in the Church of the Intercession in his homeland. Lightning in the form of a full moon, as the Elder himself later described, shining brightly, passed along the iconostasis and burst with thunder. No accidents happened to people, only the iconostasis turned black. This sign (the old-timers remember it) had an effect on John; as one of the brethren put it: “Lightning struck, and it warmed him up.” “My thought went to Athos,” said the Elder himself. However, this idea could not be realized then, and John entered the Gethsemane Skete, established by Metropolitan Philaret. Here he again met with his fellow villager, Viceroy Anthony, who also came from the village of Lyskova and was the illegitimate son of Prince Gruzinsky. By the way, it should be mentioned that, judging by some data, namely: by the surname “Gruzinsky”, which John bore and called himself, by the thin build of his body, and finally, by his somewhat oriental nose and face, one can suspect the complex origin of John. It is not incredible that he was also of a princely family. Viceroy Anthony took John to his cell attendant. Then John was still a beardless and mustacheless young man. He served Fr. To the viceroy, half-written, he wrote a cave synodikon about health and repose, read it in the church and sang in the choir in a light bass voice. Here he met Fr. Abraham, who later attended his cell in his place with Fr. Antonia. U o. He saw the governor more than once, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, and many other remarkable figures of that time. At first, Viceroy Anthony was very friendly with brother John; Perhaps this friendship was also facilitated by family ties. But later their friendship cooled. The governor approached Metropolitan Philaret and devoted his mind to ambitious thoughts. And Brother John spoke about. There was too much truth for the governor and, most importantly, it reminded him of the past - of the time when Anthony was a serf paramedic for Prince Gruzinsky. The governor began to feel burdened by his fellow countryman and said: “He is too heavy for me.” That time when Fr. Isidore believed the beginning of his feat was quite special in the history of Skete. The relationship with the Sarov Wonderworker was still alive in memory. A whole host of true monks shone to the world from the depths of the forests where the Skete now stands; many great people from the laity came to their light to warm their souls, gain strength and vigor. There was no brick fence then; lived apart and each carried out a special feat. Some of the ascetics descended into the bowels of the earth, and here they dug up an entire monastery with a church and even a well. Here, at the ringing of an underground bell, underground monks with candles came out of their cramped grave cells, in which one could barely lie down, and gathered through narrow damp underground passages for night prayer. They read psalms and sang alleluia, and then went to their cells. It was stuffy in the underground church, so wooden pipes were laid out from it. Sometimes at night I listened to the singing of the monks and Fr. Anthony. From time to time, Metropolitan Philaret also lived in the Skete. In 1860, Brother John was tonsured into the mantle at the same time as Fr. Herman, now abbot of the Zosimova Hermitage, which is beyond the Paraclete. Both of them, i.e. John (in the monasticism of Isidore) and Herman, were received from the Holy Gospel by the Elder of the skete hieroschemamonk Alexander, whose spiritual son a little later Barnabas (who died in 1906) became. It is a noteworthy coincidence that this trinity of spiritual Elders - Isidore, Herman and Barnabas - turns out to be connected with each other by bonds of spiritual brotherhood, and Fr. Isidore, as spiritually born from the Elder Alexander before others, was revered by them as the eldest and therefore, after the death of Fr. Alexandra, took the place of their spiritual father for his orphaned younger brothers. At this time, the Paraclete Desert did not yet exist. When they erected it for lovers of the strictest solitude, Fr. moved there. Isidore. Here it was sped up