Soul and angel

Contents The soul and angel are not the body, but the spirit Consideration of the testimonies of the Holy Fathers about the nature of the soul and angels Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Consideration of the testimonies of the Word of God about the nature of souls and angels Analysis of mental considerations to justify the new teaching Troparia and kontakion Soul and angel - not the body, but the spirit “Should we read the writings of the Most Reverend Ignatius? “Read... Just don’t read the article on death, and not all of it, but only a few pages, it seems, at the beginning, where he says that the soul and the angel are corporeal...” Bishop Theophan, Collected Letters, T.1, p.187. In 1863, “The Word on Death” appeared in print - a very instructive word, in which, however, opinions were expressed, among other things, little known in the Christian world, such as, for example, the opinion about the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angels. In the “Wanderer” of 1863 for the month of September, brief but powerful notes were made on this news. These notes gave rise to counter-notes, which became a separate book entitled “Addition to the Word on Death.” The purpose of the “Addition” was to collect more evidence for all the criticized thoughts of the “Tale on Death”, and especially for the opinion about the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angels. I cannot say whether anyone examined this evidence. But it is clear that the idea of ​​the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angels was accepted and seemed to someone to be very firmly proven. Having entered into a dispute with spiritualists, he rebelled against Kardec, who recognizes that the soul has a thin material shell, in defense of another spiritualist Pierard, who insisted that this is the soul, which Kardec recognizes as a shell: the soul is an etheric body and nothing more. To give more weight to his defense of Pierard, the author added that his opinion was finally proven in our country, namely, in the mentioned articles. That is why the desire was born to see whether it was accurately proven. I looked through all the testimony and presentation of articles in favor of this view down to the smallest detail and nowhere did I discover support for it, but on the contrary, wherever the articles thought to find confirmation of their thought, I came across provisions completely opposite to it. I offer the result of my research to the attention of lovers of spiritual reading, who, if they do not get bored of skimming through them, will be convinced that this news, the corporeality of the soul and angels, has not been proven at all, and that, as before, the ancient truth remains fully proven and immutable, that the soul and angel are not a body, but a spirit. The essence of the new teaching is as follows: “Angels and souls, although very subtle in their essence, however, for all their subtlety, are bodies. They are subtle, ethereal bodies, while, on the contrary, our earthly bodies are very material and gross. The gross human body serves as clothing for the subtle body - the soul. The eyes, ears, hands, and feet, which belong to the soul, are covered with similar members of the body. When the soul is separated from the body through death, it takes off it, as if it were clothing. Angels, like the soul, have members - a head, eyes, lips, breasts, arms, legs, hair - in a word, all the likeness of a visible person in his body. One God is Spirit. There is no being one-natural to God. And therefore, besides God, there is no other being who is spiritual by nature.” Someone will ask: so to whom in us (and in the angels) does consciousness, freedom, reasoning, fear of God, conscience belong? The same subtle ethereal body, which is the soul. “Wise men understood that man differs from animals by an internal property, a special ability of the human soul. They called this ability the power of literature, the spirit itself. This includes not only the ability to think, but also the ability to experience spiritual sensations, such as: a sense of the high, a sense of grace, a sense of virtue.” But isn’t this ability, called spirit itself, a special, non-corporeal force that dwells in the subtle etheric body, which is the soul, as a special spiritual being clothed in an etheric body? No. Then there would still be a purely spiritual being in the circle of creatures, but this cannot be allowed. In addition, then it should be said that after the death of a person, a spiritual being leaves the body, clothed in an etheric body, as in a shell; and therefore it should be said about angels that they are spirits clothed in an ethereal body. This must be decisively rejected, for the holy fathers did not recognize the angels as clothed in a subtle body, but recognized their very being, their very essence as some kind of subtle body. So are souls. So, the subtle etheric body, that is, matter, now reasons, is conscious of itself, acts freely, displays conscience and fear of God, and generally reveals all those spiritual actions that rational people could not and cannot attribute to matter. I deliberately expose all these aspects of the new teaching so that the main idea can be seen, the proof of which must be expected. Hitherto, as is known, there were and are two opinions about the way of being of the soul and angels: some thought and still think that souls and angels are spiritual beings, clothed with a thin material shell; others believed and still believe that souls and angels are pure spirits that do not have any shell. According to the first opinion, in the composition of a person the spiritual being is mediated in union with this gross body, a subtle, ethereal body, and what comes out of the body after the death of a person will be a spirit clothed in an ethereal, or generally material, thin shell; likewise, an angel who appears or exists within himself in his own region will also be a spirit, clothed in a similar shell. This image of representing the existence of souls and angels is the most convenient for the concept, completely reconciling with all the legends about the appearance of angels and souls and easily resolving all issues related to this. According to the second opinion, the spirit is not some kind of mental abstraction, but a being that really exists between other realities, which, due to this reality of its existence, directly enters into union with the body in man, and in angels - in influencing the external world. Of these two opinions, whoever wants to stick to which one, stick to that one. Because in both the first and the second, what is essential in an angel and a person, thinking, freely acting, conscious of itself, is recognized as a spiritual being; and this is what we should mainly insist on in the teaching about the nature of the soul and angels. The opinion expressed in the “Tale on Death” and supported in the “Addition” to it cannot be tolerated. This is ultra-materialism, or materialism gone beyond its limits. True materialism is afraid to admit the separate existence of the soul, because it knows that logic will relentlessly demand that it also recognize its spirituality, since it is impossible to assign to matter all those phenomena and actions of which the soul is considered the producer. Therefore, strict materialism says that man does not have a soul as a separate being; everything that is attributed to it is a reflection of the harmonious structure of the body. Although consciousness, which sharply separates itself from the body and acts independently of it, loudly denounces it and inexorably presses it, it does not go further, out of a sense of self-preservation. For as soon as he says that the soul exists separately, he will immediately have to recognize its spirituality; and this means encroaching on one’s own life. So he persists. The view of our pamphlets is bolder, and this, of course, is because they did not put themselves face to face with the question: how to explain the completely spiritual actions of the soul when it is an etheric body. Only in one place, as we have already seen, is it said in passing that thought and other highest manifestations of spirituality are the ability of the soul, as they usually say, seemingly forgetting about their position, that our soul is ether - nothing more, that ether from which exact sciences produce light, heat, electricity and so on. How much inconsistency there is in this is obvious. But we will return to this subject. Thus, an unusual opinion is being formed, and it is being formed not in the name of science (although it is given a small participation here), with the demands of which we are now accustomed to hide behind ourselves, legally or illegally, but according to the principles of the holy Christian faith, on the basis of the Word of God and the scriptures of the Fathers. The question arises: has the question of the nature of the soul and angels really not been resolved in the Church of God? Decided, and decided very definitely. In the “Orthodox Confession”, in response to question 18, we read: “God is the Creator of visible and invisible creatures... and He created this intelligent world... then this material world... finally, man, made up of an immaterial and rational soul and a material body. One and the same is the Creator of both worlds, immaterial and material.” And in answer to the 19th question it is directly said that angels are spirits. In the Long Christian Catechism, in the first clause, to the question: “what should be understood in the Creed by the name of the invisible,” the answer is: “the invisible or spiritual world, to which the angels belong.” To the question: “what are angels,” it is said: “bodiless spirits, gifted with mind, will and power.” In the same term, the question: “what is the breath of life breathed by God into man at his creation” is resolved as follows: “soul, a spiritual and immortal being.” From this follow the following irrefutable provisions: angels are invisible disembodied spirits that make up the mental world, opposite to the material; souls are also spiritual and rational beings, invisible and immaterial. Thus, according to the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church, materiality is decisively denied in the nature of souls and angels, and, it must be understood, all materiality, not only gross, but also subtle, because the refinement of a substance does not make it immaterial. No matter how subtle the ether is, no one will call it immaterial; therefore, by denying materiality in the nature of the soul and angels, the Holy Church also denies their ethereality. If by the words: “the soul and angels are invisible, immaterial,” one should only mean that they do not have gross materiality, tangible and visible, then this would certainly be explained so that Christians, taught the truths of the Orthodox faith, could have precise concepts about the nature of the soul and angels, without omitting such essential features. And since this has not been done, we are obliged to give these words a general affirmative meaning, especially since the words “smart world”, “intelligent souls” are included here - terms that no one has applied and does not apply to any material body, no matter how subtle it may be understood. When angels are called the intelligent or mental world, this suggests that just as thought has nothing material, so the nature of intelligent angels, and with them, rational souls, has nothing material. This teaching is preached and taught everywhere in our country: from the church pulpit, and in seminaries, and in academies, and in universities, and in gymnasiums, and in all schools - wherever the catechism is read. All of us profess that souls and angels are spiritual beings. What now: if this is the teaching and if all Orthodox believe this way, then, therefore, the view expressed in the brochures goes against the teaching of the Church and against the general Christian belief? Obviously so. But they themselves (the authors of the brochures - ed.) do not realize this. They do not think that they are deviating from the immutable truth, but are confident that they are interpreting the true teaching of the Church, which our theologians allegedly spoiled by studying almost exclusively from Western textbooks and not caring to check what they study with real documents of Orthodox truth. They maintain a tone as if they were actually rediscovering the truth, changed into a lie. And since against such a statement stands the evidence of their own deviation from the Orthodox teaching and the general understanding of these subjects; then they hasten, from the very first words, to ward off the unfavorable opinion that could arise from this with a special interpretation of the words: “invisible”, “immaterial”, “spiritual”, with which everyone distinguishes souls and angels from other beings. It is as if these words should not be understood in their own sense. Souls and angels are invisible only to our gross feelings; by themselves, in their nature, they are visible, and they are truly visible when someone’s eyes are opened to see them. Likewise, when they are called spiritual, this does not mean a special quality of their nature, but expresses the same thing as the word invisible. “Although the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Church generally call God spirit, and angels, demons, and human souls spirits, this only expresses the fact that both God, angels, demons, and souls are invisible to our bodily eyes. They are called incorporeal, immaterial for the reason that they are not subject to our senses, and thus differ from the category of objects of matter, subject to our senses. In the commonly used way of expression, which scientists also adhere to outside their offices, what is subject to our feelings is called material, and what is not subject is called spiritual, immaterial. The general image of expression is used most by the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, since the purpose of both the Scriptures and the Fathers was that the word proclaimed by them should be intelligible to all people” (“Addition to the Word...”). It turns out that just like when we talk about the sun: “rises and sets,” we say one thing and think another; Likewise, when we talk about the soul and angels: “invisible”, “immaterial”, “spiritual”, we must mean something else by this, and not what these words express, and not only something else, but quite the opposite, namely: by invisible we mean visibility, by immaterial - materiality, by spiritual - subtlety. Is this interpretation legal? After all, about the sun, in ordinary speech, even scientists say: “rises and sets”; and when it comes to the subject itself, or when it comes to answering the question: “is the sun standing or is it moving,” then even non-scientists now answer that it is standing, but its movement is an illusion of the eye. About souls and angels, and in the study of scientists, and in books, and in conversations, always and everything with the words: “invisible, immaterial, spiritual,” connects the direct meaning, and as they say, so they think that they are immaterial and spiritual. In the book “The Science of the World of God,” for the people, although everywhere it is said about the sun and stars: “they rise and set,” it is explained in its place that they stand, and it is explained why they seem to move. About the soul and angels, not a single catechism, when it comes to their nature, does not explain that their invisibility is only apparent, and their spirituality is subtlety. Until now, it had never occurred to anyone to see an allegory in these words. Why is this so? Because in relation to angels and souls, deception of vision or inference has not yet been proven. Before the discovery of its standing, no one even thought about the sun that it was standing, and everyone was just as convinced as they said that it was moving. Then, when it was revealed that it was standing, the speech remained the same, but a different thought entered. The same should be done in relation to the soul and angels. First it is necessary to discover that they are material and corporeal, and then to interpret what is said about them, that they are immaterial and spiritual. Whether the new teaching has discovered materiality in what was considered immaterial, and subtlety in what was considered spiritual, this will be shown by an analysis of the foundations on which it rests, to which we now proceed. These foundations are set out in full detail in the “Addition to the Word on Death.” Here, on the very first pages, in order to hide the fact that they are rebelling against our dominant belief, extracts are made from a Western theologian, which are then refuted: this gives the appearance that it is not the teaching of our Church that is being criticized, but the Western one. We leave this diversion without any special comments and write out only the last lines from this section of the “Addition”: “The Western writer thinks to base his opinion on Holy Scripture, on the Fathers of the Church and science. “In these three respects,” the pamphlet says, “we are obliged to present a satisfactory refutation of it.” With these last words, the new teaching about the corporeality of the soul and angels claims that it has a guarantee for itself in the Word of God, and in the Holy Fathers, and in science, or in general in considerations of common reason. Under these three headings we will collect all the thoughts and evidence with which this teaching surrounds itself. Let us, however, allow ourselves to deviate somewhat from the order that this article follows, and first consider the evidence cited from the Holy Fathers; and then we will move on to consider the evidence from the Word of God and, finally, to scientific considerations of the mind. Consideration of the testimonies of the Holy Fathers about the nature of the soul and angels Let us pay attention to the teaching of the Holy Fathers on this subject, not only of those whose testimonies are literally given in the brochure, but also of all those whom it touched in any way, hinting that it may have them on its side. First of all, let us examine the testimony of St. John of Damascus and St. Macarius of Egypt, since they are the main ones in this matter; then let us turn to the teachings of the great universal teachers and saints - Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom; and then to all the other holy Fathers: Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Methodius, Cassian, Augustine the Blessed, Theodoret, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa. Of all the paternal testimonies with which the new teaching wants to protect itself, only the testimonies of St. John of Damascus and Macarius of Egypt can it somehow draw on its hand. The testimonies of other holy Fathers cited by him do not say at all what he wants, while in other places the Fathers clearly pronounce judgments completely opposite to him. Consequently, one has only to take away the power of evidence from this first evidence, and the new teaching will remain without evidence on this side. I start with Saint John of Damascus. Actually, he alone is a weighty witness, deliberately discussing the nature of angels, while Saint Macarius expresses his opinion in passing. The opinion of Saint Damascene in his own words is very short, which is given only in the “Tale on Death”, and in the “Addition” it is taken from Dogmatic Theology, a textbook where, as required by the system, it is expressed in more paraphrase. But what will you see in the excerpts? One must read the entire teaching of Saint Damascus about angels in connection, and it will be revealed that Saint Damascus has completely different thoughts than the new teaching holds. Thus, in the book. 2 about the Orthodox faith, in ch. 3 we read: “He (God) is the creator and creator of angels, who brought them into existence from the non-existent, in His image He created them - an incorporeal nature, as if a certain spirit and immaterial fire, as the Divine David says: “angels create their spirits and scorch their servants” (Ps. 103:4).” Notice these words: “incorporeal nature, like some kind of spirit and immaterial fire.” Saint Damascene speaks here exactly in the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian, who, having said: “as if a certain spirit and immaterial fire,” and fearing that someone might be misled by these words and ascribe some kind of materiality to the angels, added: “This (angelic) nature is called spirit and fire, partly as mental, partly as purifying (and not as something material, even if thin); because the first essence (God) accepts the same names” (Sk. 28 at the end). Do you see what the holy Theologian’s thought is? Just as in God, when He is called spirit and fire, one should not see anything material, so one should not see anything material in the angels, when they are called the same. This is also the thought of Saint Damascus: that is, he did not see anything material in the angels, calling them that. Then it immediately reads: “So, an angel is a mental nature, ever-moving, autocratic, incorporeal, serving God, which by grace in its nature has received immortality, the form and limit of which nature is known only by the Creator. It is called incorporeal and immaterial because it is compared with us: for everything, when compared with God, the only incomparable one, turns out to be rough and material. One Divinity is actually immaterial and incorporeal.” This is the main place on which the new teaching plans to rest. Let us focus on it with all our attention in order to determine whether there is a decisive teaching here about the corporeality of the angelic nature or not. I assert that there is no such teaching here, and I deduce this statement, firstly, from considering the passage itself, and secondly, from comparing it with other passages of the same chapter. Does the place itself say decisively that an angel is a body, as the new teaching wants? Doesn't speak. It only says that if you compare the angelic nature with God, then it will turn out to be rough and material, remaining immaterial in itself (for this is the main position of the teaching of this Father about angels). He says: being comparable, that is, when you look at the angelic nature after contemplating the incomparable Divine nature, it turns out to be rough and material; “just as,” I add, “as when one enters a not so brightly lit room from a brightly lit courtyard and finds it gloomy, or as when one touches warm water with a hand heated in hot water, one finds it cold. But just as someone who in the above cases considered the room dark and the water cold, later recognizes the room as light, when the eye is freed from the impression of bright sunlight, and the water as warm, when the hot hand cools, recognizes, that is, that there is no absence of light in the room, and no warmth in the water, as it seemed to him; so in relation to angels, when they look at them directly, they cannot help but recognize that they are spirits. This is the thought of Saint Damascus. He does not deny the spirituality of angels and souls, but only asserts that their spirituality is such that if you compare it with the Divine, it will seem rude. There are a lot of such phrases in human speech. In general, both Saint Damascus and other holy Fathers, when after contemplating God they turn their minds to creatures, do not see anything essentially solid in the latter, although by the gift of God the Creator they possess many perfections. There are immortal creatures, but in comparison with God no one is immortal (Saint Damascus in the same chapter); There are simple ones, but in comparison with God nothing is simple (Basily the Great, T. 6, p. 27); there are good ones, but in comparison with God no one is good; finally, all creation has an existence given to it by God, but in comparison with God, Who alone is “He” (Ex. 3:14), everything is like a ghost and nothing. But just as in the latter cases, neither being, nor simplicity, nor immortality is denied to creatures to the extent inherent in them; So in the first, the immateriality of angels is not denied, although they are recognized as being material when compared with the Divine nature. In the creatures of God, existence, simplicity, goodness, immortality, although they are not otherwise than by the Grace of God (of course, the grace of creation), are still in their nature, as St. Damascus states about the immortality of Angels: “by grace they received immortality in nature.” This means that he nevertheless recognizes the angelic nature as immortal. This is exactly how one should interpret his concept of the immateriality of angels, that is, that it is in them, although it is by grace and to a certain degree (combined with creatureliness). When he says, for example (in the same Book, Chapter 12, in the doctrine of man), that one is incorporeal, invisible and formless by nature, like God, and another by grace, such as angels, demons, souls, then how can there be any doubt that he recognized these latter in their kind as immaterial and incorporeal? So, those who want to express the thought of Saint Damascus about the nature of angels and souls, directly say that he recognized them as immaterial only in comparison with us, are acting very unfairly. The direct thought of Saint Damascus is that they are mental, immaterial, incorporeal beings; the same idea that they are like us compared to us is put in a reservation, and this is not the same thing as saying it directly. In the passage cited, he positively testifies to the immateriality of the angelic nature, and then makes a reservation about the relativity of this immateriality. He expresses his main thought about the nature of angels even more clearly when in Chapter 12. of the same Book begins the doctrine of man. “So,” he says, “God created a mental nature, that is, angels, and all the heavenly ranks,” making it clear that, according to his teaching, they are of a mental nature, and not a physical one. This is his main point about angels. The addition of comparative spirituality only warns against anyone comparing the nature of angels with the nature of God: for although angels are God-like, they are not consubstantial with God. This means that in vain the new teaching is based on the passage of St. John of Damascus that we cited. It does not have the thought that this teaching wants to see in it. Drawing from it a decisive conclusion about the materiality of the nature of angels and souls, the teaching allows for falsehood in the conclusion. Now look at what Saint Damascus further says about angels, and you will agree that under no circumstances should one suggest in him the idea of ​​the materiality of the angelic nature. Listen, for example, to how Saint Damascus explains the mutual communication of angels with each other. “Angels,” he says, “are mental lights, second from the first and beginningless light, having enlightenment, not needing language and hearing, but without words spoken by the tongue (proforicon), transmitting to each other their thoughts and desires” (Book 2, Chapter 3). What is the substance here? If Saint Damascus had recognized them as material, he would have said that angels have tongues, eyes and other members, see each other, talk with each other, visit each other. This is how the new teaching recognizes angels as material, and claims that they have a head, eyes, lips, breasts, arms, legs, and hair, in a word, everything that a person has. If Saint Damascus does not allow anything like this, but, on the contrary, explains the mutual communication of angels in a spiritual, mental way; then it is obvious that he does not recognize angels as real. Listen again to how Saint Damascus understands the relationship of angels to place. “Like minds, they exist in mental places, not being describable like bodies: for by their nature they do not have a form or image like bodies, they do not have three dimensions, but they are mentally present and act where they are commanded, and cannot at the same time be and act here and there” (Ibid.). This completely frees the nature of angels from those crude forms in which the new teaching presents them, based on the appearances of angels and transferring the image of the appearance to the image of nature. And Saint Damascus teaches that, although they are not in heaven, when they are sent to earth, and although they cannot be here and there at the same time; but when they are in some place, they do not appear to be outlined here by any shape, extended in height, length and width. They do not have such dimensions, they do not have any form, as bodies tend to have. Therefore, we can only say that they are here, and not there, that they exert their effect here, and not there. So that they do not think that I am arbitrarily interpreting the words of Saint Damascus about the relationship of angels to the place he called a “mental place,” I write out how Saint Damascus himself understands his “mental place.” “There is a mental place where mental and incorporeal nature is contemplated and exists, where it is present and acts mentally, and not being encompassed bodily or like bodies. For it does not have the form to be embraced bodily” (Book 1, chapter 13). This is how to eat the incorporeal in a certain place. It exists, is inherent, acts, but does not occupy it and is not embraced by it. And here are his other words, in fact, about the angelic place. “An angel is not kept in a place like bodies, so as to take on some form or form. But it is said that he is in a certain place for the sake of what is mentally present in it and acts according to his nature, and that at the same time he does not happen in another place, but mentally imagines himself there, where he acts. For he cannot act in different places at the same time” (Ibid.). But if in this way, according to Saint Damascus, angels do not occupy space and are not embraced by it, if they do not have any extension and appearance; then it is obvious that, according to his teaching, they do not have any substance, no matter how subtle they imagine it; because nothing material can exist without these accessories; and what does not have them is no longer material. The new teaching, as soon as it recognized angels as material, then began to repeat that they are subordinate to space, have a form, are outlined by their limits and extremities, have their own appearance (“The Word on Death”), that is, began to repeat completely contrary to what Saint Damascus asserts. But there is one more place in Saint Damascus not to please the new teaching, namely, about the time of the creation of angels. “Some argue,” he says, “that angels were created before all creation, as Saint Gregory the Theologian says: “First, (God) conceives angelic, heavenly powers, and thought became action...” I completely agree with the Theologian. For the mental nature had to be created first, then the sensory and, finally, man, one of both” (Book 1, Chapter 13). Basil the Great is of exactly the same opinion. Here are three witnesses! With three witnesses, “every word will stand” (2 Cor. 13:1). But which one? Of course, not the verb of the new teaching, but ours. For if angels were created first of all corporeal and material without limitation, then how can one think that they were a body, even a subtle one? The Holy Fathers do not say that first subtle bodies were created - angels, and then other gross bodies; but in general they assert that angels were created before any material creature. Consequently, according to their teaching, one should see absolutely nothing material in angels. So, I conclude regarding the evidence cited from Saint Damascus to prove the opinion about the corporeality of the soul and angels, that from consideration of the place itself and from consideration of the entire teaching of Saint Damascus about angels, it turns out irrefutably that Saint John of Damascus had no thought about the corporeality of the soul and angel. Therefore, the new teaching cannot point to Saint John as its patron and predecessor, who allegedly laid down its first features. I turn to the testimony given from Saint Macarius the Great. “The limitless, unapproachable and uncreated God,” says Saint Macarius, “by His boundless and inconceivable goodness, embodied Himself and, so to speak, as if diminished in unapproachable glory, so that He could enter into unity with His invisible creatures, I mean the souls of saints and angels, and they could be involved in the life of the Divine. And every creature, and angel, and soul, and demon, by its own nature, is a body, because, although they are refined, yet in their essence, in their distinctive features and in their image, according to the refinement of their nature, they are subtle bodies, while our body, in its essence, is plump” (Conversation 4, Chapter 9). Having considered this passage with the previous and subsequent ones, I must say that it is very difficult to reach the true thought of Saint Macarius. Judging by some phrases, one might think that here, too, there is no thought that “The Word on Death” wants to see. However, if someone proves that Saint Macarius was exactly of the opinion that is associated with his words, then we will establish the general position that a private opinion belonging to one father cannot express the teachings of the Church and is not obligatory for anyone, and we will remain calm with the old opinion. Take into account one thing: not a single edition of the works of Saint Macarius leaves this place without a special note. Both in the current edition of the Moscow Academy, and in previous translations, under this place there is a note that it should be understood in the sense not of a detached, but of a relative one. This means that we have never understood this place literally. The articles we analyzed were the first to give it a literal meaning. If we now talk about this circumstance according to the principles of the Church, where community of opinion prevails rather than private views, then we must assume that Saint Macarius has no thought about the corporeality of the soul and the angel, because hitherto no one has seen such a thought there. Only the “Tale on Death” began to impose such a thought on Saint Macarius. This is therefore a private view, which one must marvel at how it dared to appear among the Orthodox, of whom none looked and does not look at this place with such eyes. After this general remark, I will limit myself to explaining why this passage cannot be taken literally. Above the above passage is this: “I intend, to the best of my ability, to utter some subtle and thoughtful word. So listen wisely.” Let's dwell on this word. You see, Saint Macarius himself says that his speech will not be ordinary, and he invites you to listen to him not simply. Think about what is unusual, subtle and thoughtful about this. What subtlety and depth is there in the words: “and the angel, and the soul, and the demon - the body”? If we take them literally, then they are much simpler and more understandable than if it were said that the angel, soul and demon are pure spirits. And would it be worth warning in this case: look, I want to say something special? But because the words are simple, and yet they promise to convey something subtle and deep through them, one should not understand them in their own sense. And when Saint Macarius says: “Listen wisely,” then, of course, he wants to inspire: be careful, do not be deceived by the simplicity of speech and do not take it literally. And this means the same thing: “look, although it is said: angel, soul and demon - body, but this must be understood differently.” Let us dwell on the first half of the above passage. “The boundless, unapproachable and uncreated God, by His boundless and inconceivable goodness, embodied Himself and, so to speak, diminished in unapproachable glory, so that He could enter into unity with His visible creatures, I mean the souls of saints and angels, and they could be involved in the life of the Divine.” The literal meaning of this speech shows that it is talking about the incarnation of the Son of God, for He humbled Himself, “taking on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7); but why did the Only Begotten Son of God become incarnate? Of course, the answer must be the words of the creed: for our sake, man and ours for the sake of salvation. Why are there angels here? We fell away from God, not they. In order to reunite us with Himself, He Himself descends to us and incarnates; the good angels did not fall, but always remained in unity with God, and the reunion of the evil ones is considered impossible. Where does it say that God became incarnate for the sake of union with the angels? Angels, therefore, are placed along with us, and it turns out that the incarnation was as necessary for them as for us. Who thought so in the Church of God, and even outside the Church? Thus, it is revealed that, in saying this, Saint Macarius, a spirit-bearing man, did not know the first rudiments of the Christian faith? This conclusion is the most direct and natural. Anyone who takes this paragraph literally will not escape this conclusion. Let the new teaching either abandon the literal meaning in order to preserve the honor of Saint Macarius, or, strictly adhering to the literal meaning, for the sake of his superstition, bring reproach on the God-bearing father. We have nothing to fear from such a disaster. Heeding the warning of Saint Macarius - to listen wisely, we do not literally understand either this 9th paragraph or the ones that follow it. In all of them there is a deep allegory that is difficult to explain. Only the general idea is visible that the inquisitive God is ready to diminish himself in every possible way, just to enter into communication with rational creatures. But in detail, many phrases here are decidedly incomprehensible. Let them explain to us, for example, why in the 9th paragraph it is not emphasized by the word that the Only Begotten Son of God was incarnate, whereas this was required by the accuracy of the expression? What kind of thought is there again in the words: “He embodied Himself... the limitless one,” so that He could enter into unity with the souls of saints and angels? The souls of saints are understandable, but what are the souls of angels? Following this, the angels are called the subtle body. Therefore, according to the thought of Saint Macarius, subtle-bodied angels have, in addition to a body, a soul, or they are spirits clothed with a subtle body. Therefore, further, they are called body after this external side of their being, being pure spirits on the internal side. And since our souls are equal to the angels, it follows that they are also called body only on the outer side, and not on the basis of their rational-spiritual essence. From this place we must conclude that Saint Macarius belongs to those holy Fathers who recognized both the soul and the angels as clothed in a subtle etheric body. If this is so, then Saint Macarius is not on the side of the new teaching. Who does not know that the hypostatic union of the Divine with humanity exists only in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? How does the 10th paragraph say that God, entering into unity with faithful souls, happens with them “hypostasis to hypostasis”? Does this not convey the idea that he is hypostatically incarnated in every believer? And again, how is it immediately said that, having humbled Himself, God put on the members of the body, just as the soul is clothed with them? This is similar to the Apollinarian heresy, according to which the Divinity was recognized in the Lord Jesus Christ instead of the soul. What else is it that the 12th paragraph says about God, that He will transform into anything for worthy and faithful souls, even into the city of light - Jerusalem, or into the mountain - heavenly Zion? I purposely bring all these passages together to show how dangerous it is to take literally all the phrases contained in these paragraphs. The new teaching, strictly adhering to the literal meaning, either itself must accept all the indicated incorrect thoughts in order to reveal itself as a disciple of St. Macarius, literally understood, or, while protecting his honor, bring reproach on St. Macarius as if he did not understand the simplest Christian truths. One of two things, but one or the other is inevitable for him. If, in order to avoid this inexorable conclusion, it says that this is not talking about the incarnation of God the Word, but in general about the approach of the merciful God to rational creatures, then it will have to agree that the word “incarnate”, used many times here, should be understood not in a literal, but in a figurative sense. If so, then one should not take literally the place where it is said that the angel, soul and demon are the body; for otherwise why would other passages be understood not literally, but this one literally?.. How is it possible: five times on three pages the word (body) will have a figurative meaning, and once only its own meaning, and moreover, precisely in order to establish a teaching unprecedented in the Christian world: about the corporeality of angels and souls; whereas in other places, in order to eliminate concepts also unprecedented in the Christian world, this word will be given a figurative meaning? So, the general conclusion from consideration of the place in which Saint Macarius says that the angel and the soul are the body is that it should not be literally understood in any way. But someone will say: if you don’t want to understand it literally, then tell me how to understand it? I answer directly: I don’t know how. After all, Saint Macarius, not only here, but throughout the entire composition of his writings, has a lot of incomprehensible things. Wanting to bring lofty spiritual truths as close as possible to understanding, he speaks of almost nothing without comparisons. That’s why he has images and comparisons everywhere, which then, in a lively conversation, perhaps with explanations, were understood, but now you can’t understand others in any way, can’t apply them to your case and can’t explain them to yourself. Therefore, it is necessary to read and use it with great caution. Take the first conversation for example. Paragraph 2 says, for example, that the soul, having received the Spirit of God, becomes all face, all eye, all full of eyes, and does not have any last or back side, but from everywhere it appears as a face. See what a comparison! You can’t imagine him even with yourself. If the soul is all face, then how is it all eye? If the whole eye is obviously one eye, then how is it full of eyes? If there is no back side, and there is a face there, then how about one face? If there is a face behind and a face on the left, then there are several faces? Isn’t it true that it is difficult to imagine the similarity itself, and what it means is even more difficult to understand. But it is obvious in every way that it cannot be understood literally. Let us remember at the same time that brochures, based on the words of Saint Macarius, in other places claim that the soul has all members, like the visible body, that is, the head, eyes, ears, hands, the whole body, legs. They literally understand these phrases of Saint Macarius, which are definitely found in him. And we will literally understand what is given before this place and will repeat: it’s not true; the soul does not have all the parts, but it is all an eye, or it is all a face. If, in order not to talk idle talk, the last place must be understood in a figurative sense; then would it be legitimate to understand in the proper sense the passage cited in the brochures, that the soul and the angel have the appearance that a person usually has? Will it be legal again and in general to see in the words of Saint Macarius the idea of ​​the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angels? I am finally forced to apply my assumption, born from a closer examination of the flow of speech in the entire 4th conversation of St. Macarius and a comparison of the contents of paragraphs - from 9 to 13 - with the previous and subsequent paragraphs. Read paragraph 13. Having reached the last point, which begins with the words: “and the soul that has been honored... to receive... power from above has... the fire of heavenly life and is freed from the bonds of vice,” one cannot help but notice that this point, although connected by the particle “a” with the previous speech of the paragraph (which says that God is holy in various ways, as He pleases), is in complete discord with it. Looking at this, I thought at first that this item was an addition that did not belong here. But going up from it, through paragraphs 13, 12, 11, 10 and 9, which variously interpret how God creates and transforms Himself in every possible way, sometimes in expressions that give a very strange meaning, and stopping at the end of the 8th paragraph, I see that the end of the 13th paragraph is in perfect agreement with this end of the 8th, and with the entire paragraph, which also talks about acceptance of the spirit and cleansing of our nature, defiled by vice, - and even in the same expressions; for just as in paragraph 8 it says that “with much supplication, supplication, with faith, prayer...” grace is received, so at the end of paragraph 13: “with great desire and aspiration, with faith and love” power is received from above. This gave rise to the idea that the end of the 13th paragraph was separated from its native 8th paragraph by an insertion that did not belong here. So, from everything that has been said about the passage cited from the conversations of Saint Macarius, it turns out that it cannot provide the new teaching with strong support: for, if it is genuine, then in the course of speech it should not be understood literally; if it is not genuine, then there is no point in referring to it. Isn’t it better, when testing your thoughts with the teaching of Saint Macarius, to dwell on those places that are clear, do not imply any allegory, and most importantly, do not contain anything different from the teaching of the entire host of the Holy Fathers? The testimonies of the great saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom are deliberately put together: for they alone are strong to resolve the dispute. Of these, the author of the brochures himself cites passages in his justification only from St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom. He mentions Saint Gregory in the 15th extract from a Western writer, but in such a way that he considers him on his side. About all the passages from the Holy Fathers cited in the brochure, it must be said, as has already been noted, that they are not talking at all about what she wants to see in their speeches, as will be revealed upon closer examination of them, which forced me, after the passages cited from them, to turn to other passages of the same Fathers in order to more accurately define their teaching about the nature of the soul and angels. This will be the general order of the notes that follow. From St. Basil the Great only one passage is given, the following. Saint Basil the Great says: “As for his (the devil’s) nature, it is incorporeal, in the words of the Apostle: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against... the spirits of evil” (Eph. 6:12). The place of his (the devil’s) authority is the air, as the same apostle said: “according to the will of the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).” Further, in the same word, Saint Basil said that “hordes of demons, subordinate to their prince, are in the air”; that by the word “air” we must mean “the entire space between heaven and earth” (From the Word of Basil the Great, that God is not the author of evil). What do these words of St. Basil the Great prove? Absolutely nothing in favor of the new teaching, but everything in our favor. He says that the nature of evil spirits is incorporeal. It takes a lot of interpretation so that, when it is said: “nature is incorporeal,” one can make it mean corporeal nature. The nature of spirits is ethereal because they do not have any flesh, neither gross nor subtle, because they are pure spirits. That this is the thought of Saint Basil is clear from the text that he cites in support of this: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood...” (Eph. 6:12). What kind of abuse is this? Not at all carnal, but spiritual, accomplished in the thoughts and movements of the heart. An evil thought enters and is repelled by a good thought. Is there anything physical here? That is why the apostle says in another place: “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds; with them we overthrow plans” (2 Cor. 10:4). If the warfare that Saint Basil points to in confirmation of his thought about the incorporeality of those who fight against us is spiritual; it is obvious that, calling their nature incorporeal, he understood it as purely spiritual. That Saint Basil, following the Apostle, believes that air is the place of residence of spirits, this proves absolutely nothing, for spirits must be somewhere. The power is not in the fact that they are in a certain place, but in how they are located. Basil the Great says nothing about this; and how this should be understood, we saw from Saint Damascus, that is, that they are in a certain place intelligently, spiritually, and the very place where they are is called a smart place. From this it is clear that neither by their place nor by their stay in it should one understand anything carnal or corporeal. So, it is obvious that the passage from Basil the Great cited by the pamphlets does not confirm their thought, but rather ours. I will now cite other passages from the writings of Saint Basil, so that everyone can see for themselves what the teaching of this universal teacher is about the nature of the soul and angels. This is how Saint Basil the Great teaches about the creation of the angelic world: “There was something, most likely, before this world; but this, although comprehensible to our understanding, is nevertheless not introduced into the narrative, as inappropriate for the powers of the newly taught and infants by reason. Even earlier than the existence of the world, there was a certain state befitting the supermundane forces, transcending time, eternal, ever-continuing. In it, the Creator of all things created creations - mental light, befitting the bliss of those who love the Lord, rational and invisible natures and all the decoration of intellectual creatures that surpass our understanding, so that it is impossible to invent names for them. They fill with themselves the essence of the invisible world, as Paul teaches us, saying: “By Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” ​​(Col. 1:16)” (Discourse on the Six Days, pp. 7, 8). After reading this passage, who would not be convinced that angels, according to Saint Basil, cannot have anything material or corporeal. They were created before any substance; That is why for him they are supermundane powers, mental light, rational natures, intelligible creatures. This idea is the same in both Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian and is found more than once in both of them: therefore, this is not a phrase that came out by chance, but a thought-out position that entered into the general system of their teaching. Based on this, we can consider all expressions similar to the above mentioned in Basil the Great as expressions of the concept of them as immaterial and incorporeal spirits. And there are a lot of such expressions. I will list them. In volume 2 on page 255 it says: “Seraphim is a certain premium power.” If it is a superior force, then how will it be a body or any substance? There are no bodies above the world, and there is no substance. He applies the same word to the seraphim a little higher, on pages 251, 250. On page 250, moreover, he divides the entire totality of creatures into mental and sensory, just like Gregory the Theologian. And on page 249, the angels sent to help the saints are called Divine powers. By mental creatures, of course, he does not mean anything corporeal or material; for what is mentality in body and matter? As well as under divine or god-like powers. There is nothing material in God. In volume 3, on page 287, the angelic premium forces are called pure and spiritual. By spirit there on pp. 264–265, he means something incorporeal, purely immaterial and uncomplicated. I think that anyone who is unprejudiced will be satisfied with the evidence presented and will agree to admit that Saint Basil the Great considered angels to be pure spirits. But I believe that these testimonies will receive even greater firmness and persuasiveness if we add to them the passages of St. Basil, in which he expresses his concept of the soul as a spiritual force, completely immaterial. I will give some evidence about this. In volume 4 on page 34, Basil the Great solves the questions: “what are we, what is around us?” And he answers: “the soul and mind are us.” His soul and mind are not like one another, but identical (vol. 5, p. 390). Consequently, that which recognizes itself in us as us, and not as something else, our distinctive, characteristic part, is the soul-mind. But who ever considered the mind to be a body, or something material? According to Basil the Great, what is mind? “The mind is,” he says, “something beautiful, it is what makes us created in the image of God” (vol. 7, p. 155). Is God a body, so that one can think that the soul-mind is also a body? Therefore, when Basil the Great generally defines a person with these words: “this is what a person is: closely associated with suitable and decent flesh” (vol. 4, p. 330); It would not even occur to anyone that by the word mind-soul they mean anything corporeal and material. Honoring the soul as spiritual, Saint Basil prescribes spiritual food for it. “Just as a person,” he says, “is dual, consisting of soul and body, so his food is twofold. Food for the soul - deeds of piety, dogmas of faith, moral lessons; from them the soul grows and strengthens. On the contrary, whoever does not partake of saving and life-giving teachings exhausts his mind-soul” (vol. 2, pp. 54–55). Tell me, how can a substance, no matter how subtle it is, be nourished with spiritual, intellectual food?! It seems that would be enough. But I consider it necessary to indicate one more place in which the relationship of the soul to the body is determined. In volume 5 on page 381 it is written: “The mental force is twofold, although the thought is the same, namely: one is the actual vital force of the body, and the other is the contemplative force, which is also called rational... But the soul, since it is connected to the body naturally, as a result of this connection, and not arbitrarily, imparts vital force to the body. For just as it is impossible for the sun to shine not to illuminate that on which it extends its rays, so it is impossible for the soul not to animate the body in which it resides. And the contemplative power is set in motion at will.” This place takes away any pretext not only for considering the soul a body, but also for inventing any means for connecting the soul with the body in some thin shell of the soul. After all, the soul is a real, living force, albeit an intelligent, purely spiritual one. With its everyday, so to speak, physical side, it organizes the body, animates it, moves and acts through it; and on the other side - the highest, at the same time he is aware of himself, acts freely, contemplates the heavenly, reflects on the earthly and strives for the Divine and eternal. From this the conclusion is also drawn that if the soul is characterized by the power to act on material things while it is in the body, then there is no reason to imagine it not having this power when it is separated from the body, and that just as angels have a natural power to act on material elements, so the same power is characteristic of the souls of those who have departed, and that, therefore, when those who have departed from this life appear, to explain this there is no need to assume that they have a shell, much less to think that they are body, but it is enough to make sure that the soul naturally has the power to act on the elements, which it can attract to itself and tear away from itself when required. I remember that this idea was expounded at length by Gregory of Nyssa, in a conversation about the soul and resurrection. With this we will end the extract of testimonies from St. Basil the Great. Let us now turn to Saint Gregory the Theologian. From St. Gregory the Theologian, the “Addition to the Word on Death” itself does not provide evidence, but, pointing out the sayings of the Holy Fathers, which confuse the Western theologian who recognizes the soul and the angel as a spirit, it puts in the first place: “Gregory the Theologian says that an angel is a being of a fiery nature or a rational spirit.” We have already mentioned this when analyzing the testimony from St. Damascus and saw that it not only should not hinder those who recognize the spirituality of the nature of the soul and angels, but, on the contrary, it can be boldly cited by them in their justification and in refuting the opposite opinion. For Saint Gregory, having called the angel fire and spirit, immediately explains that these words must be understood in the same way as they are understood when applied to the First Essence, that is, that nothing material should be connected to them. This passage is found in volume 3 on page 50. Having ascended in thought to the mental, heavenly, incorruptible nature, he says that “it is called fire and spirit; for it is said that (God) creates “his angels and spirits and his servants a flame of fire” (Ps. 103:4). This nature is called spirit and fire, partly as mental, and partly as purifying; because the First Essence also accepts the same names. However, let it be incorporeal for us.” As a result of this, a few lines later, Saint Gregory defines the nature of angels with the following features: “they are intelligent powers, and minds, pure, unalloyed natures.” From this we can already see Saint Gregory’s thought about the nature of angels. And wherever he happened to talk about them, he portrayed them in such a way that nothing material could be connected with his words, although for the most part, in his poetic mood, he spoke about them figuratively. So, in volume 4 on page 229, he says about the angels: “let us think about the first beings from God and around God, that is, about the angelic and heavenly powers that are the first to drink from the First Light, and, enlightened by the word of truth, they themselves are light and reflections of perfect Light.” If angels are reflections of perfect Light and light themselves, then how can we call them material? Perfect Light, that is, God, is the purest Spirit, and therefore His reflections must also be pure spirits. Even more obvious is Saint Gregory’s thought about angels expressed by him in volume 3 on page 22, where he, while proving that God cannot be a body, among other things, makes provisions that deny any corporeality in angels. “Will you,” he says, “call the Divinity a body? But how can you call it (if so) infinite, having neither limits nor outline, intangible, invisible? If you say that God is immaterial heat and, moreover, as some think, simple and rotating (let the immaterial and simple be admitted), and if you like, even an incorporeal body, since their words are carried and composed arbitrarily: then to what kind of movable and portable will this body belong?.. What again moves it? What moves everything? What sets in motion that from which everything moves? And then, what motivates this very thing? - and so on ad infinitum." Thus, according to Saint Gregory, the body, even if it were the most subtle, even an immaterial and incorporeal body, is not characterized by movement. It must be moved by an outside force; Therefore, if an angel and a soul are a body, even an immaterial one, we find it appropriate to ask: what moves them? And if what moves them is again the subtlest body, then again the question is: what moves this very thing? - until we stop at something self-moving, which a body cannot be. Further on page 24, Saint Gregory says: “But if they say that God is some other body, even, for example, an angelic one, then how do they know that angels are corporeal, what kind of bodies do they have?” These are the words that strike the new teaching right to the heart. Saint Gregory the Theologian did not even think that angels were corporeal, and he even asks others, where do you get this from? such a teaching is not of our yard...” Let us repeat, following the ecumenical teacher, that the teaching that an angel is a body is “a teaching not of our yard,” not a teaching of the Holy Church of Christ. I will now put together those places where the holy Theologian calls the angels by names that he could not possibly apply to them if he understood them as bodies. Thus (Part 3, p. 20) he says that they are higher and spiritual natures, which, being closer to God, see Him more fully (Part 3, p. 50), that they are intelligent forces, or minds, of pure and unalloyed natures (Part 4, p. 275), that an angel is the second light, a certain stream, or a part of the First Light (Part 4, p. 154), that angels they are first beings, spiritual and pure (part 4, p. 242), that they are pure servants, immaculate minds (p. 335); that they are ever-moving minds, Divine spirits.” After all this, there is no doubt that angels, according to the clear teaching of Gregory the Theologian, are pure spirits, unalloyed, that is, not only not bodies, but also without bodies. I will also cite the place where Saint Gregory surveys all creation. Here it will be seen together how he understood the soul (this is in the 4th part, p. 57 et seq.). “Since for Goodness it was not enough to exercise only in contemplation of Oneself, but it was necessary for the good to spread, to go further and further... then God invents, firstly, angelic and heavenly powers. And the thought became a deed, which was filled with the Word and accomplished by the Spirit. This is how the second lordships arose, whether by them we mean intelligent spirits, or, as it were, immaterial and incorporeal fire.” “Since the first creatures were pleasing to God, he invents another world - material and visible, and this is the harmonious composition of heaven, earth and what is between them... And by this God showed that He is able to create not only a natural, but also a completely alien nature to Himself. Intelligent natures are akin to the Divine, comprehended by one mind.” But the new teaching insists that it is impossible to allow there to be anything else akin to God. “So, mind and feeling, so different from each other, became within their limits and expressed the greatness of the creative Word... But there was not yet a mixture of mind and feeling - this experience of the highest wisdom, this generosity in the formation of natures, and not all the wealth of goodness was yet discovered. Having desired to show this too, the artistic Word creates a living being, in which both are brought into unity, that is, invisible and visible nature - creates, I say, man; and from the already created substance, taking the body, and putting life from Himself (which in the word of God is known under the name of the soul and image of God), creates, as it were, some kind of second world, great in small things, places on earth another angel, composed of different natures, a worshiper, a spectator of the visible creation, the secret of the intelligible creature, a king over what is on earth, subordinate to the heavenly kingdom, earthly and heavenly, temporary and immortal, visible and intelligible." What is clearer than the indication that, according to the Holy Theologian, not only an angel, but also a soul is pure spirit? The same thoughts are expressed in him in the 3rd part, p. 240; and in the poem about the soul, part 4, p. 240. In the latter, it is especially important for us that Saint Gregory here condemns everyone who thought that the soul is any substance. “The soul,” he says, “is not the nature of destructive fire, not the nature of air, not the bloody stream running through the body, not the harmony of the constituent parts of the body... I do not have some common soul, divided by everyone and wandering through the air... And this is not the teaching of smart people, but an empty bookish amusement, as if the soul constantly changes different bodies.” After pointing out these false interpretations, he then expounds his opinion, which, due to the elegance of his speech and the completeness of his contemplation, should be memorized by everyone. “Now listen to our most excellent teaching about the soul. And we will try to sweeten the song somewhat by starting it like this. There was a time when the high Word of the Mind, following the great Mind of the Father, established a hitherto non-existent world. It spoke, and everything that He desired was accomplished. But when all this - earth, sky and sea - made up the world, a spectator of Wisdom became needed - the mother of all and the reverent king of the earth. Then the Word said: “The vast sky is inhabited by pure and ever-living servants, immaculate minds, good angels, hymns, ceaselessly singing My glory. But the earth is decorated only by irrational animals. Therefore, it pleases Me to create such a kind of creatures, which would contain both - a kind of creatures intermediate between mortals and immortals, a reasonable person who would rejoice in My deeds, would be a wise secret of heaven, a great ruler of the earth, a new angel from dust, a hymn of My power and My mind. Thus spoke the Word, and, taking part of the newly created earth, with immortal hands he composed my image and gave it His life, because he sent into it a spirit, which is a stream of the invisible Divinity. Thus, from dust and breath, man was created - the image of the Immortal; because in both the nature of the mind reigns. Therefore, like the earth, I am tied to this life, and as a particle of the Divine, I carry in my chest the love for the future life.” Here is the complete teaching of Saint Gregory the Theologian about the nature of souls and angels! It is obvious that the new teaching cannot be represented as a guarantee for its consistency. Saint Chrysostom, more than other Fathers, seeks support for a new teaching; however, even in this case it cannot boast that even one extract from its creations would justify it. None of them speaks about the corporeality of the nature of angels and souls, but, on the contrary, there are those who say the completely opposite. The first passage from St. Chrysostom (“Addition to the Word...”) says that the air is filled with angels who protect us from evil spirits - the enemies of the world. “Do you want to see angels? - Saint Chrysostom says at the beginning. “Open your eyes of faith and look at this spectacle.” Does this passage speak about the nature of angels? No; it only says that they are inherent in the air. The reader himself must draw a conclusion about their nature when thinking about this presence. What is the conclusion? The brochure wants everyone to deduce from this that angels are a body because they are present in the air. If it were impossible to understand this presence otherwise than as occupying a corresponding place, then, of course, it should be so. But since, according to Saint Damascus, the presence of spirits in a certain place is mental, alien to any corporeality, then there is no need to draw such a conclusion. So, the said passage gives nothing to justify the new teaching. The second testimony of Chrysostom from the 22nd conversation on the book. Genesis, given not in the words of Chrysostom, but briefly, in his own words. But even in these few words it is retained that Saint Chrysostom calls angels incorporeal. How does the new teaching want to prove its idea that an angel is a body? When they are incorporeal, therefore, they are not flesh or body. This is how St. Chrysostom puts this passage without abbreviation (on the book of Genesis 1, conversations 22, p. 396): “Isn’t it crazy to say that angels descended to cohabit with wives, and incorporeal nature humiliated itself to copulate with bodies? the angels of God... are” (Matthew 22:30). And it is impossible for the incorporeal (angelic) nature to ever have such (carnal) lust.” This speaks strongly against the new teaching. It is obvious that Saint Chrysostom recognizes the nature of angels as incorporeal - incorporeal, therefore, immaterial, and the immaterial is spirit. And then, a little further, follows the victorious testimony of Saint Chrysostom in opposition to the new teaching. It constantly insists that what is visible in the angels who appear is their nature, that they appear in their nature, that the members visible in them are their own, but Chrysostom says something completely different. Here are his words: “To accept such an opinion would be the greatest absurdity. For if the saints and men honored with the Holy Spirit were not able to endure even the appearance of angels; If the man of desires, seeing the presence of an angel, not the very being (for how can one see an incorporeal being?), but the image perceived by him, lost his strength and almost life itself, if such a great and tall man fell almost lifeless, then who, even the most frivolous, will agree with these crafty and extremely insane words, as if the incorporeal and spiritual nature had copulation with bodies? Isn't it obvious that the teaching of St. Chrysostom is in opposition to the new teaching? Saint Chrysostom claims that angels, when they appear, take on an image; and the new teaching teaches that angels have their own image and appearance, which is what a person has in his body. Saint Chrysostom says that when they see an angel, they see only the presence of the angel, and not the very nature, which, as incorporeal, cannot be seen; and the new teaching says that those who see angels see them in their nature. Saint Chrysostom also has another passage that explains the appearance of angels not according to new teaching. This is in the seventh word, “Against the Anomeans.” It says that angels often appeared on earth in human form, and even God Himself: but what was revealed was not the truth of the flesh, but condescension; that is, what was revealed was not the true flesh, but a phenomenon that was arranged out of condescension towards human weakness (St. Chrysostom, vol. 1, according to the edition of Migne, p. 765). Here, too, Saint Chrysostom says that what is revealed is not the true flesh, but the new teaching insists: no, this is the true body, the angel himself. The third testimony from St. Chrysostom speaks of the appearance of good and evil angels on the deathbed. According to the opinion of Saint Chrysostom, given before this, this means that angels not only take on the image, but also appear; and that those who see them see not the nature of the angels, but the image they take. Saint Chrysostom explains the appearance of angels in the same way as the Epiphany. Those who see God do not see the being of God, but an image adapted to them. Chrysostom’s last thought is also given in the “Addition to the Word.” The fourth testimony of Chrysostom from the word “On the Incomprehensible.” It describes the appearance of an angel to Daniel, the same thing that we cited from conversations in the book. Genesis. But for the special purposes that Saint Chrysostom had in the word “On the Incomprehensible,” those explanatory thoughts that so strongly refute the new teaching are omitted here. Therefore, here is one description of the appearance of an angel, which does not prove anything. The fifth testimony from Chrysostom says that demons rush in the air and can show us their terrible image (from the commentary on Psalm 41). So what of this? It is also possible for the incorporeal and immaterial to be present in the air. According to St. Chrysostom, demons do not show their terrible image in the same way as, in his opinion, angels show their attractive image, that is, demons also take on the image, just like angels? The last thought is also expressed in the “Addition”, where we read that fallen spirits take on various false images, appearing to people in order to seduce, confuse and destroy them; and take on these images, having the natural ability to do so. The image of the appearance is the same for both demons and angels; only the goals are different. Finally, the last evidence is taken from the 34th conversation on the Gospel of Matthew, where Chrysostom says that demons wander through the tombs (in the original: “flock to the tombs”). The power of this passage is the same as the first, where it is said that angels and evil spirits fill the air. Therefore there is nothing to say about him. Thus, the “Addition” did not indicate a single passage from St. Chrysostom that would in any way indirectly confirm his opinion. On the contrary, the testimony, which is given in its own words in abbreviated form, in its entirety obviously contains a teaching about angels that is completely contrary to this opinion. And it must be said that this is only one passage from St. Chrysostom and speaks about the nature of angels, but the others do not talk about this; therefore, they are completely out of touch with the matter. The second testimony, together with the other one we have given, quite accurately determines St. Chrysostom’s thoughts about angels. Namely, they show that he recognizes them as incorporeal, that is, not only not a body, even if subtle, but also not having a body, and that when they appear, what appears is not true flesh, but an accepted image. After this, I consider it completely unnecessary to look for other evidence from St. Chrysostom about the nature of angels. Enough. I will now point out only two or three passages about the nature of the soul. Where better to see this than in the description of the creation of man? What does it say here? In conversation 13 on book. Genesis page 204 we read: “When you hear that Scripture says: “God created man” (Gen. 1:27), understand these words in the same sense as the expression: let it be. When you also hear that “God... breathed into his (man’s) nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7), understand that He, as He produced incorporeal forces, was so pleased that the human body, created from dust, had a rational soul that could use bodily members.” Saint Chrysostom inspires here that the rational soul in the body is an incorporeal force; and what is incorporeal in the body, of course, is not any kind of subtle body. It further says: “See also the difference between the creation of this wonderful intelligent animal and the creation of dumb ones. God says about them: “Let the water bring forth living things that move along the river” (Gen. 1:20), and immediately animate animals arose from the waters; and about the earth again in the same way: “let the earth produce a living soul” (Gen. 1:24). With man it was not so: but first a body is created from dust, and then the life force is given to it, which constitutes the essence of the soul. That is why Moses said about the wordless, that “the soul of the body is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). But in man there is an incorporeal and immortal essence, which has a great advantage over the body, and exactly what it is appropriate for an incorporeal person to have in front of a body.” Again, what is incorporeal in the body? Then one should say: in the gross body there is a subtle body, and not an incorporeal force. On page 228 of the same volume 1 on the book. In Genesis (conversation 14), St. Chrysostom says: “Whoever called the animals that name was not full of wisdom and understanding? Conclude from this how great is the power of this inspiration, and how great is the wisdom with which the Lord endowed the incorporeal soul, making a wonderful and rational animal from two creatures, and uniting the incorporeal being of the soul with the body, like a beautiful artist with a tool.” It says here that the very being of the soul is incorporeal; and the new teaching insists: the essence of the soul is the body. Thus, according to St. Chrysostom, both the soul and the angels are immaterial and incorporeal. Consequently, all three great luminaries of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom are against the new teaching. And as they teach, so does the whole Church teach. Isn’t it true after this that the new teaching is “a teaching not of our yard,” as St. Gregory the Theologian put it? The writings of Saint Athanasius say almost nothing about the nature of angels. There are several passages, and strong passages, about submitting them to God the Word and worshiping Him; and about their nature, perhaps, only two short sayings. In the theology of the Right Reverend Macarius, one saying of St. Athanasius is cited, namely: “An angel is a rational, immaterial, hymn-speaking being, a demon - mortal”; but I was unable to find it in the original. However, there is no doubt that this is a genuine saying of Saint Athanasius. In the biography of Saint Anthony, namely, in the speech of the monk to the brothers about the machinations of evil spirits, it is said: “what is surprising if they, using the thinnest bodies more than human, and seeing those who have entered the path, precede them in the procession and announce them.” The word used here - “using” - gives us the right to see in Saint Athanasius the idea that demons are not a body and do not carry a body, but only temporarily use it when necessary, just as someone else uses some kind of tool, which he takes when needed and puts aside when it turns out to be unnecessary. But if we understand that they constantly use this subtlest body, it is necessary to distinguish the one who uses it from that which he uses - and, therefore, St. Athanasius still has the idea that the fallen angels are spirits, only clothed with the subtlest bodies. And if fallen spirits are like this, then so are the unfallen spirits, for the fall did not change their nature. No matter how you understand this passage, it is still against the new teaching. Despite, however, the fact that we can cite only two sayings from Saint Athanasius, anyone unprejudiced will agree that judging by them it is impossible to assume in Saint Athanasius thoughts about the corporeality of angels. In the "Addition" a lengthy extract is made from Saint Athanasius, in order to show that he recognized spirits as bodies. But no matter how extensive it is, it does not prove in the least what they want to prove with it. This extract is taken from the same speech from which we took one place before, clearly hinting at the thought of Saint Anthony and Saint Athanasius about the incorporeality of spirits. In the whole speech there is only this place that can be attributed to the definition of the nature of spirits. It depicts various manifestations of evil spirits and the intrigues that they use to seduce ascetics, and teaches how to unravel them and resist them. But from the appearance of spirits it is illegal and dangerous to deduce the idea of ​​the corporeality of their nature, for God also appeared. Consequently, all this long statement was made in vain. It occurred to me to try to see if we could make up for the lack of testimony of Saint Athanasius about the incorporeality of angels with his testimony about the immateriality of the soul. If it is proven by the words of Saint Athanasius that the soul is not a body, then this alone will be against the new teaching, since according to it there is nothing incorporeal except God. In his word against the pagans, Saint Athanasius considered it necessary for ordinary people to briefly prove that every person has a soul and a rational soul; because others, especially heretics, deny this too, believing that man is nothing more than a “visible image of the body.” This is precisely against the “Tale of Death”, according to which the soul is an ethereal, very subtle, flying body, having the entire appearance of our gross body, all its members, even hair, the character of its face - in a word, complete resemblance to it. This means that there is nothing at all in a person except the visible image of the body, sometimes gross, sometimes ethereal. Saint Athanasius, rejecting the idea that there is nothing in man except the visible image of the body, generally rejects the idea that the soul is material. “The first,” he says, “a significant sign that the human soul is rational is its difference from the dumb; for out of natural habit we call them dumb, for the very reason that the human race is rational. And then an important proof will be that one person mentally imagines what is outside him, what is not in front of him, and again reasons and discusses in order to choose the best from what has been considered” (actions completely unusual for any substance, no matter how subtle it is imagined). “The dumb see the one thing that is in front of them, they strive for the one thing that is before their eyes, even if it causes them harm later; but man does not strive for what is visible, but on the contrary, he discusses what is visible with his eyes with his mind” (i.e., he does not obey the law of mutual impressions and mutual attractions that reigns between bodies, even subtle ones, but stands outside them, because he has a completely immaterial soul, and, as a result, capable of renouncing the laws by which everything material is connected). “Often, having already rushed (a person), he is restrained by his reason, and what he has thought about, he thinks about again.” Hold something material when it is excited! Stop electricity when it is already in motion. You need to stop the current, and it will stop. But the soul, without ceasing to act within itself, stops one direction and accepts another. It is clear that its characteristics are not at all similar to the characteristics of material forces, even the most subtle ones. And everyone, if only he is a friend of truth, realizes that the human mind is not one and the same with bodily feelings (and, we add, the human soul is with the body and everything corporeal in general: these are opposites in properties and actions). Therefore (the mind), like nothing else, is the judge of the feelings themselves. “The job of the eye is to see only, the job of the ears is to hear, the mouth is to taste, the nostrils are to take in the smell, the hands are to touch; but to reason about what should be seen and heard, what should be touched, what should be tasted and smelled is no longer a matter of the senses; her soul and her mind judge about this.” Is there even a faint shadow of such stewardship among the most refined substances? The law of necessity reigns there, and discussion of actions is inappropriate there. Is it not clear that where it is appropriate, there must be a completely immaterial force? Further: “The soul reasons and knows what to do and how to act. But this is characteristic only of people and this, that is, the rationality of the human soul, using which it differs from the dumb and proves about itself that it is really not the same with what is visible in the body.” And in general with everything bodily, even the most subtle. This ability to discuss, stop and start one’s actions at one’s own discretion, to give oneself and everything one’s own one direction or another, completely disregarding what is in the body and outside the body, clearly proves that the soul is completely immaterial, because such free and independent self-activity, determined from within and not from without, cannot befit anything material. In matter, whether it is subtle or gross, everything is governed by the inexorable law of relationships and interactions, which can only be stopped by the destruction of the material body. “The body often lies on the ground, and a person imagines and contemplates what is in heaven. The body is often at rest, silent and sitting, but man is internally in motion and contemplates what is outside of him... What is this if not the rational soul, which reflects in man and imagines what is higher than him? Self-activity, activity within and from within is completely opposite to substance. Electricity is sleeping. In order for it to take effect, it must be aroused from the outside. And being excited, it does not depend on itself at all, either in strength or in direction. The soul is ever-moving and self-active. External impressions are only a reason for its activity, and not its source or cause. A tangible indication that the nature of the soul cannot be recognized as material. “The body is mortal by nature, so why does a person think about immortality and often, out of love for virtue, bring death upon himself? Or: the body is temporary; Why does man imagine the eternal and therefore neglect what is under his feet, lusting after the eternal? The body itself cannot conceive anything like this; it would not even think about what is outside it. There must be something else that would think about the opposite and unnatural body. So, what will it be again if not a rational and immortal soul? Not from the outside, but inside, in the body, like a musician on the lyre, she produces the most perfect sounds.” If the soul is a body, even an ethereal one, then where does it have these desires to completely renounce everything material? Where does she get the desire for the infinite, when matter, if given a thought, could extend this thought only until it reaches itself, when it would not even think about what is outside the body? No matter how subtle the body is, it would all gravitate towards the physical, where does this pleasure in mental contemplations and constructions come from? If the soul is ether, and the light of the sun is of ethereal property, then how did people, the best in their aspirations, and therefore the most ethereal, sometimes deprive themselves of light for their whole lives? No, there must be something completely immaterial in us that would think about the opposite and unnatural body. Further: “So, I think, what has been said so far has been proven that people have a rational soul. But... you need to know that the soul is immortal... If in our word it is proven that the soul is not the same thing with the body, the body is mortal by nature, but it is necessary for the soul to be immortal, by the very fact that it is not like the body. And again, if the soul moves the body, but itself is not set in motion by anything else, then it follows from this that the soul is self-moving and, after putting its body into the ground, will again set itself in motion... If the soul were set in motion by the body, then upon separation from the one who moves it, it should die. And if the soul moves the body, then it is all the more necessary for it to move itself. Bringing herself into motion, of necessity, she will live even after the death of the body; because the movement of the soul is nothing other than its life.” The self-movement of the soul is the most striking proof not only of immortality, but even more so of the fact that it is not some kind of subtle, ethereal body. Inertia and immobility are an integral part of matter. Electricity will remain dormant for centuries if it is not aroused; and the ether does not shine unless it is brought into concussion, or, as they say, into a tremulous state. But both are produced by external influence. There is no trace of self-activity in these apparently very subtle substances. Where does amateur activity come from in the soul if it is ether by nature? And if she is amateur, doesn’t that mean she is not on air? And again, every substance, when set in motion, moves in a given direction, and in general, motion in matter is determined by a uniform form, from which deviation is unthinkable. Look at the activity of the soul - what an inexhaustible variety there is... What happens, for example, when the soul reasons? Reduces ideas acquired often unknown - when and how; puts one completely different thing next to another and reveals similarity or difference; distracts one or another property and considers only this, regardless of the subject; often decomposes the entire object into its features and then puts them back together in the clearest representation of the whole; for an action he looks for a cause, often invisible and unknown, and from the active principle he deduces consequences that have not yet been traced in experience; builds a chain of causes and actions, means and ends; sometimes distracted from everything experienced and varied, he contemplates everything as a single whole, and so on. In what substance, the most subtle and exciting, can one see something like this? The same force - say, applied to visible movements in matter - moves directly and indirectly, from itself and to itself, up and down, right and left, circularly, elliptically, diagonally, at angles, zigzags, waves, etc., changing all this in the blink of an eye and moving from one opposite to another without shocks, while being able to stop the most heated and varied movement and again start. If someone pointed out such physical strength, then one could compare the amateur soul with it. But even then, probably, it would be possible to point out that not a single physical force leaves in itself a trace of past movements, while the soul stores within itself all its varied activities and nourishes itself with its products, and from this it becomes stronger and fuller; is being improved, and – what else? - expects to be approved or condemned by the Lord of all at His impartial judgment... Are all such manifestations possible in any substance? Of course not. Well, we need to give up the idea that the soul is a body-ether. “The soul, enclosed in the body and united with it, is not limited to the smallness of the body and is not commensurate with it: the body sometimes lies on the bed, and, as if having fallen asleep in the sleep of death, remains motionless; and the soul, by its strength, is awake, rises above the nature of the body, and although it resides in the body, as if migrating from it, it imagines and contemplates what is above the earth; often, encouraged by the purity of the mind, it soars to saints and angels who are outside earthly bodies and converses with them... The soul has the concept of contemplating God, and it becomes a path for itself, not borrowing from outside, but drawing knowledge and understanding about its God from within itself.” The impossibility of supposing such activities, aspirations and knowledge in a being whose nature is corporeal has already been mentioned; Yes, this is obvious and self-evident. But I pay special attention to the following words: “the soul, encouraged by purity of mind, often soars to the saints and angels who are outside earthly bodies.” What's the idea here? The idea is that saints and angels are incorporeal and not only incorporeal, i.e. are intangible by nature. Another will notice: they are outside the gross earthly bodies, but not outside the ethereal bodies. I will say to this: so be it, let the angels not be outside the etheric bodies. This will mean that they are in etheric bodies, as if in a shell, clothed with them, wearing them: but they themselves are still not an etheric body, but spirits clothed with an etheric body. Thus, this thought is against the new teaching. If the new teaching thought so, we would not argue with it so much, but would only say: as you wish. You are like this, and we are like this. But it keeps repeating: the soul is the body, the angel is the body, their very nature is bodily. Now you can’t help but say that you can’t think like that, because none of the saints thought like that. I will say a few more words about the opinion of Saint Athanasius. Firstly, I take literally the words: “outside of earthly bodies,” understanding them this way: outside of all bodies, for the etheric body is an invention, unnecessarily invented and does not bring any clarity to the doctrine of the spiritual world. I deduce, secondly, this idea from the comparison in this place of angels with saints. The entire passage of St. Athanasius that we are considering reveals one idea: the soul is not the body. In the comments we have made, we have attached explanatory thoughts that the soul is not only a gross body, but even an ethereal one. And if Saint Athanasius had known about such an assumption, then, of course, he would have directed the turns of speech against him. I say: figures of speech, because his thoughts, even in their present form, completely deny any general corporeality in the soul and affirm undeniably that the soul is a spirit alien to all materiality. In the penultimate extract he has the idea that the soul leaves the body as it is in the body. But if, according to his teaching, she is spirit in the body, then spirit is outside the body. Consequently, Saint Athanasius admits that the saints who have departed in their present state are pure spirits. But if, along with them, he also supplies angels, then he recognizes them as pure spirits, i.e. not only immaterial, but also incorporeal. With this we conclude our consideration of the evidence from St. Athanasius about the nature of souls and angels. On behalf of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in the “Sermon on Death” there is a lengthy extract from his word on the outcome of the soul. In the “Addition” to the “Word on Death,” only the content of this extract is briefly indicated, with the following words: “St. Cyril calls demons terrible, wild, cruel. He says that the soul of a dying person sees them, that the soul that has left the body is held by holy angels; that she passes with them through the air, from earth to heaven, that evil spirits hinder this ascent, convicting the soul of the sins it has committed; that holy angels stand against demons and argue with them about the soul. The saint says that pious souls ascend to God, but the demons receive the rejected soul into their power, open the earth, bring the soul down into the interior of the earth and imprison there in the dungeons of hell.” In the “Tale on Death”, after extracting from the word of St. Cyril on the outcome of the soul, the legends of those who died and those brought back to life are given about what happened to them, namely: the legend of Taxiot the warrior, Peter the publican, Arethas of Pechersk and Saint Theodora. In these legends, examples confirm what Saint Cyril depicted only in words. The strength of the proof of the corporeality of the nature of angels and the soul, deduced from these words, legends and visions, lies in the fact that here events taking place outside of this world are presented, the life of the spiritual world is depicted. When angels, demons and saints appear to those living on earth, one can, following St. Chrysostom, explain their appearance by the fact that they take on an adapted image. But when souls, having renounced the body, enter another world and see angels, saints and demons there in the same form in which they appear on earth; those. in human form; then the thought is very persistently imposed that they are like that in reality, for there is no need for them to take on an image adapted to the soul, when the soul, having left the body, becomes the same as they are. Of all the documents that the author cites to support his thoughts, this last one is, one might say, the most impressive. With all this, the guidance drawn from it about the corporeality of the nature of souls and angels cannot be considered solid and alien to prejudice. It is immediately clear that this conclusion is broader than what the fact concludes. The fact says that the soul, upon leaving the body, enters the realm of spirits, where both it and the spirits are active in the same forms that are visible on earth between people: they see each other, speak, walk, argue, act. The only difference is that there is a region of refined substance, ethereal, and everything in them is therefore refined - material and ethereal. What is the direct conclusion from this? The fact that in the world of spirits the external way of being and mutual relations is the same as between people on earth. The fact does not speak about the corporeality of the nature of spirits, about the fact that their being is only a body. This conclusion goes beyond the fact and says more than the fact itself. But on the other hand, this conclusion says less than it. The conclusion from a fact should be drawn across the entire breadth of thoughts that it can lead to. And to dwell here on only one external form of perfume is illegal. Everything must be taken into account - namely, what they reason, feel, have good or bad wishes, grieve and rejoice, and so on. Let's take all this into account - what happens? It will turn out the following: just as on earth, when we see all such actions in people, we do not attribute them to the body, although they are revealed through the body, but we always attribute them to the soul as a cause - a soul separate from the body, although residing in it: so when legends tell us about similar actions of spirits, we must conclude that they do not have one subtle etheric body that produces them, but that in this visible subtle body there is a spirit separate from it, which reasons in mutual interviews, and acts, and produces everything through his etheric body that, as we see, souls produce among people on earth through this gross body. This conclusion is just as compelling and direct in relation to spirits in heaven as it is persistent and direct in relation to people on earth. Thus, both the word of St. Cyril and the legends of those who came to life, taken in their entirety, suggest that angels, souls and demons are spirits clothed in a subtle ethereal body. If the brochures did not draw such a conclusion, then they were prevented by prejudice in favor of their own, incomprehensibly formed opinion. At the same time, consider all these legends and images in all their features, and say sincerely: is it possible to decisively assume that everything presented in them is the authenticity of the matter, and in fact exists as it is depicted? Aren't comparative images also inserted here for the most vivid and complete representation of reality, which did not exist in such images? Here, for example, are traits that cannot but be classified in the last category. Saint Theodora says that death came in a visible form, with tools, and began to cut off one member after another, and finally gave her a bitter drink, from which the soul shook and left the body: is this reality or a figurative representation of a reality that was not in this image? Saint Basil appears and gives the angels a bag filled with gold, from which the angels then borrowed, in order to pay off the debts of Saint Theodora, presented by the spirits of evil: is this reality or a figurative representation of a reality that did not exist in this image? The warrior Taxiot saw that the angels kept all his good deeds in the reliquary, and, taking them out of there, compared them with his evil deeds; Peter the publican and Aretha saw how the angels weighed their good and evil deeds on scales: was this reality or a figurative representation of a reality that was not in this image? All these images impressively express reality, but no one, I believe, can think that reality itself is exactly like this, despite the fact that he always imagines it only under these images. But if these and similar features must be recognized as comparative images that are used to vividly represent reality; then how to set the limit to which such an assumption of comparative images extends in these images and legends? Let us recall the interpretation of Saint Damascus about how angels speak. Angels talk to each other, he says, without articulate, sonorously pronounced words; they directly communicate their thoughts, from mind to mind - that is, they have an intelligent, spiritual conversation, unlike ours - otherwise, they speak without language. Why, in applying this, should we not admit that they move without legs and act without hands, by the sheer force of will and its aspirations? This is all the more convenient to accept because, according to Saint Damascus, they exist in a place, as if without a place, they are in it, not occupying it, but only showing their presence by the power of their spiritual action. If, therefore, it can be recognized that they are in place without place; then how can one not admit that in the image they are without the image? However, from this comparison it is desirable that one conclusion be drawn: that the spiritual world is something mysterious for us, which we cannot imagine in its true reality. When someone had to figure out the state of affairs there, or the Lord was pleased to give a revelation about it, both were done under the images of our earthly life. These images represent reality, but are not reality itself. It is spiritual, mental, and has nothing carnal in it. The Apostle Paul was caught up into heaven, and what did he say about him? That I heard there “unspeakable words, which no man can tell” (2 Cor. 12:4). We have no words to express it. Our words are rough, sensual, figurative. Having taken this note into account, we must tame our inferences regarding legends about what happens in the spiritual world. Read, delve deeper, edify yourself, but do not rush to draw any decisive conclusions from it. For what is there, the eye has not seen, the ear has not heard, and it has not entered the heart of man. Thus, we have the right to say that the new teaching from the words of St. Cyril, in connection with the legends relating to the same subject, drew a conclusion in its justification too hastily. For us, such a decision should be considered the truest because St. Cyril has direct sayings about the spirituality of angels and souls. As far as I remember, no matter how Saint Cyril happens to talk about angels, everywhere he calls them rational. So vol. 2, p. 23 on the book. Genesis according to the ed. Migne angels are called holy and rational creatures. Likewise, in Thesaurus vol. 8, p. 187 they are called rational, higher creatures. It's the same in many other places. Rationality, thus, supplied by the distinctive property of the angelic nature, of course, does not favor the opinion that it is a body: for how can we call a body rational? But this is revealed even more clearly from his teaching about man and his soul. More than once it happened to Saint Cyril to give a definition of man, and for him man is everywhere a rational animal, possessing intelligence and knowledge, and, of course, a soul. Separately, what is the soul according to St. Cyril? Nature is truly incorporeal (interpretation of the Gospel of Luke). Thus, if his rational soul is incorporeal and immaterial; Moreover, the intelligent angels are incorporeal and immaterial, whom he everywhere places much higher than man. But here is one place in which spirituality is ascribed to both the soul and the angels. It's in Against the Anthropomorphites (Vol. 9, pp. 1083–1084). Here he says that the image of God is not in the body, for God is alien to matter and corporeality, but “in the properties of character, in that spiritual form that is composed of the beauty of virtues.” And this is also characteristic of angels - higher and rational powers. Let's limit ourselves, however, to this. No matter how brief the notes given are, I don’t think that anyone, having considered everything together, would allow themselves to assume in St. Cyril any thought about the corporeality of souls and angels. Each of them has more weight in determining the opinion of St. Cyril about the nature of souls and angels than the long extracts we have read. They directly relate to the subject in question, while the latter speak about it indirectly. In the 15th extract from the Western theologian the following opinion of Saint Methodius is given: “souls are rational (mental) bodies.” “Addition” wants to have him on its side. It is not indicated where this saying was taken from, and there is no way to see in what sense the Holy Father used the expression: “reasonable bodies.” For according to the usual view, these two concepts are incompatible. If bodies, then unreasonable; if intelligent, then not bodies. Isn’t the word body used in the same sense in him as in Tertullian, in whom, they say, it means substance in general, in which sense it is also applied to God? In this case, this saying does not justify the new teaching, but against it. That's how you should think; for Saint Methodius has other specific passages that speak about the spirituality of the nature of the soul. So in the “Feast of the Virgins”, at the end of the second word, he derives the origin of souls from the direct action of God, just as during the creation of the first man, saying: unreasonable and unreasonable people, perhaps, would listen to someone who would say that this carnal tunic of the soul, seeded by people, is formed on its own without a special action of God; but no one would believe anyone who would teach that the immortal nature of the soul is infused with the mortal body. For the immortal and ageless is breathed into us only by the Almighty, only by the Creator of invisible and indestructible beings. “He breathed into his nostrils,” they say, “the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). If Saint Methodius had only said that the soul, clothed in the tunic of the body, is immortal and invisible, one could still, if one wishes, understand the soul as a subtle body; but when at the same time he produces it directly from God, and precisely from the breath of God, then there is no doubt that he recognized the soul as spiritual and immaterial, since its origin through the breath of God, pointing to a special communication with the purely spiritual being of God, removes any thought about corporeality, even the most subtle. In another place, speaking about the creation of the soul in the image of God, he expresses the same idea even closer. “In inexpressible beauty, akin to Wisdom, we appeared in this world, for the soul was created in its image by immaterial, unborn, having neither beginning nor end, all-creating and all-containing Beauty. Therefore, the soul is rational and immortal” (Sk. 6, ch. 1). If immaterial Beauty arranged the soul in Her image, then, of course, the soul is immaterial: for otherwise how will it be in Her image? We consider these few extracts from Saint Methodius sufficient to deprive the new teaching of the right to count this father on its side. The same 15th extract also contains the opinion of Blessed Augustine, as if the soul is in some sense a body, with the addition that this opinion put into difficulty the Western writer who claims that the soul is immaterial and spiritual. If the soul, according to St. Augustine, is a body only in a certain sense, then, of course, it is not a body, as it is usually understood. This can be said all the more undoubtedly about the opinion of Blessed Augustine, since his entire book “De quantitate animae” is aimed at explaining and demonstrating the position that the soul is not a body - and in the treatise on the Most Holy Trinity, one chapter (Lib. X, p. VII) is entirely occupied with refuting false opinions about the corporeality of the soul. Here are a few thoughts from the first book. “The soul is from God and is like God.” “Do not think that it was difficult for God to create anything like Himself. Like an immortal. He also created the immortal soul in His Image.” “You can’t talk about the soul: long, wide, high. These are bodily belongings, but the soul is incorporeal. That is why we see that whoever wants to become such as he was created by God, that is, God-like, despises everything corporeal and turns away from this world, because the world is corporeal.” “However, from the fact that the soul is neither long, nor wide, nor high, it does not follow that it does not exist. There are many objects that do not have these accessories, and yet are recognized as existing. Who, for example, doubts that there is truth? But one cannot say about it that it is long, nor that it is wide or tall.” “The soul is not from earth, not from fire, not from any hard element, not from all together, not from several.” If they had known about the ether then, of course, St. Augustine would have said: not from the ether. “Created by God, and is not a substance, neither earthly, nor fiery, nor airy, nor watery: but there is a rational substance, the mistress of the body.” “And since the soul is not a body, it is strong to contemplate the incorporeal. Not being a body, it does not have spatial dimensions. It contains everything spatial in memory, but itself is not spatial. The soul is not corporeal, not extended in length, not stretched in breadth, not stretched in height - and yet in the body it has such strength that the government of all people is in its hands, and it holds, as it were, a lever for producing all bodily movements.” These extracts are enough to see the thought of Blessed Augustine, which should lead to difficulty for those who do not recognize the soul as spiritual, but who teach that the soul is the body. The new teaching does not provide evidence from Blessed Theodoret, but believes that, among other things, St. Damascus borrowed his teaching from him about the corporeality of the nature of angels, which he allegedly recognized. Here are passages from Blessed Theodoret that say the opposite. In 69 questions on the book Genesis, he writes: “Scripture says that Abraham saw men. So, if we take into account only the letter, then men, and not angels, ate. If we delve into the meaning, then (let’s say that) the angels were visible eating. For just as, having an incorporeal nature, both they and their Lord only seemed to have the bodies in which they were visible, so they only seemed to eat, without putting food into their mouths and bellies, for they had no bodies.” Here the angels are recognized as having no body, just like the Lord. But the Lord Himself is immaterial and has no body, therefore, according to Theodoret, the angels are the same. In 69 questions on Exodus, he asks: “Why did the prophet call manna the bread of angels?” and answers: “Because the angels served in giving it. The incorporeal nature itself has no need for food.” Here too the angels are incorporeal. And one cannot think that Blessed Theodoret recognizes them as incorporeal only because they do not have gross bodies, for in the first case they are called incorporeal along with their Master, who does not have the subtlest body. In the interpretation of blessed Theodoret on the 7th verse of the 12th chapter of the prophet Daniel, we read: “we know that the nature of angels is incorporeal; and they take on images for the benefit of those who see, and are often meek for condescension, and sometimes strict for admonition.” This evidence is enough to see that Blessed Theodoret considers angels to be incorporeal, just as their Lord Himself is incorporeal. In the “Sermon on Death” the following passage is quoted from Saint Cassian the Roman: “Although we,” says Cassian, “call many beings spiritual, we should in no way recognize them as incorporeal. They have their own body in which they exist, although it is incomparably subtler than our body” (Sobes. 7, chapter 13). The very content of the extract shows that Saint Cassian does not have the same idea as the new teaching. Saint Cassian says that angels, archangels and other powers have a corresponding body in which they exist, although it is incomparably subtler than our body; and to these bodies, in which the angels are clothed, he refers the heavenly bodies, which the Apostle mentions, saying: “both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (1 Cor. 15:40) and so on. And the new teaching affirms; that angels are subtle bodies, that angels themselves are bodies, so that besides the body they have nothing. But these are two completely different opinions. If the new teaching only said that angels have bodies, there would be no need to argue with it; for in this case, the main dominant side of the angels is still the rationally free spirit. But when it is said that an angel is a body, then it is necessary to deny his freedom and consciousness; for these qualities cannot belong to any body you can imagine. Having admitted this and not being able not to see rationality and freedom in the angels, all that remains for explanation is to say that God acts in them, and thus come on the direct road to pantheism. For, after the angels, is it too long to say that in everything else God acts and manifests Himself? So, I say: the opinion of Saint Cassian is not in favor of the new teaching. There were several other fathers who thought so: but the majority and the most glorious of the fathers recognized angels as pure spirits. The “Addition to the Word on Death” wanted to cite the opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa in its justification, but did not fulfill the promise. Let's see for ourselves what he has. Saint Gregory of Nyssa says very little about angels, but there are deliberate studies about the soul in special articles, such as, for example, “On the Soul and Resurrection” and “On the Constitution of Man.” “It (the soul) is immaterial and incorporeal, and moves in accordance with its nature, and exhibits the movements characteristic of it with its bodily organs.” “The soul is a created essence, a living and intelligent essence, imparting to the organic body a vital and receptive sensual force.” “The sense organs do not give knowledge: thought guides them to knowledge, just as one philosopher (Epicharmus) says: both the mind sees and the mind hears.” According to the description of how a person reaches the construction of automata, Saint Gregory says: “Isn’t it obvious that in a person there is some kind of mind, another something contrary to the visible; and with what is invisible and spiritual in his own nature, he prepares this in himself (i.e., how to construct an automaton) by inventions, and then the thought thus composed inside with the help of substance brings into visibility.” “What is this invisible thing?” he asks. - “It is not anything material.” “What does this immaterial mean, or what is the mind-soul in its very essence? Whoever does not doubt the existence of what we are talking about will find it sufficient for himself to admit that it is not something comprehended by the senses, not color, not shape, not elasticity, not heaviness, not quantity, not extension in three dimensions, not local position, nor anything at all that is perceived in matter.” These are provisions that completely reject the new teaching, according to which the soul has outline, extension, and local position. Then to the question: by denying one after another the material signs in the soul, will we not come to the conclusion that it does not exist at all? - answers: if through the denial of material characteristics it is necessary to come to the denial of the existence of the being in which they are denied; then, following this line of reasoning, it will be necessary to deny the existence of God, for it is known that the Divine nature is incorporeal and has no form. If the latter is absurd, then so is the first. Hence the bewilderment that with such a sequence of thoughts we will fall to the other extreme - we will have to recognize the mind or soul as one and the same with the nature of God. This is an objection to the new teaching, which he puts into relief (“The Word on Death”). And here is the answer of the holy father: “Do not say: recognize the same thing, because this speech is wicked; but, as taught by the Divine word, say: recognize one as similar to another. For what is created in the image, of course, in everything has a likeness to the prototype, the mental - to the mental and the incorporeal - to the incorporeal, free from all time, like the prototype, like it avoids any spatial dimension, but according to the property of nature there is something different from it, because there would not be an image if everything were one and the same with the prototype; On the contrary, with what features in uncreated nature the prototype is distinguished, created nature shows the image with the same ones; and just as often in a small fragment of glass, when it happens to lie under the ray, we see the whole circle of the sun, appearing in it not in its own size, but in such a volume of the circle as the smallness of the fragment contains, so in the smallness of our nature images of the inexpressible properties of the Divine shine, so that the mind guided by them does not shy away from representing the mind in its essence when examining an object cleared of the corporeal property, and again does not lead to equality with the invisible and pure nature of the small and temporary nature; but although he recognizes the essence as intelligent, because it is the image of an intelligent essence, he does not call the image identical with the prototype.” “Local position is characteristic of only bodies, and the soul, as incorporeal, by nature has no need to be contained in any places.” “Three states of rational nature - one, which at the beginning received an incorporeal life, which we call angelic, another, associated with flesh, which is called human, and another, detached from the body through death, as seen in souls.” And here’s a short word about angels: “What work is it for the ethereal and spiritual to fly over an abyss, even the widest one, because the spiritual by nature, wherever it wishes to be, appears there without wasting time on it.” But the new teaching is increasingly finding it difficult to explain the movement of angels and souls if we recognize them as spirits! Saint Gregory of Nyssa sets out the same thoughts in his article “On the Structure of Man.” I will cite only those that have some new shade. Here, for example, it is said that “at the foundation of the structure (God) places in man a purely principle, mixing the Divine with the earthly, so that for the sake of both he may have pleasure, which is akin to and characteristic of both, enjoying both God, according to the nature of the Divine, and the earthly, according to a feeling similar to it.” “The soul shows in itself its distance from matter by the fact that, without being subordinate, it freely and sovereignly disposes of its desires.” “Just as the Divine is mind and word, so not far from this is human nature.” “Striving for the perfection of living in God is an attribute of the spirit.” “Insubstantial matter is not encompassed by any local outlines.” “We do not have three souls, but one, intelligent, immaterial, connected through feelings with material nature.” And so on and so forth... All this together does not require interpretation. It is clear as day that Saint Gregory of Nyssa recognized the soul as a pure spirit. There is no need to regret that we cannot quote from it special passages about the nature of angels. For if the soul is a spirit, then even more so is it an angel. However, one thought directly about angels was expressed by him in passing and has already been cited by us. A similar thought is contained in the 4th word “On Prayer,” where it is said that all rational creation is divided into an incorporeal nature and one clothed with flesh; the disembodied nature is angelic, and another type of nature is us - people. The decisive certainty of the teaching of Saint Gregory of Nyssa about the spirituality of the soul - one rational creature - takes away any possibility of misinterpreting incorporeality with subtlety. But here is one place where he directly calls angels not only incorporeal, but also completely immaterial: “The angel touches you, man, and, being incorporeal and immaterial, does not disdain you, made of flesh and blood.” Saint Maximus the Confessor “Addition” places Saint John of Damascus among the teachers and remembers him in the hope that he, too, has something about the corporeality of the nature of the soul and angels. But it can be said that the hopes of the new teaching were nowhere so disappointed as in this case. Saint Maximus the Confessor had to deliberately talk about the nature of the soul and directly solve the question: is it material? This especially includes his short treatise “On the Soul” and his letter to Archbishop John of Cysis about the fact that the soul is immaterial and incorporeal. Let's make extracts from both. In the treatise “On the Soul” (Patrol, graec. vol. 91, p. 356, etc.), having explained the way of knowing the soul, proving its existence and the fact that it is a substance, Saint Maximus then solves the question: is the soul immaterial? “If,” he says, “the soul is a body, then its movement occurs either from the outside or from the inside. But it is not given to her from the outside; because it does not receive shocks and is not attracted, like soulless ones, nor from within, like animate ones, for it is inappropriate to say that there is a soul in the soul. So, the soul is not a body and, therefore, immaterial.” “If,” continues Saint Maximus, “the soul is a body, then it must have sensory qualities (cognizable by external senses) and be nourished. But it does not feed, or if it does feed, it is not with bodily food, as the body is nourished, but with incorporeal food, for it feeds on the mind. It also does not have sensual qualities; for one cannot, for example, see either truth, or courage, or anything like that, and these are the essence of the qualities of the soul. So, the soul is not a body, therefore, immaterial!” After explaining that the soul is simple, immortal and rational, he concludes: “So, what is the soul? The soul is an immaterial and incorporeal being, intelligent, living in the body and animating it.” In a letter to Archbishop Cyzicus, the idea of ​​the immateriality of the soul is explained more extensively and comprehensively. It is clear that even then there were people who disturbed the peace of Christians by spreading the false teaching about the corporeality of the soul. The Archpastor of Cyzicus, having fought with them himself on the basis of the Word of God and the Fathers' writings, turned to Saint Maximus with a request to collect for him natural evidence of the immateriality of the soul, without touching the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. Saint Maximus answered: “Who are these who claim that not a single creature is immaterial and incorporeal? And what insignificant inventions and dreams they contrast with the immutable truths you have expressed!” “The body itself is motionless. If the soul is a body, even the most subtle one, as they say, then it too will be motionless. If so: then where do we get the movement? If from something else, and then something else is also a body, then again the question is: where does that movement come from? And this chain of questions goes on forever, until we reach the immaterial creature. If they say that we are moved by God, then they will have to recognize the Divine as the cause of those inappropriate and shameful movements, of which, as we know, we have a lot.” “Every corporeal being is determined by quantity and quality, by mass, appearance, shape and color. Determining these aspects puts an end to the study. Now, if the soul is a body, then it must be defined in the same way, which is absurd; therefore she is not the body.” “If they (the disputants) do not doubt that the soul exists; the mind, recognizing it as existing, cannot attribute to it the qualities by which every body is determined - neither color, nor shape, nor density, nor gravity, nor mass, nor extension in three dimensions, in a word, any properties under which the body is usually represented - then the soul, having nothing of the kind and not being any of these, must not be a body - immaterial, if it exists. “If all addition and decomposition and dissection are appropriate only in bodies, and that which is free from all addition, decomposition and dissection must necessarily be recognized as not a body; then the soul is not the body, since it is not involved in anything like that.” “If everything corporeal is either animate or inanimate; then the soul, if it is a body, will be an animate or inanimate being. If she is an animate being, then, of course, she will be animated by something animate, or by some kind of being, or power, or accessory. But in general, to say that the soul is animated, as well as to say that the light is illuminated, or that the fire is warmed, is very funny. If, further, we admit that the soul is animated by some being, then we will have to call it again either a body or not a body. If we call it a body, then again the question is: what animates it, and we will have to endlessly drag out this most inappropriate whirling of co-questioning until we recognize the soul as an incorporeal being. If we say that the soul is animated by some kind of force and ability, or some quality and accessory, then in this case the life-giving and mover of the being will be that which itself is not a being. In this case, the order according to which one dominates and the other is subordinated will be destroyed. Our soul was created to be the mistress of the body by nature, as a non-corporeal being: but if it is a body, according to these, it will be under the dominion of that which is not as a being... We do not refuse to admit that it has this body, co-essential with it, knowing that this is so; but they do not agree to admit the ignorant position that she herself is a body, knowing that there is a big difference between having a body and being a body.” “If they do not agree to recognize the soul as incorporeal for fear of not elevating it to equality with God, Whom they confess to be incorporeal, thus fearing fear, where there is no fear: then let them, so that this war of their unreason may appear in perfection, take away from us everything else that is assigned to us, as worthy to be partakers of Divine blessings, and which, in turn, by conclusion from us, is attributed to God as the Creator and the Giver. What exactly? Being, life, light (consciousness), charity, thought, knowledge. For how are we called existing, living, lights (self-conscious), good, thinking, reasonable? Likewise, we call God Existing, Living, Light, Good, Mind, Reason.” “What sense do they (disputants) have if the soul, in many other ways, is like that and is called like that (as God), and if it cannot possibly be corporeal, because such is God. It would therefore be appropriate either for us not to be called by any of the names previously shown, because that is what God is, or not to call God as such, because that is what we are. But we are such and are so called not as equal to God, but as an action for a reason, as partakers of goods according to the giver, as having received being according to its source - not egalitarian or by the same name, as is characteristic of those of the same essence, but by the same name, or, so to speak, by participation only in the name, while reality one from the other is at an infinite distance; for God is supernatural and infinitely above all nature and all reality.” “But how, if we concede to them that the soul is the body, will our advantage of being in the image of God be preserved, when we admit that the soul is not in everything similar to the prototype? As an image of the mental, we call it mental, and as an image of the immortal, incorruptible and invisible, we recognize these qualities in it. In the same way, nothing prevents it from being recognized as incorporeal, i.e. alien to all materiality, all spatial extension and dimension, although at the same time it will be recognized as completely different from it; for otherwise there would be no similarity, but an indistinguishable identity. In whatever features the prototype is contemplated in the uncreated, unchangeable and originless nature, in the same way the created rational nature appears to actually appear, but in no way identical, not to the same degree and strength, but in the same way as the last, almost disappearing echo of the echo still shows the trace of the word. And just as from the harmonious combination of what is and happens in the universe, the wise mind, ascending with its thoughts to the pure and immaterial, distinguishes the mover from the moved and, understanding it as one, simple, existing from itself, always equal to itself and the creator of all things, recognizes it as unapproachable for everything else, but together as containing everything, organizing everything and leading everything before being, according to the infinity of its power: so also through the varied and harmonious movement of the parts and members of the small world (I mean man), penetrating to the reason that sets this mechanism in motion in us, he cognizes something else, naturally different from this organic structure of the body, and contemplates it not as a body in a body, as it seems to our new sages and unsubstantiated dogmatists, but simple and inseparably individual, not determined by the form and limits of the body surrounding it.” Here is the wise philosophizing of Saint Maximus! Isn’t it obvious how in all points and with what force it refutes the new teaching and our dogmatists? This concludes our consideration of the first evidence used by the new teaching to confirm its thought - consideration of a number of testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Any unprejudiced person will undoubtedly agree that not a single Holy Father was on the side of the new teaching. A small shadow of such an opinion can be seen in Saint Macarius, but very, very vague. Saint John of Damascus had no idea at all that this teaching was derived from him, and the other Holy Fathers directly stood against him. Having such a cloud of witnesses, and at the head of them great teachers and saints - Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, who among the Orthodox would agree for even one minute to admit the idea that an angel is a body, and a soul is a body? Consideration of the evidence of the Word of God regarding the nature of souls and angels Moving on to the discussion of the places of Holy Scripture in which the new teaching seeks to see support for itself, let us note in advance that since the teaching about the spirituality of souls and angels is not new, but has always been in the Church, it has taken for itself places of Scripture that are always used by everyone when it comes to talking about the spiritual nature of angels and souls. These places constitute, as they say, sedes doctrinae. The new teaching did not even make a hint about these places, as if they had not heard of them and no one else knew them. Thus, as proof of the spirituality of the soul, everyone cites the image of the creation of man. Man was created in the image of God, this image is not in the body, but in the soul, for God is not corporeal. What exactly is the image of God in the soul? Either in the nature of the soul, or in its aspirations, or in both. But no matter what you stop at, you must recognize the soul as spiritual. If the image of God is in the nature of the soul, then it is spiritual, because God is spirit. If the image of God is in the highest spiritual aspirations, then just as spiritual phenomena and actions cannot come from a bodily being, but must come from a spiritual being, the soul must again be recognized as spiritual, so that spiritual actions can be produced from it, the presence in the soul and the necessary power of which are recognized by everyone. All the Holy Fathers, as we have already seen, saw the creation of man in the image of God as an irresistible proof of the spirituality of the nature of the soul. The image of the creation of man, it must be assumed, left in the human race a conviction in the spirituality of the soul, which in paganism was obscured and lost, but in the people of God it was preserved in all its integrity and purity. Ecclesiastes expressed the general faith of the people of God about this. “He will return,” he said, “dust to the ground, what he was; and the spirit will return to God, who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). No one doubted and does not doubt that by spirit here we mean the soul, as an immaterial and incorporeal being. This belief, as an inheritance from the people of God, passed into the Christian world, for which it, however, received a special seal of approval in the words of the Lord, who commanded not to fear “those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28) and commanded “to worship God the Spirit in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). Little attention is paid to the last place, yet it is very decisive in the dispute that occupies us. To bow to God in spirit, you must be in spirit. Even if by spirit we mean here only one spiritual appeal to God, that is, an indication not of the nature of the soul, but of the spiritual actions emanating from it, like truth, then in this case the conclusion will be the same: that the soul must be a spirit, for spiritual actions, so necessarily assigned by the Lord to the soul, cannot come from the body, no matter how subtle it may be. The combination in which it appears here does not allow this word to be interpreted in any other way. It is applied here to both God and the soul. If in relation to God it means pure, immaterial and incorporeal spirit, then what right is there to give it a different meaning in relation to the soul, and even in the same saying? And, finally, how then does he determine the spiritual relationship of the soul to God on the basis of the pure spirituality of God? These are direct indications of the Word of God on the spirituality of the soul! The spirituality of the angelic nature is affirmed by the Holy Apostle Paul, directly calling them “ministering spirits sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14). Just as in the Savior’s commandment given before this, the word spirit means an immaterial and incorporeal being, so it has the same meaning in the saying of the Apostle, taught the sacraments of faith from the Lord Himself. These two sayings finally establish the biblical meaning of the word spirit as applied to the soul and angels: it means in this respect an immaterial and incorporeal being, just as in relation to God. Therefore, the idea of ​​the new teaching, that there are no spiritual beings among creatures, is contrary to the clear indication of the Word of God. If the Word of God repeatedly mentions the appearance of angels in a visible body; then in all such cases they revealed intelligence and will, and generally acted as it is typical for rationally free, spiritual beings to act. The image of the person in which they appeared does not constitute themselves, but represents only the appearance of their appearance, therefore it does not at all upset confidence in the spirituality of their nature, just as the Epiphanies do not upset confidence in the spirituality of God’s nature. These are the foundations of the spirituality of the nature of souls and angels, extracted from the Word of God by church teachers! The new teaching should have first demolished these foundations and then laid new ones, so that it would be more reliable to erect its building later: but it did not do this. If anything in this meaning can be indicated in both brochures, then this is only a false interpretation of the word spirit and an incorrect application of this interpretation to the case. The above Scriptures clearly say that the angel and the soul are spirit; the new teaching averts its eyes from the brightness of the light of truth emanating from here. Let it be so, it interprets, but they are called spirit only as subtle beings, and yet material, or: but this only expresses the fact that they are invisible to our bodily eyes. But since such provisions are put forward without any evidence, they should be considered to have no force, like all unfounded assertions and denials. For my part, I find them not only unfounded, but also dangerous. For if this word is the same and even in the same place is applied to God, and to angels, and to souls; then, when in relation to these latter it is given the meaning of only invisible subtlety, an inexperienced thought can conveniently transfer such meaning to the Divine nature. In order not to fall into such a dangerous conclusion, the new teaching does not provide any guidance, does not indicate any criterion for distinguishing the meaning of the word spirit when used in relation to God and in relation to souls and angels. On the contrary, there are combinations of speech in it that directly lead to such a conclusion. For example, in the “Addition” we read: “Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers call God spirit, and angels, and demons, and human souls - spirits. This only expresses that, like God, so angels and demons and souls are invisible to our bodily eyes.” It is directly stated here that in relation to God, the word spirit does not mean immateriality, but only indicates invisibility. Invisibility in another place is interpreted as subtlety. Thus it turns out that God is a spirit only by his invisible subtlety. The new teaching repeats in vain: God alone is spirit; if we have already suspected him of the unfoundedness of his belief, then we have the right to demand from him: show us wise teachers who would properly understand the word spirit - such teachers in whom we would not doubt. But how can we point out when it says that both Scripture and the Holy Fathers, using the word spirit in relation to God, meant only invisibility for our crude eyes. For us there are no other teachers who are undoubtedly faithful to the truth and there cannot be. This is where the new teaching has taken us! I bring all this up so that it becomes clearer how “a lie is not true to oneself” (Ps. 26:12). You can’t hide a lie: no matter how you cover it up with words, it still comes out. The word spirit, applied in the Word of God to the soul and angel in the same sense as to God, strikes the new teaching right in the heart; That’s why it tries to deflect this blow, but in deflecting it, it inflicts even greater blows on itself. The same unsuccessful deductions should include another interpretation of the word spirit, in the meaning of air, wind, human breath. This interpretation is given in order to bifurcate and thereby weaken and cloud the concept of spirit as an immaterial being, firmly standing in the minds of everyone. These testimonies have no force. Exactly - the word spirit sometimes receives such meanings; but these meanings are secondary, not proper. The proper biblical meaning of this word, as we have seen, is spirit, a rational being, immaterial and incorporeal. The whole host of holy Fathers associated the same meaning with this word, as we also saw. It is impossible to understand how it was possible to write that “the word spirit in the writings of the fathers, according to the modern concept of the fathers, which has recently been lost (?), always referred to gases (gases?! Did they know about them then?) and vapors, especially air, wind and human breath” (“The Word on Death”). This is a completely illegal generalization, contrary to both the Word of God and the scriptures of the Fathers. This illegality also takes on a different character when the new teaching itself knows that it is impossible to legitimize such a generalization and when even it itself does not always use the word spirit in such meanings. It is clear that the meaning of the word spirit, so clearly expressed in the Word of God and the Holy Fathers, did not give rest to our innovation. And so it finally resorts to the last refuge - interpretation, where the word spirit itself came from, in order to deduce from here that it does not mean anything immaterial. “The word spirit,” it says, “is taken from breath. Breathing is a sign of life. The soul leaves the body with increased breathing. With its release, life ends. It was natural, therefore, to call this being living inside the body spirit and soul. The soul upon leaving the body is invisible; It was natural to call the soul or spirit an invisible, incorporeal, immaterial being. Again, it was just as natural to recognize in the soul the materiality inherent in it, indicated by the special fullness of the breath at which it comes out” (“Addition”). Fortune telling is offered about the origin of the words: spirit and soul. But that this origin really is such, some reason would have to be attached. Just by guessing about it, one cannot elevate it to the dignity of truth. We have another explanation, closer to the essence of the matter - not according to the exit of the soul from the body, but according to its entry into it. What came first - the breathing out or the breathing in of the soul? Inhalation. So isn’t it better to produce words—spirit and soul—from this inhalation? And it is better and obligatory, at least for those who reason according to Scripture and the Holy Fathers. “He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” says Scripture, “and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). That's the minute the soul became known! Saint Gregory the Theologian says that “the soul is the breath of God” (vol. 4, p. 240) and that “the life God puts into man is known under the name of soul” (ibid., p. 158). This is the true Christian production of the word soul and behind it the word spirit! But in this case, of the two naturalities that the new teaching deduces from its assumption, according to our explanation, only one will be appropriate - to recognize the soul as an invisible, incorporeal, immaterial being, like God Himself, who breathed it in; the other, which recognizes the materiality inherent in the soul, will be completely unnatural. If in this way all evasive interpretations of the word spirit turn out to be decisively untenable, then there is no doubt that they will not shake anyone’s sound concept of the spirit, extracted from the Word of God and the patristic writings. Consequently, the evidence we have given from the Word of God about the spirituality of the nature of the soul and angels stands in full force, and the attempt of the new teaching to paralyze this force by such a technique must be considered very unsuccessful. Let us now see what passages of Scripture it itself bases itself on, or in general how it proves itself on the basis of the Word of God. “The Holy Scripture does not set forth a separate, definite teaching about spirits, as about many other subjects; but at the same time, the teaching of Holy Scripture about spirits is clear. Created spirits are called incorporeal in comparison with us. “The spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39), the Savior said to His disciples, appearing to them after the resurrection in a glorified body, denouncing and refuting their thought that they see the spirit. Comparison: like Me - there is a comparison with the human flesh of the God-Man. Saint Basil the Great sees the same comparison in the words of the Apostle: “our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against... the spirits of evil” (Eph. 6:12) (Discussion that God is not the cause of evil).” “Holy Scripture everywhere testifies that angels appeared according to their own expression of the will of God” (“Addition”). Following this, many of the angelic appearances mentioned in the Word of God are given, namely to the wife of Manoah, the myrrh-bearing women, Cornelius the Centurion, Joshua, Gideon and others. Immediately, conclusions are drawn from these phenomena, which will then be reduced to the fact that angels have the appearance of a person, are dependent on space and time, have movement, and it all goes like this: “Holy Scripture, narrating the appearances of angels, always depicts them as appearing in the form of humans, and therefore the teaching of St. Macarius that angels are subtle bodies, invisible with bodily eyes, and having the same image and appearance that a person has in his body, is based on the constant testimony of the Holy Scriptures." Since this conclusion is based on the idea that angels are exactly as they are in themselves, and against this there is another thought that perhaps they take on bodies, the new teaching hastens to avert this last thought with the following remark: “The Western writer says that spirits put on subtle bodies when they appear to people. This is nowhere to be seen in Scripture; It is not visible that the angels changed when they appeared to people. On the contrary, Scripture says that God opens the eyes of man when it pleases Him to allow man to see angels. Fallen spirits take on various false images, having the natural ability to do so. A Western writer would like to enter into a discussion about where the subtle bodies are stored, in which spirits are clothed for manifestation to man.” Here, in extenso, is all the proof of the new teaching, taken by him from the Word of God. From the first time it is clear that it meant only angels, leaving in oblivion the human soul, created in the image of God the Spirit, and that in relation to angels it relies mainly on angelic manifestations. Let's go through this whole proof in a row. “The Holy Scripture does not set forth a separate, definite teaching about spirits, as well as about many other subjects; but at the same time, the teaching of Holy Scripture about spirits is clear.” Let us notice in passing how this Scripture, while not teaching definitely, teaches clearly? Where there is no certainty, what clarity is there? Holy Scripture teaches clearly and definitively that angels exist, that they are spirits and that they are sent from God to people to help them in matters of salvation. But that angels, being spirits, do not have a body, this is not directly said, but is inferred from the demolition of passages of Scripture. Such a teaching may have clarity and certainty for one, but for another it will be unclear and indefinite, as long as he confines himself to Scripture alone. When we add to this the teaching that is constantly contained by the Church, then such a teaching about the incorporeality of angels will give it clarity and decisive certainty. “Created spirits are called incorporeal in comparison with us.” There is not the slightest hint about this in Scripture. And if some of the Holy Fathers, for motives that were, of course, impeccable, had not used the phrase: “compared to us,” we would not even have had a thought about such comparative incorporeality. That this is so is proven by the very unsuccessful experience of the new teaching to confirm such a thought with the Word of God. “The spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39), the Savior said to His disciples, appearing to them after the resurrection in a glorified body, denouncing and refuting their thought that they see a spirit... Comparison: as I have, there is a comparison with the human flesh of the God-man.” It is absolutely incomprehensible how one can see here the idea of ​​​​the comparative spirituality of angels! After all, the Savior appeared after the resurrection in exactly the same way as angels appear. Just as they are visible and invisible - right there, in one place, so the Savior was visible, for example, in Emmaus and immediately became invisible (Luke 24:30-31). Just as an angel appeared, for example, to the Apostle Peter in prison, the doors of which were closed (Acts 12:5-7), so the Lord appeared to His disciples “through a closed door” (John 20:19). If now the Lord, when the apostles, based on this similarity of His appearance with the appearances of angels, thought that He was a spirit or an angel, told them not to confuse Him with an angel, citing as a basis that “a spirit who appears as an angel does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:37-39): then he showed that they have no flesh at all, even such as He has, which is visible and invisible right there, at His will. His flesh, which is visible and invisible and which is a “closed door,” is His flesh; He is clothed with it, always wears it, but angelic spirits do not have this flesh, they are not clothed with it, do not wear it constantly, although they, too, are visible and invisible and are a “closed door.” This is the direct idea of ​​the text! It is impossible to understand how the new teaching pulls him to its side. In addition, it must be said that this place itself is difficult to understand, it itself requires clarification. It is necessary to determine his thought in advance in order to deduce something from it. For it is not clear what kind of body the Savior has, which has flesh and bones and yet is visible and invisible, and is a “closed door”? And also, who did the Savior mean by spirit, whose flesh and bones he denied? He says: “Touch” (Luke 24:39), but angels are also tangible when they appear. You can think about it this way. Usually flesh and bones, as we have, cannot be a “closed door.” Therefore, when the Savior speaks of flesh and bones in Himself, they cannot be understood in their own sense; they have a figurative meaning here. The Lord wanted to say that His body has stability, tangibility, and is not like anything spreading in the air. But, applying this to the angels who appear, it cannot be said that they do not have this, for they too are tangible and act on visible objects, for example, rolling away a stone. Therefore, probably, when the Savior says: the spirit does not have flesh and bones, that is, the spirit does not have perseverance, tangibility, he points not to an angel, but to a ghost. The apostles thought that they saw a ghost spreading in the air, having no endurance. The Lord says to them: “I am not like that; touch Me; but you cannot touch a spirit, that is, a ghost” (Luke 24:37-39). Probably, here too the thought of the apostles was the same as they had when they saw the Savior walking on the waters (Matthew 14:25-27). But if this passage is understood in this way, then no conclusion can be drawn from it, either regarding the corporeality or the incorporeality of angels. Neither the words of the Apostle Paul, nor their interpretation by Saint Basil make any hint about the comparative incorporeality of spirits. If Saint Basil the Great had a thought about comparative incorporeality, he would have added to the phrase: it (the nature of spirits) is incorporeal - an explanatory clause that this incorporeality is relative for them, while they themselves are the body. But since he did not do this, but said without restrictions that their nature is incorporeal, it means that he recognized it as such, recognized that spirits not only do not have a body by nature, but do not have any body at all. We have already seen the complete teaching of Saint Basil, we saw that he recognized angels as pure spirits, created when nothing material was created; and now we will limit ourselves to this remark, just to show that in the words: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” and so on (Eph. 6:12), there is no indication of the comparative spirituality of spirits. “Holy Scripture testifies everywhere that angels appeared by special expression of the will of God...” Here is the main proof of the new teaching. We will now see how strong it is. All Scripture is filled with evidence of the apparitions of angels, and in the legends about the deeds of the holy apostles, about the lives of holy hierarchs, martyrs, reverend and God-bearing fathers, these apparitions are often mentioned everywhere. But all these facts have one inscription: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14). Since they, by the way, were created to help us in our spiritual needs, they are sent to us and appear when needed. Nothing can be directly deduced about the nature of angels from the circumstances of their appearance. After all, it is impossible to say this: since the angels appeared in bodily form, then they are the body. The natural course of reasoning in this case should be this: angels are usually invisible, but when they appear to us, they are visible in bodily form. What does it mean? This means, it must be answered, either that angels, invisible and incorporeal spirits, take on a body when they are sent to us by the command of God, or what they constantly wear as a natural part of their composition - a body capable of being visible and invisible, tangible and elusive, or, perhaps, to please only the new teaching, that they are the essence of the body. If a fourth assumption cannot be added to this, then one should then think like this: neither the first nor the second can be said, therefore, the third remains true. The new teaching did not do this; therefore, it did not want to submit to the yoke of the logical laws of a certain train of thought and acted arbitrarily and arbitrarily. That is why the conclusion that constitutes his main idea is an arbitrary conclusion, having no legal basis in the given facts. He should have proved in advance that it is impossible to agree either that angels - immaterial and incorporeal spirits - take on a body, or that they, being internally spirits, bear an external subtle body capable of becoming visible and tangible: then, perhaps, he would have come up with a third opinion. Otherwise, by directly deducing such a third opinion, it sinned against logic and left its thought unsubstantiated. One could do this only if the inappropriateness of the first two ways of explaining angelic manifestations were immediately obvious; Otherwise, only the inappropriateness of the conclusion drawn by the new teaching is obvious. Judge for yourself: if from the fact that the angels appeared bodily, one concludes that they are a body, then it will be necessary to conclude that God is a body, for God also appeared bodily. Thus, three bright young men come to Abraham: one of them is the Lord, and the other two are angels; but the appearance and all the circumstances of their appearance are the same (Gen. 18: 1-2), - tell me now: on what basis will you conclude that the two angels who appeared to Abraham, by the very fact that they appeared bodily, are the body; and the Lord with them, who appeared in exactly the same way as they, is not a body? Having admitted one thing, you must admit another, that is: if the angels are a body, then the Lord is a body. If you cannot admit this last thought, then you must abandon the first conclusion and recognize it as inappropriate. I took only this one case, but it is not the only one, for the Lord God appeared apparently more than once, from the very beginning of the creation of man. God gives commandments to the first-created, is heard by those walking in paradise and pronounces judgment on those who have sinned; denounces and condemns Cain, gives commands to Noah, repeatedly appears to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, talks with them and acts visibly and tangibly, appears to Moses in Kupina and sends him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt; at Sinai he verbally pronounces commandments to all the people, writes the ten-word book on tablets with his finger, and so on. In the Old Testament, God the Father and God the Son appeared physically; in the New, the voice of God the Father is heard on the Jordan, Tabor and in the temple, and the Holy Spirit appears either in the form of a dove or in the form of tongues of fire... You see how many Epiphanies there are in Scripture! I think that there are no less angelic apparitions. If we begin to philosophize as the new teaching philosophizes, that is, having collected all the evidence of Scripture about the manifestations of God, we will come to the conclusion that Holy Scripture clearly testifies that God is a subtle, ethereal, fiery body, and we will also apply the positive saying of Scripture about this: “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). But the whole world will rebel against such a conclusion with one voice, and it will rebel legitimately, and the new teaching will not dare to say a word against it. It would acquire the right to this if, having abandoned its speculation, it recognized that from the appearances of angels it is impossible to draw conclusions about their corporeality without violating the legal order of speculation and without fear of giving other heads a reason to use this method to draw conclusions about the corporeality of the Divine, which will be loudly contradicted by both the mind and the heart. After this, it is self-evident that all other conclusions that the new teaching draws from the passages of Scripture cited by it about anno-manifestations turn out to be inappropriate. “Holy Scripture,” argues the new teaching, “testifies with all evidence that spirits have a movement similar to that of humans.” When spirits appear in the form of a person, then the movement is similar to that of a human. But even in themselves, in their incorporeality, they can have movement, for they are real beings that exist among other creatures and are gifted with the ability to act among them, and therefore to move. Real existence and real evidence of its existence through action and motion does not necessarily lead to the thought that a being that is such is a body. There is no basis for concluding this way. Like people, angels move and act, appearing in human form, and being within themselves, in their own sphere, they, of course, move in a special way. “Holy Scripture,” says the author, “testifies that they are dependent on place and time, but to a much lesser extent than we are.” Depends no less on time; in relation to place, it must be said, not much less, but completely different from us and every body. They exist and act in a certain place, and when they exist and act in one place, they do not exist in another. But they are in a place without filling the place, like bodies, because they do not have extension, and therefore, spatial dimensions. They are in a place spiritually, as Saint Damascene explains: “being minds, angels exist in mental places, not limited to the body, for by nature they are not clothed with flesh and do not have extension, but are spiritually present and act where they are commanded” (Exposition of Faith, book 2, chapter 3). Holy Scripture testifies that they have an image and a form. The image and form in which they appear, and not what they have in themselves. In themselves they have a spiritual, mental image and appearance, which does not consist in any external outlines, but in the relationships of spiritual forces and in the manner of their action. In this sense, the Supreme Being itself has its own image, and the Only Begotten Son of God is the image of the Hypostasis of the Father. But, having this spiritual image and appearance, by their nature they do not have a physical appearance and image similar to the appearance and image of a person, and only when they appear are they visible in human form. This is what Scripture testifies to, and not to the image of their being. The conclusion based on these cases about the human-like corporeality of angels is completely illegal, just as it is generally illegal to conclude from the appearance of angels that they are a body. I will make one more remark about the passages of Holy Scripture cited by the author. He cites the following: “angels... in heaven they see the face of my heavenly Father” (Matthew 18:10). This is to show that angels, according to the testimony of the Word of God, have their own place of residence. What should we think about the angelic place - Saint Damascus told us, but how do angels see the face of God? According to the new teaching, angels, like the soul, have eyes, a face, hands and other members. Since the essence of angels, according to the new teaching, is a body, then, apart from bodily eyes, nothing else can be assumed for them, for example, the eye of the mind and mental vision. Consequently, when the angels see the face of the Heavenly Father, they see nothing other than with their bodily eyes. We explain this vision with mental vision - we say that the angels see the face of the heavenly father spiritually, intelligently, they contemplate Him, for they are intelligent, immaterial spirits, but the new teaching cannot say this, for the very nature of angels is a body, albeit a subtle one, which cannot have intelligent eyes. Look what comes out of here. Angels, who by nature have a body, see, of course, with bodily eyes. Since with bodily eyes one can only see the physical, it follows that the Heavenly Father also has a bodily face, or has a body, just as the angel who sees Him has a body. This conclusion comes directly from the provisions of the new teaching and it cannot refuse it. All that remains is to apply a phrase often used in mathematics: a situation is absurd when the consequence that follows from it is absurd; It is absurd to think that the nature of angels is a body with a head, face, eyes and other members that we usually see in humans, when this leads to an absurd thought about God. There is also a passage about the secondary return of an unclean spirit to an inattentive soul with seven other evil spirits (Luke 11:24-26). Firstly, this place, as well as the one where it speaks of a legion of spirits entering one person (Mark 5:8-9), is very difficult to understand. From the same thing about which it is difficult to form a definite thought, how can you deduce something definite? Secondly, if we are to deduce anything from this, then we must deduce a thought completely opposite to what the new teaching wants to see. It does not follow from this that the angels are dependent on the place, but that they must be completely independent of it, for what about the seven spirits or the whole legion in man? It is impossible otherwise than this: to be without taking up space, as we previously noted about the relationship of angels to place. Thus, it is obvious that angelic manifestations do not provide solid support for the new teaching. Let us now see whether it skillfully removes the possibility of pure spirits temporarily accepting subtle bodies. “A Western writer says that spirits put on subtle bodies when they appear to people. This is nowhere to be seen in Scripture." Scripture clearly shows that angels are rational forces, immaterial spirits, and that they appear to people in human form. It is natural for someone thinking about this to ask: where does this image, visible and tangible, come from, and then take from the Holy Fathers one of its solutions, the most general and most consistent with the essence of the matter, precisely the one against which the new teaching now speaks. What Scripture does not say about it cannot be deduced either for or against. This teaching itself said, beginning to cite passages of Scripture, that it does not contain a complete teaching about spirits; therefore, there is nothing to expect from him to resolve all issues. Scripture generally speaks of heaven and heavenly things from that side from which it can edify; the question about nature is more contemplative; That is why it was not left open on all sides. “It is not seen (in Scripture) that the angels changed when they appeared to men.” Whether by the word “changed” we mean that the angels temporarily take on a body, or that, constantly being clothed with a subtle body, they coarse it when they appear to people - Scripture does not speak about either one, leaving us free to decide this question ourselves. Silence is neither affirmation nor denial, and from the fact that Scripture does not speak of the changes that happen to angels when they take on bodies, one should not conclude that such a change does not exist. Saint John of Damascus speaks about this in opposition to the new teaching as follows: “When angels, according to the will of God, appear worthy, they appear not as they are in themselves, but in some transformed form, so that those who see can see them” (Exposition of the Faith, book 2, chapter 3). This is how St. Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret previously explained the angelic manifestations, as we have seen. “Scripture says that God opens the eyes of man when it pleases Him to allow man to see angels.” The first question regarding the vision of angels, how they appear, was mostly resolved by the Holy Fathers this way: they temporarily take on a body and are visible; and very few solved it by saying that angels constantly have a natural body, which, changing, becomes visible. The second question remains to be resolved: how do people see angels? The brochures solve it this way: “God opens their eyes and they see.” The solution is narrow and does not cover all cases. It is better to decide according to what is said about it in the Word of God. Usually the Scripture says: “so-and-so saw the holy angel,” and in very rare cases it is mentioned that God opened his eyes and they saw. So let us decide that the usual order of seeing angels during angelic appearances is that, by God’s condescension to man, they become so distinct that they are visible like all other visible objects; in special emergency cases of angelic manifestations, God, by a special action, opens the eyes of people, because in other cases He also keeps the eyes of people from seeing. It is impossible to accept exclusively one last method of angel vision and extend it to all cases. The Sodomites, for example, saw angels: is it really possible to think that God opened their eyes when this vision was not for their creation? It is equally difficult to agree that angels were visible in the same way when they were seen by many people, both good and evil, both faithful and unfaithful, as was the case, for example, in relation to the angel who guided Tobias. But it is even more incongruous to apply the same method to the vision of unclean spirits. Even after the fall, their nature remained angelic, invisible in the natural order of their existence: is it really possible that God opens the eyes of those who see them, so that they can be seen? It can't be! What terrible and ugly appearances they appear in! And God will open his eyes to see these monsters?! No, they are banned so that they do not dare to appear and disturb the peace of people. This happens by special permission of God; what they are; and when they appear, they are visible naturally. But if God does not open the eyes of people to see them, and they themselves appear and become visible naturally, then why should we allow such a privilege in relation to them alone? Further, the new teaching says about unclean spirits that, through hypocrisy, malice and deceit, they take on various false appearances, having the natural ability to do so. How natural it was after this to extend a little reasoning and say that if unclean spirits, by natural ability, take on different forms without the special participation of a higher power, then people see them by natural ability, without any special action of God, and then add: if this way of seeing spirits is allowed in relation to unclean spirits, why not allow it in relation to angels? “The Western writer,” it goes on, “would have to think about where the subtle bodies are stored, in which spirits are clothed to appear to people when there is no need for these bodies, because in his opinion, spirits are clothed in subtle bodies only when they are to appear to men.” Not just one Western writer should enter into the discussion of this, but also all those who recognize spirits as incorporeal. I undertake to answer for myself, and perhaps for them, if they wish to agree with me. The question arises: where are the subtle bodies stored, in which spirits clothe themselves when they appear to people? I answer: in the same place where the body of the Lord was kept, in which He appeared to Abraham, in which He fought with Jacob, in which we saw Him in paradise, and so on. In all these and similar cases, He took the body for a while, therefore, He took it somewhere. Thus, where the Lord took the body, there the spirits also took it, and where those Lord’s bodies were kept, there the bodies of the spirits are kept. They will say to this: this is how the Lord commands, and the elements will gather around Him and form a body; commands again - the elements will be resolved and the body will no longer exist. But the same Lord, who created spirits in His image and likeness, could also grant them the ability to gather the elements around themselves and put on a visible body, when this was necessary to fulfill His Holy will. I don't see anything impossible here. This is not impossible on the part of God: He is ready to bestow upon the creature every good that it is capable of containing. The question is: can the spirit accommodate such an ability? I answer: maybe, because he is a force that really exists among other creatures, and the highest force of all material things, no matter how strong and powerful it may be. The higher by nature can naturally dominate over the lower natures, and the lower natures must naturally submit and submit to the higher ones. So I believe that God gave to disembodied spirits the ability to attract to themselves, when required, certain elements and form a certain shell around themselves from them and then, when the need has passed, detach them from themselves and return them to their first state. In this way, the angels form for themselves both a body in the form of a human, in which they usually appear, as well as clothing and everything with which they appear; and in the same way all this is again decomposed into its elements. And it seems to me that this method of explanation is the simplest and most natural, and most importantly, it embraces all cases of angelic manifestations. Take a magnet and place it among iron filings - they will immediately be attracted to it and stick around it on all sides. Paralyze the force of the magnet in any way - the sawdust will all fall off and the magnet will remain bare. In the same way, spirits have a natural ability to attract and repel the elements, with the only difference that what in a magnet acts mechanically, in spirits is accomplished in subordination to freedom and reason. Our soul, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa teaches, forms its own body. But this process of formation is very long, and moreover, the soul, having formed a body for itself, does not have the freedom to resolve it at will. The higher spirits form bodies for themselves and release them freely, and moreover, according to their own desire or God’s will. Also: our soul in a dream, and sometimes in reality, imagines itself in different states and forms. I transfer this to spirits and say: what the soul can only imagine, the higher spirit can produce, of course, according to the conditions of its highest spiritual mode of existence and action and in subordination to the ruling Supreme Being. This is how I explain where the angels get their bodies in which they appear and where they put them. Now, in turn, I allow myself to ask a new teaching: angels by nature are a body, but the accessories of their appearance: different clothes, different tools - a sword, for example, or a rod, also different ages, the appearance of a youth, a husband, etc. - do not, of course, belong to nature, where does all this come from? Let him explain as best he can, but there is one thing I cannot admit in advance, namely, that angels live sensually, have sensual dwellings, dress sensually, eat, communicate with each other, although this sensuality is recognized as the most subtle. This, in my opinion, is rude, and with all the refinement allowed, it is unworthy of either God or the angels. This is all that can be said about the passages of Scripture cited by the brochures in support of their opinion about the corporeality of the angelic nature. It is clear that they did not prove by anything from Scripture that an angel was a body; on the contrary, from almost everything they cited, we have legitimate grounds to draw a completely opposite conclusion. Meanwhile, those passages of Scripture that prove the spirituality of the soul and the angel and which we cited above stand in their power, for the brochures left them inviolable. From here it naturally follows that the general position of the new teaching, that there are no spirits in the totality of creatures, is refuted by the Word of God in the most obvious and convincing way. However, I will give one general point about this. The new teaching believes that only one God is spirit, and all creatures are body. From Scripture it is proven that, in addition to the Spirit-God, there must be spirits and creatures, for in the Gospel of John the Lord says: “God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Tell me, how to bow in spirit when there is no spirit among creatures? In order to bow in spirit, one must have a spiritual nature, for otherwise how can the body bow in spirit? So, according to the requirement of the Word of God, I conclude that among God’s creatures there must be spiritual beings similar to God in spirituality. But when it is thus proven that the word spirit in relation to creatures in one place of Scripture means a spirituality like God; then we have no reason to interpret this word differently when it is applied to angels and souls in other places of Scripture and to mean by it some subtle etheric body. Thus, when it is said about angels: “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), no one has the right to understand by these words anything other than God-like spirituality. With this remark we will conclude the analysis of the evidence of Scripture about the nature of angels and the soul. Analysis of mental considerations to justify a new teaching The last support on which the new teaching hopes to be established is the scientific considerations of the mind. Some of these considerations, mainly about angels, are drawn from theological concepts about the infinity of the nature of God and the limitations of angels (“Addition”), others, mainly about the soul, are taken from its relationship to the body, true or assumed. The first consideration can be expressed this way: God has nothing in common with creatures; He is distinguished from them by infinite difference. But He is spirit; therefore it cannot be that there are spirits among creatures; for it is impossible to put the creature on the same line with God, who is incomparable with anything. In this speculation, reverence for the greatness of God is commendable, but the conclusion drawn from this cannot be considered solid. Every creature, even the highest, has nothing of its own. Everything that is in her is a gift from God. But every good visible in creatures is a part of the complete good that exists in God. What is infinitely perfect and complete in God, appears in many different degrees of limitation in creation. Thus, to God “all things are possible” (Mark 10:27), and the creature can do something, but only something, in its own circle, to the best of its ability. God is omniscient, and rational creatures know, but not much and not always infallibly. God is all-good, and creation is good, but in a very limited and not always reasonable kind of goodness. If we thus sort through all the good in creatures, it will turn out that all of it is, to a limited extent, a participation of the infinite good of the Divine. It pleased God to give to creatures from Himself all the good that they were capable of participating in and giving independently, so that nothing remained unrewarded that could be given. Thus, we see that very much that is infinite in God, this infinity did not prevent from appearing in creatures of a limited degree. Now, in order to have the right to thoroughly conclude to the denial of limited spirituality in creatures from the idea of ​​infinite spirituality in God, it was necessary to prove that spirituality is such a good among other Divine blessings that it is impossible to communicate to creatures when they have become participants in other Divine blessings. But this cannot be proven in any way, for the divine nature is incomprehensible. Nor can it be comprehended which of the infinite goodnesses of the Divine nature can be communicated to creatures to a limited extent, and which cannot. If we say anything, then we should be inclined to the possibility of communicating limited spirituality to creatures, and not to denying it, for, on the one hand, we know that the goodness of God in creation wanted to pour into creation every good that could be contained in it: and on the other, we see traces of spiritual phenomena in the creatures that we call rational. With this in mind, one cannot deny the possibility of communication and the nature of the spiritual. It must also be said that it is more difficult to give being than to quality being. If the infinite fullness of Divine existence did not put barriers, but, on the contrary, served as a source for granting existence to finite creatures, then what reason is there to believe that His infinite spirituality will be a barrier to the appearance of creatures with limited spirituality? On the contrary, should we not conclude that since there is an infinite spirituality, there must also be a finite spirituality? Look how far Saint Gregory the Theologian has removed the Triune God from us: “The Trinity,” he says, “premium and transcending time... is invisible. The One enters into the Holy of Holies, but leaves every creature outside, and separates some with the first veil, and others with the second veil. Thus, by the first, heavenly and angelic beings are separated from the Divine, and by the second, our nature is separated from heavenly beings...” See how far it is! And the angels are left outside, and we are even outside the angels. Meanwhile, however, despite the contemplation of such a remoteness of the Divine nature from creatures, when he began to depict the creation of creatures, he did not hesitate to say that God creates creatures akin to Himself, that is, rational spirits. His mind, so reverent and highly contemplative, did not see the impossibility of finite spirits existing through the gift of the one infinite Spirit; infinite spirituality did not deprive him of the possibility of finite spirituality. No matter how high and separate God is from creatures, this did not prevent, according to the thoughts of the holy Theologian, natures akin to Him from being among creatures: only intelligent natures are akin to God. However, we have already seen this passage when considering the teaching of the Holy Theologian about angels. Let us now see how the new teaching defends its idea: “God,” it says, “is an all-perfect being, having nothing in common with created beings.” Is it possible to cut off the creature from the Creator so sharply? The nature of God is lofty, but goodness is inquisitive. Is it possible that the Creator is not visible in creation? And if it is visible, then how come there is nothing in common with the Creator? There are creatures about which the Creator Himself said that they were created in His image. Is there really nothing in common here, where the image is? Again, when the fallen are restored. The Restorer himself sets the goal of restorative actions and institutions to be communion with God, praying like this: “...that these also may be one in us... as You, the Father, are in Me, and I in You...” (John 17:21) and those who cleave to Him are made worthy of communion with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. In order to enter into such communication, you must have something in common with God in your nature. “God,” says the new teaching, “is actually a being: “I am,” He said about Himself (Ex. 3:14).” Let God be a being, but creatures also truly exist. And when they exist, their existence is not God’s existence in them, but their own, albeit given by God. So it is in relation to spirituality: the spirit itself is God; but nevertheless, there are also creatures - spirits, and this spirituality in them is their own spirituality, albeit given by God. “The existence,” it is further interpreted, “of rational creatures and their life differ from the life of God, just as the light that is emitted from objects illuminated by the sun differs from the light pouring out from the sun itself, from the source of light.” But this passage is obviously not in favor of the new teaching. No one says that the spirituality of rational creatures is the same as the spirituality of God. It is similar to the spirituality of God, but in dignity it is incomparably lower than it. Despite all this, it is still spirituality, just as reflected light, although weaker than solar light, is still light, and solar light. In the same way, what is given further from Saint John of Damascus gives reason to make suggestions that are contrary to the new teaching. Saint John of Damascus says: “The good, all-good and all-good God, being all goodness, according to the immeasurable riches of His goodness, did not suffer that goodness, that is, His nature, should remain alone and no one should be a partaker of Him.” If the Divine nature is spiritual, then why did the goodness of God not suffer? She did not tolerate that no one was a participant in this spirituality. If she did not suffer, then how could spiritual creatures, with God-like spirituality, not be among creatures? They are, as Saint Damascus further says: “for this he created the intellectual and heavenly powers, then the visible and sensory world, then man from the intellectual and sensory nature.” This passage is taken almost word for word from St. Gregory the Theologian. And in him, as we have seen, intelligent and heavenly powers are called akin to God or god-like natures. What follows is a lengthy extract from St. John Chrysostom and St. Macarius about the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility of the Divine nature: but this is not what we are talking about. From inaccessibility it only follows that God cannot be directly known by us, but is known only by the communication of this knowledge from Himself and, moreover, to a limited extent. But from the very fact that we have the thought of the infinity of God’s nature and feel aspirations towards the infinite, shouldn’t we conclude that in us there is something akin to Him, something that, not by being, but by aspirations and thought, strives to coincide, so to speak, with His boundless limits? Doesn’t this feature of infinity in the manifestations of our inner life suggest that we carry within us an incorporeal spirit, not bound by the limits by which everything material and corporeal is connected? The following extract from Saint Macarius was analyzed at length by us before. So, the new teaching did not manage to derive from the inaccessibility of the nature of God a decisive denial of spirituality in creatures. On the contrary, it itself partly led us to the conclusion that among creatures there must be spiritual, god-like beings. The originator of this teaching himself felt that nothing could prevent creative goodness from giving birth to spiritual creatures. Therefore, from Creative infinity he moves on to created limitation and suggests that spirituality is incompatible with created limitation: even if God wanted there to be creatures with a spiritual essence, but creation, since creation is limited, cannot accommodate this spirituality. This is the second consideration of the new teaching. Here are his words: “If created spirits are limited, then both their being and their properties are limited. If their being and properties are limited, then their spirituality is limited.” “On the contrary, if we attribute to them complete immateriality, that is, unlimited spirituality, then at the same time, of necessity, we must attribute to them the unlimitedness of a being, because only one unlimited being can and must have unlimited properties.” All these provisions are grouped around one central point: if the spirituality of created spirits is limited, then they, of necessity, must have a certain degree of materiality inherent in their nature. The question arises: from what does it follow that limited spirituality must necessarily be material to a certain extent? Where does this need come from? “Angels,” it goes on, “are subject to time and space. The concept of subordination to space is indistinguishable from the concept of subordination to form. Having rejected the concept of the subordination of angels to space, one must either completely reject their existence or recognize them as limitless, that is, attribute to them the omnipresent Divine. Only two indefinite quantities - nothing and infinity - do not obey any form; On the contrary, every definite quantity, no matter how great or small, certainly has a form, by its very definiteness. Having agreed that angels are limited, we must also accept that in relation to space they have a form, and in relation to the subtlety of nature they have a certain degree of this subtlety, that is, they are inevitably bodies, no matter how subtle these bodies are. The form of a limited being is certainly outlined, so to speak, by its very limits, its extremities; the creature thus depicted has its own appearance. The infinite is not subject to any form, as having no ending in any direction: for the same reason it cannot have any form. “There is no one in sight of God, nowhere” (John 1:18). An infinite being cannot be a body, because it is subtler than any most excellent subtlety: it is completely spirit.” Here's your proof! But is it conclusive? If, speaking about God that He is an infinite being, one cannot understand anything else than that the Divine nature has no end in any direction, that is, that it is infinite in extension; then it will naturally follow that the finite is finite in extension, that is, it has endings in all directions and, therefore, occupies a certain space in three dimensions, has its own shape and therefore is a body. But if the infinite does not mean this non-finishing in any direction, does not mean, that is, infinity in extension, then it will in no way follow that the finite is necessarily already a body. Let us, however, give the exact meaning of the word “infinite”. There are two words in Latin: infinitus and indefinitus. And we also have two corresponding words: infinite, or limitless, and indefinite - two terms that express completely different concepts. Indefinite means - not having precise boundaries and outlines, and boundless and infinite means - not having a degree of perfection or all-perfect in all possible respects, the fullness of being, life, perfection. The relationship to space and time is not taken into account here, since the infinite is outside of these relationships. It is impossible to speak of it as either infinitely continuing in time, or infinitely extended in space. He is eternal, which denies temporality, and is omnipresent, which denies spatiality. If the pamphlet had kept this in mind, it would not have come to the conclusions we saw. Her whole mistake lies in the incorrect concept of the infinity of the Divine being. If the infinite is understood in such a way that it has no end in any direction, that is, in every direction it is extended without end; then it will disappear in uncertainty, like what we say: “scattered in the air.” Therefore, if by saying that the infinite is not subject to form, or that it has no form, the new teaching means by this infinity in extension, then, while exalting God in words, in meaning it destroys His existence. The new teaching, apparently, has an incorrect concept of Divine spirituality. “The Infinite,” it says, “cannot be a body.” Why? Because it is “more subtle than any most excellent subtlety, it is completely spirit.” It turns out that the Divine being is spirit because it is subtler than any most excellent subtlety, that is, the highest, most perfect subtlety, higher and more perfect than which no subtlety can be. Just as subtlety in general is a property of matter; then the highest, last degree of subtlety will also indicate the substance. From here it will directly follow that God is material. Based on incorrect concepts about infinity and spirituality, the new teaching built its entire interpretation about the corporeality of angels and souls. But if the law is immutable that, just as imprecise concepts are incorrect, then everything deduced from them is incorrect, then therefore the entire structure of this teaching is false. If an unlimited, infinite being does not mean spatial unlimitedness, then the limitedness of a being does not necessarily mean limitedness in relation to space, it does not require that this being necessarily have a form, that it be outlined by its limits and extremities and have a form. All this may be appropriate in the limited, but it does not in any way follow from the correct concept of the infinite. Likewise, the following proposition does not follow: “having rejected the concept of the subordination of angels to space, one must either completely reject their existence, or recognize them as limitless, that is, ascribe to them omnipresence.” If unlimitedness or infinity is infinite extension or the occupation of an indefinite, all possible extension and space, then it will be necessary to follow that since angels are not subordinate to a specific space, but cannot occupy all space due to their limitations, then they do not exist. But if they exist and are not subordinate to a specific space, then all that remains is to assume that they fill all space, or are everywhere. This is how it turns out if we take as a basis the incorrect concept of the infinite, as if it is a being that has no end in any direction. Put first another concept of the infinite and this whole conclusion collapses by itself. From the concept of the infinite as all-perfect, it follows that every limited being can have only a certain share of perfection and, moreover, to a certain degree. But for it to necessarily occupy space, to have all three dimensions, to have its own shape and appearance and therefore be a body, this in no way follows. These accessories are derived from other provisions about created beings, namely, from the position about material creatures. The concept of extension is necessarily connected with the concept of substance; the concept of extension leads to the concept of form; a formed, extended being is a body. From the concept of immaterial creatures other provisions emerge: instead of extension, or, as they say, extensive quantity, the quality in them is intensive quantity, the degree of tension of spiritual forces and mental-moral qualities. This property of spiritual beings does not require that they necessarily take shape in space, although their activity must certainly manifest itself somewhere. They exist, but do not occupy space, as it is occupied or filled by the body, but only show their presence in it by the activity of the spiritual or mental forces that make up their essence. Without taking shape in space, they have no outline; without outline, they have no appearance. These are direct consequences from the correct concept of the infinite and the finite - consequences that are diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the new teaching! There can be no dispute in the conclusions. The whole dispute, if it is appropriate for it to be, can revolve around the concept of the infinite. Whose concept of infinity is correct, the truth is on his side. The Long Christian Catechism says this about the being of God: “God is an eternal spirit, all-good, all-knowing, all-righteous, all-powerful, all-present, unchangeable, all-satisfied, all-blessed.” All this together can be expressed in one word: all-perfect, or infinitely perfect. The theology of the Right Reverend Macarius says: “By calling God infinite, we mean that he is not only free from any limitation and lack in any respect, but at the same time possesses all possible perfections (essentialities - realitatibus) and, moreover, to the highest degree, or without any degree or measure” (vol. 1, p. 76). On page 78 it says: “We must remember that infinity or all-perfection in God is not some particular property of God, but a general one, embracing all others. God,” says Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “is perfect in everything... perfect in knowledge, perfect in power, perfect in greatness, perfect in foresight, perfect in goodness, perfect in justice, perfect in love for mankind.” This is how one must understand the infinity of the Divine nature! Nowhere is it mentioned here, even with any hint, that it is infinite because it has no end in any direction. Consequently, angels and souls should not be understood as the new teaching understands them, based on its incorrect concept of the infinite. It should not be thought that angels and souls, since they are finite, must necessarily have an outline, a figure, an appearance, a certain extension in space in three dimensions. St. John of Damascus told us what angels and souls are in space, according to which they are such in space that from this they do not receive a form or image and the need to have three dimensions. And that souls have neither outline, nor quantity, nor extension in three dimensions, nor local position - this was taught to us by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, whose teaching must be considered not unique, but combining the agreement of both Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. And Saint Gregory of Nyssa also eliminated the bewilderment that arises from the denial of these qualities in the soul (and, I will add, in the angel), as if therefore it should be considered of the same nature as God as infinite - he eliminated it, explaining that God-likeness is not consubstantial. Saint Maximus the Confessor did the same. Thus, the desire of the new teaching to deduce from the limitations of angels and souls that they are the body can be considered very unsuccessful. Why the subsequent appeal to religious feeling, that you see, by attributing spirituality to creatures, angels and souls, you assimilate the properties of the Creator to creatures and, therefore, fall into blasphemy - turns out to be unnecessary after the explanations we have made. You can even turn to this teaching itself with a similar speech: “Look, after all, wanting to protect God, you prescribe to Him what He can and cannot create; and while He Himself testifies that He created creatures like Him, you, by your denial, seem to be telling him: where should You create! While we honor angels as spirits, we also do not think of falling into excess of veneration; on the contrary, we must be careful that, by calling them a body, we might offend them by thinking of them lower than they are. Who would be offended by excessive veneration? And for not paying our due, perhaps they will become indignant at us. “The connection between the soul and the body,” says the new teaching, “proves that, despite the significant difference between body and soul, body and soul also have something in common, they have, to use the expression of chemistry, affinity. If there were no affinity, there could be no connection. If there is affinity, then the soul must necessarily have some materiality inherent to itself.” An objection can almost always be heard, challenging psychologists who recognize the soul as a spiritual substance to explain: how is the soul connected to the body, and how do they mutually influence each other? The distance between spirit and body seems too great. And so, in order to bring closer together and thereby weaken the power of the proposed questions, they say: and the spirit is a body, only subtle. But does this alleviate the difficulty? Who will take a look? Another may think that bewilderment remains at the same strength, and moreover, this concession, without facilitating the explanation of one side (the union and interaction of soul and body), raises insurmountable difficulties on the other (spiritual actions of the soul - consciousness, freedom, thought, etc.). We stick to those too. But more on that later. Now let's turn to the main reason. Is it true that in order to be connected and interact, you need to be homogeneous? And is it therefore necessary for the soul, by spiritual nature, to be a body in order to be in connection and interaction with the body? In our opinion, this is not necessary. In addition to material affinity, there is a dynamic, intensive affinity, consisting in the unity of forms and laws of action. It is enough to assume that the soul, being a spiritual substance, received for its activity laws and forms identical with the laws and forms of the material world and its body, in order to understand how it acts through them on the body and receives action back from the body, without being itself a body. The soul is not an abstract force, as it seems to the new teaching, but is a real, real force, really existing between other realities. In this reality of existence lies the basis for the possibility of acting on the environment and receiving action from it. And so that this interaction is not destructive, it is protected by an internal similarity, the sameness of laws and forms of action. The soul-spirit, a real force, physical, let's put it this way, acts on its side and sets the whole body in motion and, like spirit, is higher than matter, is predominant and dominant in us. Even the very formation of the body is accomplished by this same side, in addition to the consciousness and independent activity of the soul. Understanding in this way the body itself as a product of the soul-spirit, we will no longer have the need to solve the question of how the soul is connected to the body by assuming that the soul is the body. Remember one of our extracts from St. Basil the Great about the double power of the soul - vital and rational, and agree that our thought is not actually ours. Let us cite that passage here: “Spiritual power,” he says, “is twofold, although the soul is one and the same, namely: one is the actual vital force of the body, and the other is the force that contemplates existing things, which we will also call rational. But the soul, since it is connected to the body, naturally, as a result of this connection, and not arbitrarily, imparts vital force to the body. And the contemplative power is set in motion at will! This is the source and special form of the affinity of body and soul, according to which it is in no way required that they both be bodies. We do not say that this explanation reveals the secret of the union of the soul with the body, but we cannot help but insist that with it there is no need for other assumptions, especially such strange ones, according to which the soul should be recognized as a body. The soul combines with the body and acts on it naturally, and the opposite effect also takes place naturally. Let us now focus on the word “affinity”, taken from chemistry. It frightened us when we met him here for the first time, reviving the fear: whether the theory of the new teaching was in alliance with the principles of chemistry. The fear was not in vain. In the “Addition” this is what is written: “The body remains a body until the moment when life has not left it. By leaving him to live, his decomposition begins. Moreover: by this abandonment, decomposition is accomplished; further decomposition is only a consequence of the main, essential decomposition. The decomposition of a substance, according to the laws of chemistry, can only be accomplished by separating one or many of its constituent parts from it. Here is an indication of science on the materiality of the soul: the separation of something immaterial, abstract would not have any effect on the substance. But the soul is invisible. What about that? Invisible and caloric. It is an unweighted principle, but is separated chemically from water by a separation imperceptible and incomprehensible to the senses, and water turns into another substance - ice.” You read it and don’t believe your eyes! Every word is unheard of news! Just think, one word affinity, which escaped, perhaps by accident, led to this! The soul got into the chemical elements of the body... Who has ever read or heard such news?! Let us first note that an independent, independent region of chemical processes is not of organic nature. There are chemical products in plants, but chemical processes here depend on another principle, which chemistry does not understand, as the new teaching itself says. While this beginning is in action, chemistry has no entry into its laboratory. But when it departs, and only the body produced by it remains, then chemistry takes its products, decomposes and determines: which element went into which part, to what extent, but does not know the production of the matter itself. After examining everything, she can only say: you see what this beginning - life - has done - but how, who knows! In an animal we see the most vegetative principle in subordination to another principle, from which feeling, movement, intelligence are imparted. And in man we see an even higher principle, dominating over all this and higher than all that. Such is the ladder of strength! I cite the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on this subject: “We have almost forgotten the order in creation, according to which the vegetation of plants from the earth precedes and this is followed by dumb animals, and then, after their structure, man. It seems to me that Moses expounds in this some secret teaching and mysteriously communicates wisdom about the soul, which the highest learning dreamed of, but did not understand it clearly. For the word teaches us that vital and spiritual strength is seen in three differences. There is a certain plant force that is only nutritional: accepting what is suitable for the growth of what is fed, it is called natural and is seen in plants, because in what grows one can notice a certain vital force, devoid of feelings. But, besides this, there is another type of life, to which the first belongs, and to it is attached the ability to control oneself by feeling; Such is the life in the nature of the dumb: they do not only feed and grow, but have sensory activity and sensory understanding. Perfect life in the body is seen in verbal nature - I mean human nature, nourished, feeling, having the gift of speech and controlled by reason... Therefore, the legislator (Moses) says that after inanimate matter, as if in some kind of foundation of animate beings, this natural life, realized in the vegetation of plants, was first formed, then it introduces into existence creatures governed by feeling... The last thing, after plants and animals, is man. All types of souls are dissolved in this verbal animal - man... He feeds, and the sensitive one is connected with the plant (nutritive) force... Then, with what is subtle and luminous in the sentient nature, a certain assimilation and dissolution of the intelligible essence takes place, so that man is made up of these three natures” (Part 1, pp. 97-99). This is the complete image of the forces operating in creatures! A similar teaching can be seen in the 166 points of instruction of St. Anthony the Great in the Philokalia. The teaching of the Holy Fathers about the ladder of powers is mentioned in passing, so that the incorrectness of the new teaching, which has pushed the human soul into a series of chemical elements, can be more clearly seen. And he does this to please modern science, which itself admits that it does not understand the body, much less its life. “The life of the body,” it says, “is inaccessible to our comprehension,” and this is also organic, plant life; all the more inaccessible is the life of an animal, which, in addition to the first, also has voluntary feeling and movement and intelligence; and even incomparably more inaccessible is the life of a person whose soul or spirit is capable of knowing God, of experiencing God, of completely free activity not dependent on anything external, of compiling an overview of everything that exists, of aspirations that detach the mind and heart from everything. If all this is unknown to science, then the law orders not to take it as a guide when drawing up provisions that determine the essence of human life. And yet, a position has been drawn up and drawn up in the name of science that our soul is material - and exists in us precisely as a chemical element, the separation of which initiates, or even accomplishes, the decomposition of our body. The last indication of experience - that the outcome of the soul is the beginning of the decomposition of the body - served, as it seems, as the reason for this situation. For the new teaching, as stated in our extract, goes like this: the decomposition of a substance, that is, any chemically complex body, according to the laws of chemistry, can only be accomplished by separating one or many of its constituent parts from it. Since the soul, separating from our body, decomposes it, it is obvious that it is an integral part of the body. And just as, further, our body is material, then all its component parts are material, therefore the soul is material, as a corresponding part of it. And here is the famous indication of science about the materiality of the soul! “The separation of something immaterial, abstract, would not have any effect on the substance (body) ....” Even if, according to the principles of chemistry, something came out in favor of the new teaching, then even then it would be possible not to give it much weight. Chemistry deals with a completely different range of subjects to which the soul belongs. Therefore, she cannot be a competent judge of the soul. Although the new teaching recognizes itself as not opposed to chemistry and hopes to find justification for itself in it, it could not explain or prove this. In order to somehow prove the materiality of the soul using chemistry, it would be necessary to prove in advance that it is similar to the chemical elements of the body and is chemically combined with the body. The soul is prevented from achieving an affinity with these elements by its invisibility and intangibility, so that with this property of the soul one can immediately reject any attempt to prove materiality by its methods, which are borrowed from the chemical laboratory. The new teaching hastens to remove this obstacle to the success of its conclusions, asserting that if the soul is invisible, then this is nothing, and chemistry is not opposed to the existence of the elusive and unnoticed. That the invisibility of the soul does not prevent it from entering the group of chemical elements is explained by the example of the combination of caloric with things. “The soul is invisible: as for that, caloric is also invisible. But it is separated chemically from water by a separation imperceptible and incomprehensible to the senses, and the water turns into another substance - into ice.” That the chemical separation of the soul from the body, which thereby becomes cold-mortal, is accomplished in a similar way, is left to the readers to add. But a comparison, even if it were successful, is not yet a proof, and here there is no proof, and the comparison taken is unsuccessful - unsuccessful because it does not lead to the thoughts that the new teaching wanted to clarify with them. Heat does not combine with things, nor is it chemically separated from them. This is a force free from chemical cohesion: it enters and leaves according to its own laws. Chemistry does not participate in its affairs, and therefore does not count it among its elements. Therefore, if we give this example its meaning, then it will be necessary to say that the soul is not chemically united with the body and, therefore, when it leaves it, then at that moment the main essential decomposition does not occur - that is, it will be necessary to reject the position on which the new teaching hoped to rely, in order to deduce from here the materiality of the soul according to the laws of chemistry. That water, by the separation of caloric, turns into another substance - ice - this may be an accidental slip, but the separation of heat, imperceptible and incomprehensible to the senses, seems to have been mentioned deliberately, so that this separation would be more like the separation of the soul from the body. And again unsuccessfully, and not to your advantage! Although the separation of heat is imperceptible to the senses, physicists have the most sensitive instruments with which they recognize and, as it were, sense the effects of heat in all degrees. And this is what further leads to: physicists have tools for determining the properties and actions of all the subtlest material forces: heat, electricity, light - all of these forces are considered manifestations of the ether and all of them are subject to artificial experimental observations. Why, until now, has no one even attempted to invent any instrument for testing the soul, if it is also ether, in order to visually determine its own tension and then the degree of action of its forces - reason, will, feelings, passions? Is it not because the soul is inconvenient to this kind of treatment? Yes. Why is it inconvenient? Because it belongs to a completely different area than all the manifestations of the ether known to us. But whoever agrees with this, and it is impossible not to agree, cannot but agree with the fact that the soul is not only not some chemical element, but also not an ethereal body. Thus, the unfortunate comparison used by the new teaching in its justification led us to conclusions that undermine it. In order to show that the elusiveness of the soul does not deprive it of the possibility of belonging to the number of objects that chemistry deals with, a lie is raised against chemistry in the following words: “The existence of something material that does not have an effect on our senses, or has an effect that we do not notice, is not only not contrary to the teaching of chemistry, but is clear from its teaching” (“Addition”). What lies beyond our feelings and actions, what we do not notice, neither chemistry nor all the natural sciences know and do not want to know. It’s not their business to touch on that. Their job is to notice what can be noticed, to bring them under different feelings, to do experiments, to compare, to generalize, to make suggestions, and so on. But all this is in an area noticeable, if not by everyone, then by at least one sense. As for chemistry, it has oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen - the most subtle, there is no finer one - they have no color, no smell, no taste, but still they are not invisible. She extracts them, seals them in jars, weighs them, combines them, determines the shares in which they are combined with which substance, and so on. They are in her hands, under her constant notes, she follows their actions everywhere and thereby determines them. This is her area! What is beyond this, chemistry does not concern, it is neither yes nor no. Is it not because the existence of spirits, as the new teaching claims, is not contrary to chemistry, because it does not care about them? Whether they are there or not, she doesn’t care. Further: one cannot help but reproach the new teaching for confusing concepts. It mixed, and mixed completely illegally, the decomposition of bodies in inorganic nature, where chemical processes are complete masters, with the decomposition of organic bodies, where they are in the service of another, greatest mistress, who is called the vital principle. This lady herself is a cunning chemist. Her organic body is a laboratory. She takes chemical elements and from them manages to construct all the various parts, for example, of the human body. How she does this is incomprehensible to chemistry. While this lady is in the body, she keeps all her products in the body in their form and composition and does not allow them to decompose. When it leaves the body, then the parts of the body, having lost the vital activity that produces them and supports them, are subject to the external influence of air, heat and moisture and begin to decompose into their constituent elements. The separation of the vital principle does not cause decomposition: for this principle is not an elemental part of the organism, but is the force that produces and supports it. At the end of this force, the body remains intact in its composition; but since it is left to itself, left without protection and support, it begins to decay. The decomposition is just beginning here. The outcome of the life principle is not decomposition, but only the granting of freedom and space to decomposing processes. This is where spontaneous decomposition begins. This is where chemical laws actually come into force; they do not participate in the outcome of the life principle: that is an area unknown to them. In inorganic nature it is a different matter. Here the decomposition is not preceded by the outcome of any higher principle, but the very act of separation of any element is decomposition, after which the body immediately disappears. Heat a mixture of sulfur and mercury, and cinnabar, a chemically composed body, will come out. Put iron in cinnabar and heat it - the sulfur will combine with the iron, and the mercury will separate, and there will be no cinnabar. This is the very act of separating the constituent parts. But it’s not like that: the vital principle departs, but the body remains intact, as it was. The last example gives rise to the following remark. Elements contained in a chemical compound each lose their natural properties and from their combination a completely new body is formed, not similar to either one or the other element. If the soul is chemically united with the body, then it is not a soul, but becomes a soul only upon leaving the body. How do we call it soul? If here, in a chemical combination with the organism, it is a soul, then upon liberation from it it should no longer be a soul, but something else. Should the new teaching be concerned with finding out her own name after she leaves her body? I'll add one more thing. It seems to the new teaching that the soul becomes some kind of distraction when it is recognized as spiritual. No, recognizing it as spiritual, we in no way think that it is any idea, but is an actual force that really exists. Its separation from the body produces an effect on the organism because it animates the body. The soul departs - there is no more life. In order for it to produce such an effect on the body through its separation, there is no need for it to be material and to be in chemical affinity and union with the body. To dispel these unpleasant thoughts about the soul, induced by the new teaching, I quote the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the soul and its relationship to the body. This is what he says about the soul: “The soul is a created essence, a living, rational essence, imparting vital and receptive sensory power to the organic and sensitive body until the nature capable of accepting this turns out to be consistent” (Part 4, p. 214). He is talking about the soul while it is in the body. What happens when it leaves the body? “When... this vital cause, which was once in the body, suddenly becomes invisible and inconspicuous, just like a flame that had been burning in an extinguished lamp; then, after the dissolution of the affinity of the elements, in each of them there occurs a desire for what is in common with it, since the very nature of the elements, by some necessary attraction, returns to the homogeneous what is characteristic of it...” (ibid., p. 206). If this is a consequence of the separation of the soul from the body, then isn’t it therefore itself a bodily element? No, the soul “exists on its own, with a special nature, different from bodily plumpness. It is immaterial, incorporeal, acts and moves in accordance with its nature and manifests its characteristic actions with its bodily organs. The organic structure of the body is completely the same in the dead; but remains motionless and inactive, due to the lack of mental strength in him” (ibid., p. 212, etc.). It is impossible to leave without comment and the last words of this mournful section of the speculation of the new teaching, where it speaks of chemistry and mathematics. “These sciences, having separated God from creation by infinite difference, seem to open the door to faith, explaining the need for Revealed knowledge of God. They cannot reject it because of their recognized omnipotence of God and the independence of His actions from human judgment” (“Addition”). Chemistry and mathematics pushed the idea of ​​God further away in order to completely do without God. They threw the thought of God behind them. Chemistry knows nothing but matter; Mathematics, too, in the applications of its calculations, focuses only on the real. They are bad guides to faith in God. They do not open, but close this door. What St. Gregory of Nyssa says about Epicurus goes exactly to them: “For him, the limit of the nature of beings was the visible, and he considered sensation to be the measure of comprehension of the universe, completely closing the sensibility of the soul and not being able to turn his gaze to anything mental and incorporeal, just as a prisoner in some hut remains blind to the heavenly wonders, because the walls and ceiling prevent him from seeing what is outside.” huts. For everything sensual that can only be seen in the Universe is truly some kind of earthen wall, which blocks the path to the view of the mental for people of weak minds. Such a person sees only earth, air and fire, and where each of these elements comes from, or what it consists of, or what is contained in its place, cannot see this due to the baseness of the mind. And although another, seeing clothes, concludes about a weaver, by a ship he understands the shipbuilder, and looking at a building, he imagines the hand of the creator, yet he, looking at the world, remains blind to the discernment of the One Whom he points to” (Part 4, p. 208). This is what to expect from these sciences! Especially chemistry stuck in the elements, and where can it raise its head to look at the sky? “I have the elements,” she says, “and the law of affinity; what more could I want?” I have no need for any outside force. The pious chemist and mathematician, amazed at how everything is wisely arranged in measure, weight and number, will thus kindle a religious feeling in themselves: but the sciences themselves, as sciences, in the production of their work completely do without thinking about God. “They cannot reject God,” says the new teaching. Why is it now, with the predominance of the direction towards natural science, that a cooling towards faith in God and His providence has developed? Because these sciences do not want to know the power of God. For them there is nothing more powerful than the laws of nature. They pushed the idea of ​​God aside. Together with them, the new teaching is zealous for the same thing. Will this lead to anything good?! Until now, we have examined the new teaching in its foundations and followed how it developed itself. Let us now stand face to face with it and discuss it according to the composition in which it was formed and according to the position in which it was expressed. Thus, first of all: is it consistent with itself and does it not contradict itself? Further, if we accept it as an assumption for explaining a certain range of phenomena, then does it explain these phenomena? The answer to the first question is simple. The new teaching says: “The soul and angel are a complete body, having the whole image of a person: head, hair, face, eyes, ears, chest, arms, legs.” In order for this diversity of parts to take place and for these parts to differ in themselves from one another and be distinguished by others from the outside, it is necessary to allow a difference of elements in their composition. The composition of the eye should be different from the composition of the arm, leg, etc. If so: these body-souls cannot consist of one ether, as the new teaching believes, for ether is recognized as the simplest of all the world’s elements, which in itself cannot provide a variety of constituent parts for the formation of the soul-body in its entirety. It is possible to come up with other subtle substances, similar to ether in subtlety, but different in properties, to make up the soul. But then it still cannot be said that the soul is simple and uncomplicated, but it must be recognized as a multi-component organism, even if it is subtle. Will the new teaching agree to supplement itself with this position? If he agrees, and it is hardly possible to disagree, then he must agree at the same time that the soul is a body, not only consisting of ether, or admit his inconsistency. Thus, the essential meaning of the new teaching necessarily requires a variety of elements in the composition of the soul-body, at least the most subtle ones. Having reached this point, we ask: who is the organizer of these various parts of the elements - subtle and ethereal? Who keeps them intact and in uniform proportions? Surely someone should?! In the organism of our body, everything comes from one central vital force and everything is stored by it. The same power should be inherent in the body-soul organism. If we do not allow such an organizer, then we will come to the conclusion that all parts of the soul-body do not consist in a vital mutual combination, but rather are placed one next to the other. From here, further, everything will become incomprehensible and darkened: movement, feeling, and every action, even in its simplest form. Does the new teaching recognize the need for this addition? If he admits it - and it is impossible not to admit it - then he must change his main position, that the soul is a subtle ethereal image of a visible person and nothing more. We could go further, asking who is the organizer of the organism of the soul: is it a body in a body, or something else, but we leave this, for one has only to look at the soul, as it is portrayed by the new teaching, to be convinced that this teaching is untrue to itself and ruins itself. Let's turn to the second question. Does the position invented by the new teaching explain the range of phenomena for which it was invented? So. The soul is the source and cause of our inner life, composed of thoughts, desires, feelings, from the actions of freedom, fear of God and conscience, and concentrated in consciousness, from which it proceeds as from a focus. Here is the soul that has left the body and stands before you in the form of a visible man with all the variety of parts of his body and acts like him. In general, all this is a soul, thinking, freely acting, conscious of itself. If every action comes from the soul and is accepted by the soul, and the soul is the whole, then every action must come from everything and be reflected in everything. It is not just one part that must think, but the entire body-soul; it must also be conscious; equally, the entire soul-body must also take action from the outside, and not just any part of it. Is this true? Hardly! It’s true, and like a person usually, only the eye sees, only the ear hears, only the tongue speaks, and the thought is only in the head. From here a direct conclusion is drawn that there is someone in the soul-body who looks with the eye, hears with the ear, acts with the hand, receives questions and answers, and so on. There is, that is, in this multi-component organism, the soul-body, a person in charge of all actions who sees, hears, thinks and does everything. The question is, who is this one person? If the whole body is a whole, then how is this face single when the composition of the body is so diverse? If there is one part, then since consciousness is a characteristic feature of the soul, that part will be the soul, and not the whole body. If it is a trace of the harmony of the whole body, then the soul disappears, and before us is the most incomprehensible automaton. Thus, it goes without saying that this person, conscious of itself, freely acting, thinking, desiring and feeling, cannot in any way be the body-soul itself, but must be something residing inside this body, so that the body-soul will be for it only an organ and a dwelling. Again the question: what is this? This time we have an answer from the teaching itself, which we have already heard. This is “the ability of the human soul, which the wise called the power of words, the spirit itself, which included not only the ability to think, but also the ability to experience spiritual sensations, such as: the feeling of the high, the feeling of the graceful, the feeling of virtue. In this respect the meaning of the words soul and spirit is very different" (Addition). But having received such an answer, we do not enter into the light, but are covered in a fog of uncertainty, for it is known that the main idea of ​​the new teaching is that the soul is the etheric body in the form of a person and nothing more. Here a spiritual ability appears in the soul-body, and, moreover, not a single one, but a combination of many abilities, higher and characteristic in human life, under the name of spirit, which is recognized as very different from the soul. A situation that clearly does not reconcile with the main situation and destroys it. One could immediately conclude: so the soul is a spirit clothed with an etheric body? But this is literally denied by the new teaching. This is what leaves us in indestructible bewilderment! Probably, the new teaching has not yet agreed with itself and has not established its peculiarity of expressing itself in accordance with its spirit, obviously very exceptional: that is why the question of what kind of ability this is remains unresolved, but it needs to be solved. We take the new teaching at the point that in the soul-etheric body the ability to think or, in general, the ability to manifest spiritual actions is recognized. The question arises: has the ability been given to the ethereal, material body, or has a force different from the substance and an immaterial, spiritual, spirit been implanted into this etheric body? But the first is unthinkable: the ability to think is as incompatible with matter as fire is with water. If someone were to assert that God gave matter the ability to think, then one cannot rest on this, because God is not able to create something that contradicts itself. Matter cannot be given the ability to think unless it is transformed into an immaterial spirit. The moment a substance begins to think, it must cease to be a substance. But the new teaching still has a refuge: it can say that it recognizes the soul-etheric body as a substance and in this substance contemplates the special force it contains, which produces all the spiritual phenomena noticed in the soul. But will the substance hold this spiritual power? Is it able to cope with it? Hardly. It will be a diamond in a clay setting. In addition, if the soul-body holds this ability, then it is the mistress, and that power is its servant, that is, the thinking will be subordinate to the non-thinking, the free - to the unfree, the self-conscious - to the unconscious, the ever-moving spirit - to the motionless body. How this is not in the order of things, Saint Maximus the Confessor already taught us about this. And again, where is the truth of thought? If the characteristic features of our inner life are spiritual manifestations, then, attributing everything internal to the soul, the soul itself must be defined by these features, or see it where spiritual manifestations come from. If they proceed from an admitted spiritual force or ability, then they must consider it the soul, the dominant part of the body, which constitutes a distinctive feature of a person or makes a person a man and a soul a soul, and what is imagined under the guise of a subtle etheric body should be considered a subordinate organ, that is, the truth of thought requires transferring dominance from the ethereal soul-body to the ability for spiritual actions allowed in it, called spirit, and recognizing this latter as the substance of the soul, and the body - appendage, organ, home. This is how both the departed soul and the appearing angel always appear. The external is recognized as an organ. The active person is seen inside, and from there he gives dominant orders. If the new teaching decided to think like this, then we could immediately lay down our weapons of war. But since it stands its ground, it is impossible to extend a hand of reconciliation to it or stop reproaching it for its circular insolvency. Thus, in a direct way, thought reaches the assumption of spirit, even if it is in an ethereal body. We could go further to bring the matter to the point of detachment of the spirit from this shell, but we stop here. We only need the confidence that what is conscious and thinking in us is spirit. The new teaching attempts to assure that there is nothing except the etheric body, which, according to him, is the soul and the angel. In the entire totality of creatures there is no spirit. Spirit is only one God. Only God is spirit?.. But when in the totality of created phenomena there are spiritual phenomena, then what are they, non-subjective phenomena, wandering meteors, or do they have their own subject? If they need to have a subject from which they proceed, and there is no such subject among creatures, for they are all recognized as material, incapable of spiritual manifestations, then such a subject must be sought outside of creatures and, of course, in the Creator. But is the totality of spiritual phenomena known to us such that it can all be attributed without embarrassment to the Creator as the cause? Thus, even reverence for the most pure and all-perfect creative nature should lead us to the recognition of finite spirits among creatures. With these few considerations we will conclude our feasible struggle with the new teaching, in the full desire that it alone remains without a subject and disappears, as will-o-the-wisps disappear in the distance, leaving no noticeable trace. St. Feofan, the Recluse Vyshensky (1894) January 10 (23) Teacher of Orthodoxy, teacher of piety and purity, Vyshensky ascetic, Saint Theophanes the God-wise, with your writings you have explained the Word of all kinds and you have shown the path to salvation to all the faithful, pray to Christ God to save our souls. Theophany of the same name, Saint Theophan, with your teachings you have enlightened many people, with the angels now standing before the Throne of the Holy Trinity, pray unceasingly for all of us. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1867) April 30 (May 13) A champion of Orthodoxy, a great worker and teacher of repentance and prayer, a divinely inspired adornment to the bishops, a word and praise to the monastics: with your writings you have made us all wise. Spiritual priest, Ignatius the wise God, pray to the Word of Christ God, Whom you bore in your heart, to grant us repentance before the end. Even though you followed the path of earthly life, Saint Ignatius, you constantly saw the laws of eternal existence, teaching your disciples many words, and let us, holy ones, follow them. You might be interested in: