Russian leaflets from abroad

Contents I. Lyon civil funeral II. In Protestant churches III. Westminster Abbey IV. On the issue of the reunification of the Churches V. Controversies in the Anglican Church VI. Irvingists in London VII. Deists and Unitarians in London I. Lyon civil funeral The recent debates which took place in the French Legislative Assembly concerning the circular order of the Rhône prefect concerning funeral processions, revealed a circumstance which may justly be classed among the sad signs of our times. The order of the prefect, which aroused such an outburst of indignation in the legislative assembly, is as follows. Along with notification of someone's death, the police must also be notified of whether a clergy member of one of the state-recognized religions will be accompanying the funeral procession; if not, then the funeral should take place no other than at 6 o'clock in the morning in the summer or at 7 o'clock in the winter, and the procession should not take place along large streets, but along long paths. This order, which was defended by the Minister of Religions, Mr. Bele 1, seemed to the majority of the assembly to be a clear violation of freedom of religion. In any case, this order was not well thought out: in its present form, it would fit, for example, the funeral of an Orthodox Christian, if the Orthodox Church is not one of those recognized by the state. But the minister, explaining this order, pointed to the remarkable phenomena that have been happening for the past 2 years in Lyon. In Lyon, the so-called “Society of Free Thinkers” was formed, which set itself the goal of ousting the participation of the Church and clergy from everywhere, and especially at birth, at marriage and at death, that is, at those most important moments of life when the participation of the Church is necessary for the believer. The Society decided to supplant the habit of church ritual that had become established in society with another, opposite habit, and began to act in this sense with all the fervor characteristic of the fanaticism of unbelief. The society has capital, which is intended to cover the costs of achieving the goal and for propaganda, which is the main object of activity of each member. Each member undertakes to strive in every possible way to increase the number of persons free from “theological superstition” and adhering to one civil rite; every member is obliged, under penalty of fine, to attend any civil ceremony that comes to his attention. But a necessary civil rite has not yet been invented to replace baptism; the civil ceremony of marriage is performed independently of the church one and does not eliminate it; only on the occasion of death is a ceremony of removal and burial performed, of necessity, in which the presence or absence of an ecclesiastical element is certainly clear: this is why the activity of the Society turned exclusively to the multiplication of so-called civil funerals. A funeral cannot be made up for show; it requires a dead body. And so the Lyon freethinkers began, using the Jesuit method, to select not only the living, but also the dead into their new faith. It is necessary to show as many adherents of this faith as possible to the public; for this, the Society began to buy dead people for itself, taking advantage of the indifference or poverty of relatives. There were also cases of widows selling their deceased husbands to society, children selling their deceased parents, and parents selling babies who died shortly after birth. It happened that in this way the most pious and zealous people for the Church during their lifetime were given over to civil burial. Every time, according to the charter, all members of the Society gather for such a funeral; a procession is formed, reaching 4,000 or more people, moves solemnly to the cemetery along the most crowded streets, in broad daylight, and if it happens to meet a church procession, the latter is subjected to insults and ridicule. Over the course of two months, 107 such civil funerals took place in Lyon recently, to the great temptation of the Catholic population. In view of this phenomenon, there is something for modern man to think about. If it were a separate phenomenon, one could take it for a special type of madness, manifesting itself collectively. But a lot of such phenomena are already accumulating. And in public life, and in conversation, and in literature, and in science, and even sometimes in the activities of people in the power of those who exist, a wild, insane desire to promote unbelief in all ways breaks through; and one of the special weapons of this propaganda is violence, the violence of blind thought, contemptuous tone, ridicule, clever dialectics, even in extreme cases - material violence. Poor humanity has already experienced so much fanaticism of all kinds and all kinds of persecution for the faith! At first, the Reformation promised to solemnly establish the tolerance of faith and, entangled in its principles, began to invent and justify new, subtle types of mental, moral and material persecution for faith, justifying itself only by the fact that blind belief should give way to rational belief! Then the revolution of the 18th century promised tolerance and freedom to everyone, and from the first minute until now it continues to deceive itself and everyone with itself. Then they told us that the 19th century was a century of enlightenment and freedom in everything: many simpletons believed so, not being able to distinguish between indifference to faith and tolerance in belief. And sometimes it comes to the point that there is nowhere for a simple person to find a place with his simple faith. And on the horizon you can see a cloud, which makes you scared, because we have not seen it before. This is the fanaticism of unbelief and denial. This is a denial of God, not simple, but combined with an insane hatred of God and everything that believes in God. God forbid that anyone live to see the time when fanaticism of this kind comes into force and receives the power to bind and decide the human conscience. II. In Protestant churches Protestants reproach us for the formality and ritualism of our worship; but when you look at their ritual, you involuntarily give preference to our ritual in this regard; you feel how simple and majestic our ritual is in its deep mysterious meaning. The priestly position in our ritual is so simple that all that is required of him is reverent attention to the words spoken and the actions performed; in his mouth and through him, sacred words and rituals speak for themselves, and how deeply and mysteriously they speak to the soul of each and unite the whole assembly into one thought and into one feeling! That is why the simplest and most inexperienced person can, without adjusting himself or using artificial efforts, perform a prayerful action and enter into prayerful communion with the entire Church. The Protestant prayer ritual, with all its outward simplicity, requires from the clergy a prayerful action in a certain tone. That is why in this ritual only deeply spiritual or very talented people can be simple; the rest, that is, the vast majority, are forced to adjust themselves and resort to affectation, which is most often found in Protestant churches and makes a painful impression on an unfamiliar person. When I see a preacher here, when he, standing in the middle of the church, facing the assembly seated decorously in the pews, says prayers, raising his eyes to heaven, folding his hands in the well-known form used by everyone, and gives his speech an unnatural intonation, I feel embarrassed for him; I think how awkward it must be for him! The awkwardness becomes even more palpable when, having completed the ceremony, he ascends the pulpit and begins his long sermon, turning back from time to time to drink from a glass of water and gather his courage. And what a sermon! It is rare to hear a truly living word in it, when the preacher is a real spiritual person or talent. For the most part, church workers speak in an extremely strained voice, with extreme affectation, with strong gestures, turning from side to side, repeating in different ways common phrases used by everyone. Even when they read from a book, which often happens, they resort to well-known body movements, intonations and arrangements. It often happens that the preacher, pronouncing some words and phrases, shouts and hits the pulpit with his fist in order to give expressiveness to his speech... No, here you feel how correctly our Church has applied itself to human nature, without placing sermons as part of the liturgical rite. Our entire ritual in itself constitutes the best sermon, all the more valid because everyone accepts it not as human, but as God’s word. And the church ideal of our preaching as a living word is the teaching of faith and love from the Divine Scriptures, and not the arousal of feelings as a necessary action of every clergyman on those gathered in church for prayer 2. V. III. Westminster Abbey In London, at every step you encounter phenomena and institutions filled with the greatest interest; but nothing attracts my attention, nothing excites my thoughts and imagination like Westminster Abbey 3 . There is hardly another European church like it, which would combine so many historical memories and which would serve as such a complete expression of national history. However, among the churches this church occupies a very special place. It is more a palladium of history than a church dedicated to worship, and in Westminster Abbey there is little room for the outside visitor for that integral religious impression that takes possession of the soul in the famous cathedral churches of Europe. The beauty of the old Gothic style, both in the appearance of the ancient building and in the interior decoration, is incomparable; but even in this respect, the architecture of the church affects the soul differently than in the old Gothic cathedrals of Germany, France and England: there the feeling is carried upward, under the high pointed arches, at once concentrated under the influence of a common, integral impression. There is no opportunity here to embrace it at the very entrance to the church and immediately take in the whole impression. It is necessary to move from one part of the church to another, but each in itself is so beautiful, all together are so consistent with the character of the architecture that the impression left on the viewer is integral, deep, complete. Moreover, the entire church is a huge cemetery and a huge monument to the history of many centuries. Its chapels are filled with the tombs of the old kings of England, its walls are covered, like nests, with monuments and busts, reminiscent of many great names with which the imagination has become accustomed since childhood. When I walked around this church for the first time, I was overcome by a hitherto unexperienced feeling, which can perhaps be called a feeling of historical and aesthetic delight. I thought that this was the effect of the first impression, but, returning to London a few years later, I was convinced that the first impression had not deceived me: each time it became deeper and more complete and attracted me again and again to the same place. Whole hours can be spent in Westminster Abbey, admiring its details, examining monuments, resting for a long time in one corner or another with historical thought. It’s so quiet and cozy here to admire and think. On a holiday, it is pleasant to be in Westminster Abbey for the morning service, which is performed with particular solemnity. A large choir of students from Westminster Second School sings – and sings beautifully; The Dean of Westminster himself, the famous Stanley 4, often serves and speaks an eloquent sermon. The missal of the Church of England is very well composed, preserving many of the ancient prayers, which are said either by the minister on behalf of the congregation, or by the whole congregation; the general choir sings hymns to well-known tunes with the accompaniment of an organ, which gives the tone to the singing. The morning service begins with a general confession of sins, which is pronounced by the entire congregation on their knees according to a printed formula, followed by a general absolution pronounced by the clergyman. Then everyone reads the Lord’s Prayer, the servant pronounces exclamations and prayers, like our litanies, to which the people respond not in chorus, but in a common patter; Psalms and other prayers are read or sung, interrupted by regular readings from the Old and New Testaments; hymns are sung and “We praise thee God.” All this is done in silence and in an undisturbed order, with all possible reverence, which makes the most favorable impression on an outside visitor. But the Orthodox cannot help but notice that this service, for all its harmony, is extremely monotonous, cold, and dry. A necessary, essential addition to it is the sermon; but whoever happens to frequently visit Anglican churches in cities and villages will, of course, agree that the sermon, for the most part, serves little to enliven the worship. Talented preachers are the exception here, as elsewhere, but preaching cannot be avoided, and sermons for the most part are extremely sluggish, boring, monotonous, filled with repetitions and forced phrases. Moreover, they are prohibitively long, and it is not surprising that many doze off in anticipation of the end, but everyone remains in the church until the end, submissively obeying the established order. In a large cathedral, such as Westminster, it is most pleasant for a non-Christian to attend services also because there is freer access to the seats, and it is possible for anyone who comes to sit where they please; Consequently, there is no such distribution of people into places, which so unpleasantly strikes the Gentile in the Anglican churches. It is absolutely impossible for an Orthodox person to get used to this custom, which is truly a disgrace for the Church in which he has settled. It’s strange to imagine that seats in the church are being purchased here. When I first wanted to go to church on a holiday in a provincial town, I was surprised to read in the local newspaper an advertisement that outsiders could contact such and such a person to get a place in the church. I had to pay a shilling for my place. How can poor people go to church? Of course, it is hard for poor people everywhere, especially in England, where everything is reduced to monetary measures; but how can we understand that the same monetary measure is applied to the church? They won’t let you into church without money, and if they do, they will make it clear that they are making allowances for poverty. Wherever fees for seats in the church are established, it is usually announced that so many places are left for the poor, of course, in the last pews. But, of course, it is not desirable for anyone, and in the church less than anywhere else, to officially fall into the category of the poor. This arrangement is common in local churches; non-monetary access to churches is an exception. But even in this case, access to places cannot yet be considered free. Seats in the church are mostly assigned to one or another person or family. At the entrance to the church there is usually a clergyman (beadle) with a stern and important look. His job - and perhaps his interest - is to seat people and make sure that everyone sits where they should. You entered the church and sit down in the first free seat. If the church is empty, maybe they will leave you alone, but this rarely happens. A stern clergyman approaches you and asks if you have a place. Of course, sitting in a place arbitrarily occupied, you don’t know what to answer him. Then he will lift you up and take you with him wherever he pleases, and sometimes he will force you to change your place twice, despite the fact that there are many unoccupied places in the church. When you ask: for what subject and in whose benefit is the money being collected? - they answer you that the collection is made for the benefit of the Church, to cover the debt on the occasion of its construction or decoration and supplies, and finally, for the maintenance of the clergy. Very many churches are not staffed, with income and maintenance assigned to the clergy, but are attached, and the pastor is supported by a salary paid to him by the real owner, the head of the church, or by a fee for places. However, no matter what this collection is used for, it is, in any case, a shameful thing. In nothing so clearly as in the church is the difference between the public spirit and the mindset of the Anglo-Saxon and, for example, the Russian tribe. In the English Church, more than anywhere else, the Russian person has this thought: there is a lot of good here, but still I am so glad that I was born and live in Russia. In our church you can forget about all class and social differences, renounce your worldly position, and completely merge with the people's assembly in the face of God. Our church, for the most part, was created with public money, so that it is impossible to distinguish a ruble from a penny: in any case, our church is a national cause and a national property. That is why it is twice as dear to all of us, because when entering it, the last beggar feels in exactly the same way as the first nobleman, that this is his church. Church is the only place (what a blessing that we have such a place!) where no one will ask the last poor man in rags: why did you come here and who are you? Where the rich cannot say to the poor: your place is not next to me, but behind. Here, go into the church, look at the church meeting. It is reverent, it may be solemn, but it is an assembly of ladies and gentlemen, of whom each person has his place especially assigned to him; and rich people and nobles in their neighborhood have places that are separated and decorated, like lodges. Is it possible, looking from the outside, to resist the thought that the church meeting here is only a modification of the public meeting and that there is a place in it only for the so-called “decent people” in society? Everyone prays together from their books, but just as everyone has their own book in their hands, it is clear that everyone wants to be before God on their own, without losing their individuality. They say that in the last 20–30 years a noticeable change has taken place in this regard: places in churches are mostly open, that is, not tightly fenced off, and access to them has become freer than before; and in the past, especially in the provinces, places in churches were arranged in closed or separated stands, so that the owner of each place could pray calmly, alone, without being embarrassed by any proximity. How clearly reflected in this church arrangement is the history of the local feudal society and the very history of the local church reform! Nobility and gentry constitute everything and lead everything, therefore they possess everything and attract everything to themselves. Everything must be bought or taken by battle, even the right to have a place in the church. The priesthood itself is a right of a certain kind, which is included in the price. Pastoral places with the right to a certain income or salary constitute in England the property of patrimonial right, patronage, and the choice of place is the property of either private landowners or the crown by virtue of not so much state as feudal ownership rights. That is why the pastor among the people, appointed independently of the people and independent of the people in his content, appears among the people also in the form of a prince appointed from above. An ecclesiastical office is, first of all, a privilege and an asset; and it’s a shame to say: this property is an object of bargaining. The places of chief priests (incumbents) can be rented out for a certain price, made up of the capitalization of income, just as the places of solicitors, notaries, brokers, and the like are rented out. In any English newspaper, in a special section on the so-called preferences, you will find a number of offers to buy a priest's place with a description of income items: the place is praised with its amenities for life, the house, location are described, the income is indicated and the price is offered with the warning that the current incumbent is old, of such and such years, and will probably not enjoy his position for long. For negotiations, it is indicated to contact somewhere. In London, even a special monthly magazine (“The Church preference register”) is published with a detailed description of all articles, land and income of each place, for information and calculation of those who want to receive it for a certain amount. The latest July issue contains up to 170 such descriptions. They say that in the political sense it is beneficial when every right, personal or public, is obtained only by battle. There can be anything else, but not the right to public prayer in church. It is not surprising that the public conscience cannot be satisfied with such a church structure and that England, the country of the established state church, the classical country of learned theology and debate about faith, has become, since the time of the reform, a country of dissenters of all kinds. The religious and prayer need of the masses of the people, not finding a place or satisfaction in the established Church, began to seek an outlet in free self-established church meetings and in various sects. The division of church rites here is exorbitant between the inhabitants of the most insignificant town. The established Church itself is divided into three parties, and the supporters of each of them (the so-called High, Low and Broad Church 5) usually have their own church and do not go to someone else's. In the small village where I now live and where there are no more than 500 permanent residents, there are three Anglican Churches and, in addition, three Methodist Churches of three different denominations, which, differing in very subtle and capricious details, abandon communication with each other. A special church is for the original or Wesleyan Methodists, 6 then for the Congregationalists, 7 then for the so-called Bible Christians: the latter are also Methodists, but separated several years ago only because they believe, in disagreement with others, that it is impossible to have married church evangelists. That's how many churches and capital, beautiful and extensive churches there are in one village. All these sects and assemblies are distinguished by the peculiarities of their beliefs, sometimes very subtle and capricious, or completely wild; but besides dogmatic differences, they all express the same desire for a free, universal Church, and many of them are imbued with a fierce hatred of the established Church and its ministers. In addition to individual sects, in the midst of the established Church itself, a large party has long been formed in the name of free church communication - the free church movement. Private people and individual societies use their means to provide the common people with the opportunity to participate in divine services: for this they have to build separate churches or rent separate premises, theaters, barns, halls, and the like. This whole movement has already produced a palpable reaction in the customs of the established church itself, causing it to open its doors wider. But isn’t it strange that here we have to take by battle what is free for us from the beginning, like the air we breathe? How often does it happen here in Russia to hear strange speeches about our Church from people who have been abroad, who have read foreign books, who like to judge from someone else’s voice, or simply from naive people who are carried away by an ideal idea and ignore reality. These people find no measure of praise for the Anglican or German Church and the Anglican clergy, nor find any measure of condemnation of our Church and our clergy. If you believe them, everything there is living activity, while here we have carrion, rudeness and sleep. There are things going on there, but we have bare ritualism and inaction. No wonder many people say this. There is a saying among people that they meet a person by their dress. They say they escort you according to your mind; but in order to recognize the mind and feel the spirit, you need to look closely and work with your thoughts, but it’s not difficult to judge by the dress. You make a ready-made impression for yourself - and then you’ll stay with it. Moreover, there are many people for whom the first thing, the first and final decider of impression, is external improvement, manners, dexterity, cleanliness, respectability. In this regard, of course, there is something to admire in the local church, and there is something to sometimes grieve about in ours. Who has not happened to meet a secular, and sometimes, unfortunately, a clergyman who has been abroad, ardently praising the local simplicity of the church and condemning our native “frozenness” 8 . It saddens me to listen to such speeches, just as it saddens me to see another son when, having lived in a fashionable circle, in the midst of all the intricacies of metropolitan life, he returns to the village where he once spent his childhood, and looks with contempt at the unpretentious surroundings and at the simple, perhaps rude customs of his own family. We are surprisingly inclined by nature to be carried away, first of all, by the beautiful form, organization, and external design of any matter. Hence our passion for imitation, for transferring to our own soil those institutions and forms that amaze us abroad with their external harmony. But we forget at the same time, or remember too late, that every form formed historically grew in history from historical conditions, and is a logical conclusion from the past, caused by necessity. No one can change or circumvent their history; and history itself, with all its phenomena, figures, established forms of social life, is a product of the spirit of the people, just as the history of an individual person is, in essence, a product of the spirit living in him. The same should be said about the forms of church structure. Every form has its own spiritual lining on which it grew; We are often seduced by the form without seeing this lining, but if we saw it, then sometimes we would not think of rejecting the finished form with all its harmony and would happily remain with our old and rough form or formlessness until our own spiritual life brings out its form for us. The spirit is what is essential in any institution, this is what should be protected most dearly from crookedness and confusion. From time immemorial our Church has had and still retains the significance of the Church of all the people and the spirit of love and indifferent communication. Our people are by faith. continues to this day in the midst of all adversity and disaster, and if anything can support it, strengthen it and renew it in further history, it is faith, and only church faith. We are told that our people are ignorant in their faith, full of superstitions, suffering from bad and vicious habits; that our clergy is rude, ignorant, ineffective, demeaning and has little influence over the people. All this is true in many respects, but all of these are not significant phenomena, but random and temporary. They depend on many conditions, and above all, on economic and political conditions, with changes in which these phenomena will sooner or later change. What is essential? What does the spirit belong to? The love of the people for the Church, the free consciousness of full communion in the Church, the concept of the Church as a common property and a common meeting, the complete elimination of class differences in the Church and the communion of the people with the ministers of the Church, who came from the people and are not separated from them either in everyday life, or in virtues, or in their very shortcomings, stand and fall with the people. This is a field in which many good fruits can be grown if you work deeply, caring not so much about improving life, but about improving the spirit, not so much about ensuring that the number of churches does not exceed the need, but rather about ensuring that the need for a church does not remain unsatisfied. Should we look around with envy, from afar and by ear, at least at the Protestant Church and its shepherds? God grant us to wait for the time when our shepherds will establish themselves in the position of officials placed over the people, and will become princes among their people, in the environment of a secular person, in the complexity of needs and desires in the midst of people's poverty and simplicity. Thinking about life, you come to the conclusion that for every person in the course of his spiritual development, the most valuable thing, the most necessary thing to preserve within himself is the simple, natural feeling of human relationship with people, the truth and freedom of spiritual imagination and movement. This is the inviolable capital of spiritual nature, with which the soul is protected and protected from the action of all conventional forms 9 and artificial theories that imperceptibly corrupt a simple moral sense. No matter how precious these forms and theories are in many respects, they can, having been grafted onto the soul, completely distort and destroy simple and common sense ideas and sensations in it, confuse the concept of truth and untruth, and undermine the very root on which a healthy person grows in his spiritual relationship to the world and to people. This is what is essential and this is what we so often kill in ourselves because of completely insignificant forms with which we are deluded. Because of this, how many people and institutions are disappearing from us, falsely perverted by false development, and yet in the church institution this root is dearer to us than anything else... God forbid that it too may someday be undermined by a crookedly delivered church reform 10 . IV. On the issue of the reunification of Churches The more clearly the distinctive tribal features of each religion are identified in the mind, the more convinced one becomes of what an unattainable and dreamy task it is to unite religions in one artificial, far-fetched agreement on dogma, at the beginning of mutual concessions in parts of no importance. What is essential in each religion is hardly possible to express, to clarify on paper or in a defining formula. The most essential, the most persistent and precious in church belief is elusive, inaccessible to definition, like a variety of light and shadows, like a feeling formed from an endless series of successive sensations, ideas and impressions. The most essential is connected and intertwined with many such subtle roots with the mental nature of each tribe and with the general principles of the moral worldview that have developed in it that it is impossible to separate one from the other. People of different tribes and different churches can in many respects, when meeting, in mutual communication, feel like brothers and shake hands with each other; but in order for them to feel like brothers in one church, to unite in religious communion of spirit, for this they need to live together for a long time, understand each other in the whole life situation and intertwine with each other in the innermost roots of the depths of their soul. Thus, sometimes a German who has lived in Russia for a long time unconsciously gets used to believing in Russian and feels at home in the Russian Church. Then he comes to us, becomes one of ours, and his communication with us is complete, spiritual. But it is impossible to imagine that this or that society of Protestants, standing far from us, judging us by hearing, could, by bookish or abstract agreement on dogmas and rituals, unite with us into one Church in an organic union and become one with us in spirit. Until now, not a single church union based on agreement has ever succeeded: sooner or later the false beginning of such a union was discovered, and its fruit was everywhere the increase not of love, but of mutual alienation or even hatred. God forbid that we blame each other for our faith: let everyone believe in his own way, as best as he can. But everyone has a faith in which he feels safe, which he likes, which he loves; and one cannot help but feel, when you approach another faith, unrelated, unsympathetic, that here is not what we have; It's uncomfortable and cold here. I wouldn't want to live here. Let the mind speak with abstract reasoning: after all, they pray to the same God. Feeling cannot always agree with this reasoning; Sometimes it seems to the feeling that in a strange church it is as if they are praying to the wrong God. Many will laugh at this feeling, perhaps calling it superstition, fanaticism. In vain. Feelings are not always deceptive; it sometimes reveals the truth more directly and truly than in reasoning. In a Protestant church, in a Protestant belief, it is cold and unpleasant for a Russian person. Moreover, if faith is dear to him, like life, he feels that calling this church his own is the same to him as dying. This is the immediate feeling. But there are many reasonable reasons for this feeling. I will note here one of them, which especially strikes me with its obviousness. In theological polemics, in disputes between religions, in the conscience of every person and every tribe, one of the main questions is the question of deeds. What is most important – works or faith? It is known that Latin theology and Protestant theology still argue on this issue. The late Khomyakov 11 in his theological writings perfectly explained the extent to which the scholastically absolute formulation of this question is deceptive. The unification of faith with deed, as well as the identification of word with thought, deed with word, is an ideal unattainable for human nature, just as everything unconditional is unattainable, an ideal that eternally excites and eternally convicts the believing soul. Faith without works is dead, faith that is contrary to works torments a person with the consciousness of inner lies, but in the vast world of appearance that embraces a person, and in the face of endless eternity, what does work mean, or what do all kinds of works mean without faith? Show me your faith by your works - a terrible question! What should a confident person answer when asked by an examiner who seeks to know the truth from deeds? Let us assume that a Protestant asks an Orthodox person such a question. What will the Orthodox answer to him? You'll have to put your head down. One feels that there is nothing to show, that everything has not been tidied up, everything has been started, everything is covered in rubble. But after a minute you can raise your head and say: we are sinful people, and there is nothing to show us, but you are not righteous either. But come to us yourself, live with us, and you will see our faith, and feel our feeling, and maybe you will fall in love with us. And you will see for yourself what our deeds are. After such an answer, ninety-nine out of a hundred will leave you with a contemptuous grin. In essence, the whole point is that we don’t know how to show our deeds against faith, and we don’t dare. And they show. And they know how to show and tell the truth, they have something to show them, affairs and institutions created in perfect order over centuries, preserved and strengthened. Look, says the Catholic Church, what I meant and what I mean in the life of the society that listens to me and serves me, what I created and what is held by me. These are the works of love, these are the works of faith, these are the works of apostleship, these are the feats of martyrdom, these are the faithful regiments, like one man, which I send to the ends of the universe. Is it not clear that grace abides with me and in us from the beginning to this day? Look, says the Protestant Church, I do not tolerate lies, deception and superstition. I bring my actions into agreement and my mind into agreement with faith. By faith I have sanctified work, everyday relationships, family life, by faith I eradicate idleness and superstition, I establish honesty, justice and public order. I teach every day, and my teaching, close to life, educates entire generations in the habit of honest work and good morals. Humanity is called to be renewed by my teaching in virtue and truth. I am called to eradicate corruption and hypocrisy everywhere with the sword of words and deeds. Is it not obvious that the power of God is with me, because the true view of religion is in me? Protestants still argue with Catholics about the dogmatic meaning of the matter in relation to faith. But despite the complete opposite of theological views on this subject, both put the matter at the head of their religion. Only among the Latins does deed serve as justification, atonement, as a testimony to grace. Lutherans, on the other hand, look at business and, in connection with business, at religion itself from a practical point of view. It is as if the matter turns into the purpose for which religion exists, becomes a touchstone on which religious and ecclesiastical truth is tested, and this is the point at which, more than any other, our religious thought diverges from the religious thought of Protestantism. Without a doubt, the view now expressed does not constitute a dogmatic position in the Lutheran Church, but it permeates all of its teaching. Undoubtedly, there is a very important practical side to it, for life here, for this world; That is why many, even among us, are sometimes ready to put the Protestant Church as a model and ideal for our Church. But a Russian person, in the depths of his believing soul, will never accept such a view. Piety is useful for everything, and according to the Apostolic word, but this is only one of the natural accessories of piety. A Russian person knows no less than anyone else that one must live by faith, and he feels how little his life resembles faith; but he places the essence and goal of his faith not in practical life, but in spiritual salvation and seeks to embrace everyone with the love of the church union - from the righteous man living by faith to that thief who, despite his deeds, was forgiven in one minute. This practical basis of Protestantism is nowhere more clearly expressed than in the Anglican Church and in the spirit of the religious outlook of the English nation. It is consistent with the character of the nation, developed in its history - to direct thought and activity everywhere towards practical goals, to persistently and steadily achieve success and in everything to choose those paths and methods that lead closer and more surely to success. This natural desire had to seek a moral basis for itself, to develop a moral theory for itself; and it is no wonder that moral principles found sanction for themselves in a religious view corresponding to a certain character. Religion, undoubtedly, illuminates the moral principle of activity, teaches how to live and act on earth, requires hard work, honesty, and truth. One cannot but agree with this position. But from this position, a practical view of religion goes directly to the question: what is religion for someone who lives in idleness, is dishonest and deceitful, is depraved, disorderly, and does not know how to support himself? Such a person is a pagan, not a Christian; only the Christian who lives according to the law and demonstrates in himself the power of the Christian law. The reasoning appears to be logically correct. But who does not have a question in their soul: what about publicans and harlots in the world and in the church, those who, according to the word of Christ, often precede the righteous of the church in the Kingdom of God? Of course, it would be strange to assume that such a view of religion constitutes a positive formula for church belief in England. Such a formula would be a clear denial of the Gospel teaching. But such is precisely the spirit of religious opinion among the most conscientious and zealous representatives of the so-called “national ecclesiastical institution”, who defend and praise the Church of England as the first stronghold of the State - the bulwark of the State - and as the main expression of the national spirit. In English literature, both spiritual and secular, this view is sometimes expressed in very sharp forms, in such words, before which the thought of the Russian reader stops with bewilderment, similar to horror. I now have in front of me a newly published book: “Liberty, egality, fraternity” - an essay remarkable in depth and thoroughness of thought, written by a man who is obviously a deeply religious believer and zealously devoted to his Church. “Some religions are obviously unfavorable to the sense of public duty. Others have nothing to do with him, and of those religions that favor him (these are, to a greater or lesser extent, all forms of the Christian faith), some act on him with special, others with less force. It can be said that those religions in which the image of an infinitely wise and powerful legislator dominates everything are most powerful in this sense. His personal existence is unsearchable for the human mind; but he created the world as the world is, he created it for a race of people who are prudent, firm and courageous in spirit and stable; for those who themselves are not mad and not cowardly and do not really favor madmen and cowards, know firmly what they need, and with determination use all legal means to achieve it. Such and such a religion constitutes the silent but deeply rooted belief of the English nation in its best, most respectable representatives. They represent an anvil on which many hammers have already been beaten, and even more will be beaten, regardless of any enthusiasts and humanitarian dreamers.” (Stephen. “Liberty, egality, fraternity”). This is the concept of religion that a confident Protestant Anglican can reach. The words we have written down, in essence, contain a direct distortion of the Gospel word; They seem to say: blessed are the strong and powerful in action - the kingdom belongs to them. Yes, we say: the kingdom of earth, but not the kingdom of heaven. The author does not make this reservation - he does not distinguish between the earthly and the heavenly. What a terrible, what a desperate doctrine! This mood of religious thought undoubtedly had the greatest practical significance in Protestant countries, and especially in England; and in this sense, one cannot but agree that Protestantism was a strong and beneficial engine of social development among those tribes whose nature it corresponded to and who accepted it. But isn’t it also obvious that some tribes, by their nature, cannot accept it and obey it, because it is in this view of Protestantism that they do not feel a vital religious principle, they see not unity, but a division of religious consciousness, not a living truth, but a construction of thought and seduction. “Woe to the weak and falling! Woe to the vanquished!” Of course, in this life this is an immutable truth, and the rule of worldly wisdom tells everyone: fight, gain strength, keep the strength within yourself if you want to live; there is no place in the world for the weak. But to give this rule an unconditional, as if dogmatic force in a religious sense - this is what our soul does not accept, just as it does not accept the terrible Calvinian teaching, akin to Protestantism, that some are called from eternity to virtue, to glory, to salvation and bliss, while others are condemned from eternity, and no matter what they do in life, everything drags them into the abyss of despair and eternal torment. It is scary to read other English writers in whom this string of Anglican Protestantism resonates with particular force. In Carlyle, for example, worship of the strength and talent of the winner and contempt for the vanquished reaches the point of enthusiastic pathos. Contemplating his heroes, strong people, he feels the embodiment of the divine in them and with subtle contemptuous humor speaks about those weak and unfortunate, clumsy and fallen, who were crushed by the victorious chariot. His hero embodies the idea of ​​light and order in the darkness and disorder of cosmic chaos; his hero builds his own universe, and everything that meets him on the road and does not know how to submit to him and serve him and does not have the strength to overcome him, dies with dignity and righteousness. Carlyle's enormous talent captivates the reader; but it’s hard to read his historical poems and see how often he uses the name of God in vain, in the struggle of the strong with the weak. Among the pagans of the classical period, and among them, a jester sometimes walked near the victorious chariot, who, serving as a representative of the moral principle, was supposed to pursue with his jokes not the vanquished, but the winner himself. The hardest thing to read is Froude, the famous historian of the English Reformation and the most prominent among historians, representatives of English national principles in the Church and in politics. Carlyle is at least a poet; but Froude speaks in the calm tone of a historian, loves dialectics, and there is no lawlessness that he would not justify with his dialectics in favor of his favorite idea; there is no hypocrisy that he would not build into the truth, proving the truth of the reform and its main figures. He stands unshakably, fanatically on the foundations of Anglican orthodoxy and his main basis is the consciousness of public duty, devotion to the state idea and the law and the inexorable pursuit of vice, crime, idleness and everything that is called betrayal of duty. All this is beautiful in human affairs; But what is it like to put such a rule as the basis and goal of a religious view if you think that each of these sacred words - duty, law, vice, and crime - is given special significance by each party at every moment, and what is called truth and valor among people today is executed for tomorrow as for a lie and a crime. There is no place left for mercy, for compassion in Froude’s beliefs: how can mercy be reconciled with indignation towards what is considered a vice, a crime, a violation of the law? Referring to the terrible executions to which the innocent and the guilty were so often subjected at that time, the strict judge of human affairs says this about his people: “The English are a strict and harsh people, they do not know compassion, where there is no legitimate reason to allow compassion; on the contrary, they are filled with sacred and solemn horror of crime - a feeling that, as it develops in the soul, necessarily hardens it and forms an iron character. A person of strict disposition is inclined to tenderness only when there is still a place for good among evil, and good is still fighting against evil; but in the form of complete corruption and evil, no compassion is conceivable; it is possible only when in our hearts we mix crime with misfortune.” What contempt the author must feel for a Russian person who truly has such confusion in his soul and who from time immemorial calls the criminal unfortunate. Like personal character, like the character of a tribe, so the character of each Church in connection with the tribe that has adopted it has its own advantages and disadvantages. The merits of Protestantism have become sufficiently clear in the history of the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon tribes. The Puritan spirit created present-day Britain. The Protestant beginning led Germany to strength, to discipline and to unity. But on the other side of it there are such shortcomings, such aspirations of religious self-consciousness that we cannot sympathize with. Protestantism, like any spiritual force, is prone to fall precisely in that in which it places its fundamental spiritual foundations. Striving for absolute truth, for the purification of belief, for the implementation of belief in life, it is too prone to believe in its own truth and get carried away to the point of proud worship of its own truth and to the point of contempt for other people’s beliefs, which it identifies with untruth. Hence, on the one hand, there is a danger of falling into hypocrisy and Pharisaic pride. And truly, many voices are heard from the Protestant world who are bitterly aware that hypocrisy is the plague of strict Lutheranism. On the other hand, having begun with a sermon about tolerance, about freedom of thought and belief, Protestantism in its further development showed a tendency towards fanaticism of a special kind - towards the fanaticism of a proud mind and self-confident righteousness in front of all other types of belief. Strict Protestantism treats with contempt any belief that seems to it unrefined, unspiritual, full of superstitions and external rituals; to everything that he himself discarded as slave bonds, as children's clothing, as an accessory of ignorance. Having created for himself a code of beliefs and rituals, he considers his confession to be the confession of the elect, enlightened and reasonable, and he is inclined to consider all those who adhere to the old Church as people of a lower kind, who do not know how to rise to true understanding. This contemptuous attitude towards other beliefs, perhaps unconsciously, is expressed in Protestantism, but it is too noticeable for those of other faiths. No religion is free from a greater or lesser tendency towards fanaticism, but it is funny to hear when Lutherans come to us with accusations of fanaticism. In our country, despite the tolerance towards any belief that is characteristic of our national character, there are, of course, isolated cases of exclusivity and narrowness of church views; but there has never been and cannot be anything like the contempt with which a strict Lutheran looks at the incomprehensible to him, but for us, filled with deep spiritual significance, belonging to our Church and the properties of our faith 13 . V. Controversies in the Church of England The English are proud of their ecclesiastical national establishment (Establishment). But if you delve into the meaning of this peculiar institution, it does not at all satisfy the concept of the Church. In essence, it is nothing more than a political formula adopted by the state and supported by the authority of state power - a formula into which a certain system of beliefs accepted by the state fits. There is no integral, internal unity in this church institution; there is also no internal authority of the Church in it: although at the head of the church hierarchy there are bishops who claim succession to the Apostolic ordination, the queen is considered the head of the Church, and the resolution of all questions and doubts of dogmatic, ritual and disciplinary depends by law, in the last instance, on the royal council, consisting of secular members of the government, only with the participation of some, at the discretion of the government, members of the church hierarchy (and according to the recent definition of the lower parliament, these matters are also supposed to be resolved in the final instance in a central court of appeal composed of lawyers, without the participation of bishops at all). Such an institution, obviously, only externally satisfies the religious needs of the population only according to custom and tradition, until the question of the Church arises in the believing conscience. The English boast that their church structure is practical; that doubts and questions arising in it can, without the irritation characteristic of theological disputes, receive a peaceful resolution; that their Church can, thanks to this very structure, combine within itself various, more or less broad and narrow views, which under a different structure would lead to excommunications and separations from the Church. That the English Church does not satisfy the religious need and the concept of the Church in the majority of people belonging to the Anglo-Saxon tribe, this is evidenced by the many unauthorized Churches that have formed among it and reject or curse the English ecclesiastical establishment. According to the latest information, among the population of the English tribe and language in different parts of the world, religions are distributed in the following proportion: Methodists - 15 million, Congregationalists - 7 million, Baptists - 10.5 million, Presbyterians - 11.5 million, Roman Catholics - 10 million; and Episcopal Protestants, that is, pure Anglicans, are 12.5 million. True, the largest number of Methodists is in North America, but in England itself there are at least 5 million of them. In such a numerical ratio, the Anglican Church, of course, cannot claim to be the dominant one, according to the conviction of the majority. But even more significant than the numerical ratio is the extraordinary diversity of opinions and rituals that exists among those who consider themselves to be members of the Anglican Church itself. If this diversity concerned only the unimportant, secondary accessories of beliefs and rituals, and the shades of opinions about faith would silently rest in the personal conscience of everyone, such diversity would not threaten the unity of church communion. But it relates, for the most part, to essential objects of belief, is combined with irritation against believers otherwise, forces people to unite in separate places of worship, produces fierce polemics between parties and teachings, divides entire families and parishes into several denominations and theological teaching into schools that educate the younger generation in spiritual alienation from members of the same Church. Among the bishops themselves, some adhere to certain shades of teaching and ritual, others to completely different ones. A pastor, usually appointed without any demand with the desire and conscience of the parishioners and regardless of the episcopal choice, by the will of a completely third-party and distant person according to the patrimonial right of patronage, often preaches from the church pulpit such teachings that outrage the conscience of listeners and parishioners. There are bishops (for example, Colenso) who allow the most free criticism of biblical history or interpretation of dogmas in church readings, the most rational ones, close to denying the basic dogmas of Christianity. There are daily temptations for the masses of believers; in a fierce debate, some representatives of the church rank call others infidels or superstitious. Sometimes clashes of this kind reach the point where a decision from a higher authority on the issue of faith is urgently required. The highest church authority, that is, the royal council (or a commission appointed by the council for each case), constantly adheres to one rule in these cases: to agree to the last extreme of any contradictions, to expand the interpretation of the famous 39 points of church-state teaching until everything fits them as far as possible. The decision, written after many learned and legal discussions, comes out extremely cleverly, broadly and evasively; It is declared, for the most part, that, in essence, this or that teaching, although it sins in this and that, does not violate the basic formula. E sempre bene 14. English institutions are famous for the fact that they surprisingly reconcile apparently incompatible contradictions. Sometimes it seems that the main goal of all institutions is precisely the agreement of the endless contradictions, formal and moral, with which English life is filled. To destroy as little as possible, to support as much as possible, but to agree on everything in every possible way - this, apparently, is the rule of internal policy in legislation and in the practice of institutions. And one cannot help but marvel at the art with which these agreements are made. But whether this policy of agreements and transactions will be as strong and successful in a church institution, in matters of conscience and faith, as it has been successful in other institutions, is still a very doubtful question. A curious thing in England is the Catholic movement, which is growing stronger every year. It began in that environment, which is known as the high Church, High Church, and represents an attempt to introduce into the custom of Protestant Anglicanism such institutions and such rituals, which, constituting part of the Roman Catholic doctrine and worship, were condemned and rejected by Protestantism at the beginning of the reform. Obviously, for many, the dry structure of worship and ritual, composed by the reformers in the Anglican missal (Book of Common Prayer), turns out to be insufficient; the sacraments of the church in the form in which they are curtailed and furnished by the 15th reform seem insufficient. Confession, excluded by the Anglican Church from among the sacraments, is increasingly being used in the form of a grace-filled action to satisfy the spiritual needs of many pious people; and a person traditionally hated by the English Protestant, the confessor, gains access to families and the significance of a spiritual leader. Moreover, specially composed missals with questions about sins, reminiscent of Jesuit confessional casuistry, come into use among the clergy 16. Before receiving the Eucharist, confession with the resolution of sins is considered necessary by many. The very concept of the Eucharist undergoes a significant change. It is performed in other places during burial and when remembering the dead with prayer for them. It is customary to leave spare gifts in the church for the communion of the sick. In serious illnesses, anointing with consecrated oil is used. More and more external rituals are being introduced into church service, bringing it closer to the Catholic: multi-colored and various brocade and silk vestments, burning incense, using candles, and the like. Many new prayers have been compiled, not at all known to the official missal, from which a devout Anglican is strictly forbidden to deviate; independently of it, a new ministerial book of the priesthood (The Priest's Prayer Book), printed with the permission of some bishops and with their participation, comes into use. Finally, to top it all off, monasteries, for women and even for men, were established and spread - institutions that were essentially contrary to the Protestant view. Women's communities are called communities of sisters of mercy, but these communities are organized entirely in the manner of monasteries and are supported by rich donations and contributions from private individuals, rich and noble. Each community of this kind is under the leadership of a clergyman, privately invited, for the most part, not an old person. He serves as the guide of the sisters' conscience through confession performed periodically at frequent intervals. For prayer meetings, the sisters gather up to 8 times a day, and the order of prayers is established in relation to the Catholic rite, with the use of prostrations and the like. Icons, it’s true, are not used, but signs of the cross and crucifixes are used everywhere, and, not allowing icons, some confessor, during confession, puts an edifying picture in front of his spiritual daughter to arouse feelings! Upon admission, sisters make vows according to the accepted formula, including a vow of unconditional obedience to their boss or mother, who controls them autocratically and demands from them external signs of respect and bows. These communities, sometimes established with the knowledge and consent of bishops, are, in any case, outside their official supervision and do not have officially approved statutes. It is clear that in the absence of hierarchical church subordination and supervision, many abuses are allowed in these institutions: several books have recently appeared in which former sisters, to the obvious temptation of the public, revealed to them a picture of the disorderly life in these unauthorized communities. Is it possible to believe that such institutions obviously consider themselves to be within the depths of the Protestant Church? There are also monasteries on similar principles. Recently (back in July) newspapers started talking about one of these institutions regarding a court case about a 17-year-old boy who was lured to join him to become a monk and refused to be returned to his father by a certain Doctor Lin, who had long established himself in England under the name of Father Ignatius. This Ignatius, without ceasing to be considered in the bowels of the Anglican Church, declared himself a Benedictine and began to establish monasteries for men and women according to the charter he himself composed with the acceptance of vows and the rule of unconditional obedience. Father Ignatius was summoned to court, he was reprimanded, the boy was taken away from him, he was ridiculed in the crowd, but he left the court with the consciousness of his Anglican truth, and the institutions he established continue to operate, and in London itself he has a church, where he officiates according to his own rite, among his monks, in monastic dress. It's obvious where this whole movement is heading. Little by little, the number of converts to Latinism is increasing. According to the latest information, in London alone, about 2,000 people converted to Catholicism during 1872; a significant number of people from the Anglican aristocracy belong to the Latin faith, and in general Catholicism is considered, in the opinion of the aristocracy, a sign of good rather than bad taste. Near Westminster Abbey itself, a huge Catholic cathedral is being erected with private funds, which is intended precisely to glorify Catholicism along with Protestantism. This one phenomenon, which would have been absolutely impossible 30 years ago, shows what strength Roman Catholicism is gaining in England and what kind of future it dreams of for itself. In view of such phenomena, representatives of the old Anglican Protestantism, the champions of the national church institution, are seized with great anxiety and irritation. Their indignation is directed not so much against the newly converted Latins as against their ritualists, who, apparently belonging to the Anglican High Church, essentially profess Roman Catholic doctrines and rituals and are trying to introduce them into common consumption for the Anglican Church. On both sides there is intense agitation through associations, public readings, rallies and magazines that serve as organs of one and the other party. The champions of the national Church are most indignant at the weakness and inaction of the bishops and the government in pursuing the lawless violation of the principles of the Reformation. But previous attempts at persecution have not been successful. Last year there was a decision of the royal council in the case of the ritualists (known as the Bennet case), but the official tribunal, as usual, arranged the decision in such a way that neither side could consider itself satisfied, and the followers of the High Church and the ritualists were still not convicted and were not excommunicated from Anglicanism. This summer, in June, agitation against the ritualists was expressed in a clash, about which rumors have not yet subsided not only in public opinion, but also in parliamentary sessions. The bishops are presented with a petition signed by 60,000 zealots of the old Anglicanism that deviations from the fundamental principles of the Reformation are multiplying enormously, that the national Church is in obvious danger and that it is necessary to take strict and decisive measures to eliminate the abuses that have spread in the High Church. These measures, according to the petitioners, largely depend on the zeal of the bishops. They could act legally against those who disobeyed the decision condemning illegal innovations in the royal council. They could refuse to appoint unreliable persons to parish positions, and so on. This request was answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which satisfied no one. The bishop agrees that there is a danger, and a significant one, but episcopal power is not enough to decisively eliminate it and prosecute those responsible. Moreover, if the Church is threatened, on the one hand, by superstition, then there is no less danger on the other hand from unbelief. There is no doubt that in the end truth will triumph over lies, but for now it will be most effective if the very public opinion of believers begins to refuse sympathy for the innovators; to prosecute them according to the law is the job of church trustees in each parish. This matter, in any case, was unpleasant for the church authorities. The archbishop's response caused a huge meeting, at which the church authorities were directly condemned for indifference and connivance. Then came unpleasant requests to parliament. But the most remarkable and most dangerous thing for the Church seemed to be the following circumstance. Simultaneously with the aforementioned petition, another petition signed by 480 clergy and pastors was received by the Convocation (or the synodal meeting of representatives of the Church) from many people, mostly unknown. These petitioners directly petition for the universal introduction or permission in the Church of England: 1) confession in the power of the sacrament; 2) leaving spare gifts; 3) consecration of oil through bishops; 4) anointing in baptism and confirmation and anointing in illness; 5) celebrating the Eucharist with prayer for the departed; 6) using special prayers on calendar holidays to the Blessed Virgin. The petitioners insist in their petition precisely because one or another of the named rites has already been resolved locally in one form or another, in a variety of ways, by local bishops. The zealots of strict Protestantism fiercely demand that all those who signed this petition be put on trial and deprived of their places as violators of the sacred principles of the Reformation. On this occasion, the Saturday Review poses an ironic question: What are the beginnings of the Reformation? And he concludes that there is no and cannot be a positive answer to this question. Protestantism arose from negation and fell apart within itself; There is not a single beginning in it in which representatives of different sects and teachings would agree among themselves so firmly that it could be called the beginning of the Reformation. If its main principle is the freedom of personal opinion about faith, then this beginning is not firm, since from the first days of the reform, supporters of its various teachings did not cease to execute and persecute each other for opinions about faith. One thing is indisputable, that all Protestant teachings agree in rejecting papal authority, but on this basis the Ritualists stand as firmly as the most advanced of the ecclesiastical conservatives of Anglicanism. The powers that be in the Church of England, of course, will not agree with such reasoning; but still, we can say for sure that the ritualists will be left alone this time. To persecute them would mean to send them with many sympathizing parishioners to the bosom of the Latin Church, which had long been opened to them, would mean to violate the accepted rule of church policy to combine, to the last extreme, all possible shades of faith and unbelief within the broad framework of a political institution created in England under the guise of a national Church. At its very beginning, this Church, founded by the personal lust for power of the king, who set himself up as its head, contained irreconcilable internal contradictions, and, of necessity, carries them within itself to this day, and must put up with them as long as possible. In one of the central parts of London, in Gordon Square, there is a massive building with inscriptions from which its name and purpose are clear: “Central Catholic Apostolic Church” (Catholic and Apostolic Church). You enter and see in the vestibule itself two bowls, as in Latin churches, with holy water, which those entering and leaving reach with their fingertips. As you go further, you see above you the majestic, magnificent vaults of the Gothic cathedral, one of the most beautiful new cathedrals in London. In the background is an ornate altar with candles and a tabernacle, mysteriously illuminated from a high window painted on glass. The entire vast building is filled with people sitting in reverent silence awaiting the service. You sit down, and a minute later a clergyman in a black robe with ribbons comes up to you and politely hands you a book to make it easier to follow the service. From the inscription on it it is clear that such books are intended exclusively for strangers who come to the church to get acquainted with its charter. About ten minutes before the start of the service, music begins: somewhere high under the arches there is an organ, and beautiful, solemn sounds, reverberating upward, attune the soul to reverence. The organ is excellent, the artist plays, the music is Haydn 17 from “Seven Words of the Savior.” The organ falls silent. A side door opens and out comes, two in a row, a long procession of singers and clergy. There will be about forty people in all, and all in picturesque costumes: white or black flowing clothes with ribbons of red, purple or yellow according to degree and rank, they walk solemnly, in silence: others have colored orari over their shoulders. Everyone is seated in official order in the middle of the church, in front of the altar. Behind everyone is a gray-haired old man in a rich purple robe made of velvet with brocade; he has something like an omophorion on his shoulders. This is the head of the church and bears the title of angel. He alone enters a raised platform near the wall, like a pulpit, and begins the evening service according to the rite drawn up in relation to the Anglican rite, only with the modification and addition of some prayers and rituals. He pronounces the words clearly and solemnly, in a recitative manner, ending each speech with a melodious drawl of his voice. The congregation answers him, where appropriate, with a melodious recitative. The Holy Scripture is read, psalms and hymns are sung to the sound of the organ. Near me, on the bench, lies a book of hymns in verse: it was all borrowed from various sources, from private collections, from the Anglican collection, from the Methodists, from the Catholic missal, from the missal of the Orthodox Church; I noticed in it, by the way, beautiful arrangements from our Easter canon. In the middle of the service, the old man approaches the altar, opens the tabernacle, takes out the ark with spare gifts from it and takes it to the middle of the church. In this case, special prayers are required. Soon afterwards the offering of incense occurs. The elder takes the smoking vessel and, standing in the middle of the church, raises it high above his head to heaven, repeating this movement several times, while the harmonious singing of the prayer continues, taken literally from our “May my prayer be corrected.” This moment is very solemn. The service lasts an hour and a half, from 5 to 6 1/2 pm and ends in the evening twilight. The procession of clergy leaves the church in the same order. This is a Sunday evening service. There is a daily service at 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. Moreover, on Sundays at 10 o'clock in the morning there is a service of the Eucharist and lasts for three hours, almost until one in the afternoon, with special splendor of clothes, rituals and music and with a sermon. What kind of Church is this - neither Catholic nor Protestant, but on its own, with such a luxurious ritual? Will they believe that this Church is a degenerate not just from Protestantism, but also from the most strict and bare rank of Scottish Presbyterians, that at the beginning it was distinguished by a shade of rational teaching and a desire to purify a ritual that was already bare. This is the Church of the so-called Irvingites, which calls itself the Apostolic Church. Who was its founder is difficult to determine with accuracy in its current form; but it originated around 1830 from a certain Edward Irving, a once famous preacher, head of the Presbyterian Church in Regent Square. He was a wonderful man, with fire and talent, with a strong influence on everyone who approached him for faith. His story was at one time a great social event in England, and his memory is sacredly revered by many to this day. (There is a lengthy biography of him, beautifully written by Mrs. Oliphant.) He came up with a strange doctrine in which dogmatic fantasies (the main one was the doctrine that the nature of Christ the Redeemer was subject to sin) were combined with the hobbies of mysticism and spiritual self-delusion, with faith in one’s own divinatory and miraculous power. He was brought before the church court, excommunicated from the Church, deprived of his church title, and he died in poverty. But after that there remained a whole school of followers who developed, as often happens, under his name their own system and, finally, taking off the name itself, proclaimed themselves no longer Irvingites, but the Apostolic Church. The distinctive features of their teaching consist, firstly, in the restoration of the apostolate, which they consider interrupted by the death of St. John the Evangelist; On this basis, the Irvingites believe that they have four degrees of church service, considering them a necessary condition for proper church organization: apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds. Secondly, their teaching includes the constant expectation of the coming of Christ into the world; thirdly, faith in the immediate and continuous visible action in the church of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, they have prophets - a living organ for proclaiming to the faithful the teachings and broadcasts of the Holy Spirit. Among the Irvingites, as well as among the Mormons, 18 through the prophets the original established teaching is supplemented and changed orally. So, in 1632, they indicated the required number of Apostles - twelve, and from that time on they began to have twelve Apostles scattered throughout the universe. Recently, this number, due to the retirement of the available Apostles, has been reduced to three, but the three existing, active, act zealously. Strange as this teaching of the Irvingites may seem in the midst of the Church of England, their Church flourishes and gains adherents even among many learned men; fifteen years ago one of the most learned German theologians, the pious Thirsch 19, lost his chair at the University of Marburg because he began to openly profess the teachings of the Irvingites. And now there are clergymen in the Church of England who, without ceasing to be members of their Church, adhere to the same teaching. It presents special conveniences, and therefore special dangers for people prone to infatuation. The Irvings do not consider themselves to be a special, closed Church, and therefore do not require a visible transition to themselves and visible confession. They recognize their Church as a single collection of all baptized Christians and accept the Creed - the Apostolic, Nicene-Constantinople and the so-called Athanasian; the formula of faith is expanded whenever possible (for example, in the Symbol, which is printed in their service book and pronounced in church, there is not a word about the origin of the Holy Spirit). They themselves preach that they are ready to be in communion with every Christian Church where there is baptism; and no matter what country they live in, they pray the church prayer for the ruling Christian Church there and for its spiritual government. And so they, from their point of view, do not believe that there is a difference between the Roman, Eastern and Protestant church congregations. In Russia, seeking recognition from the government, they intended to pray for the Tsar, for the Synod and for the Church. In their London cathedral, at the altar, there is a characteristic inscription meaning the prayer of the Irvingians “Pro Ecclesiis Anglicanis” - for the English churches. In England, the Irvingians already have seven churches and have significant funds from private donations. Just look at their cathedral to see that they are rich. For the construction of this church, truly remarkable in beauty and size, one wealthy Englishman donated 80,000 pounds. VII. Deists and Unitarians 20 in London London is primarily a city of all kinds of sects. It is unlikely that in any other city there will be so many different religious doctrines and places of worship, so many interesting materials for direct study by an observer curious about this area. This summer a book appeared under the title: “Unorthodox London” (“Unorthodox London”) by a certain Davis, who for several years sought out and visited gatherings and churches of all possible creeds and opinions that can be found in London. This book was written in the spirit of the broadest tolerance, and the author put the text as an epigraph to it: “in My Father’s House are many mansions.” Many of the religious monasteries indicated in the book seem so narrow and stuffy that it is difficult to believe how living people can find shelter in them for their religious feelings and consciousness. You are even more surprised when you learn that people known for their extensive intelligence and learning sometimes establish their beliefs in these shelters, neglecting the Church in which they were born and raised and in which, it seems, it would be more akin to calm the believing spirit in an enlightened person. Isn’t it strange, for example, that the famous Faraday 21, the first luminary of modern science, belonged by faith to the dark and little-known sect of the Sandemanians or Glassites 22, which has a very small number of adherents only in England, Scotland and partly in America. This sect arose in the first half of the last century and was named after its founder, the Scottish pastor Glass and his son-in-law Sandeman. Its main feature is the excessive distortion of the Protestant teaching about the grace-filled action of faith. The Glassites completely reject the religious significance of the matter; deeds, according to their teaching, are completely insignificant: the death of Christ in itself, independent not only of the deed, but also of the spiritual consciousness of each person, removes condemnation from everyone and everyone and places the most terrible sinner innocent in salvation. Such a dogma gives a bare, cheerless appearance to the entire teaching and worship of the sectarians. There is no place in it either for deeds of piety and love, or for Christian hope - everything is limited to a cold consciousness of a historical event, detached from life. However, by virtue of it, sectarians consider themselves brothers and unite from time to time at love evenings, where they choose places near each other by lot and after the evening they are obliged to greet each other with a kiss. It is remarkable that there is not a single teaching in which the need for religious ritual is not revealed. The need for religious feeling is so strong in humanity that people who deny religion, sooner or later, tend to one or another, even a vague and indefinite form of religious cult, so that in the very denial they unconsciously manifest a desire for something positive: it often happens that people, striving to purify a rejected belief and ritual, fall into another belief, created by them, more complex than the previous one, abandoned, and They accept the ritual more rudely than the previous one, which they condemned for rudeness. This is how a flow takes place in a circle without origin: the newest paganism degenerates from Christianity, only to come again over time to the same point from which it emerged. People who rejected God and Christianity at the end of the last century invented for themselves a goddess of reason 23 . There is no doubt that the atheists of our time, if they ever wait until the triumph of the commune and the complete abolition of Christian worship, will create some kind of pagan cult for themselves, erect some kind of statue to themselves or to their ideal and begin to honor it, and force others to do the same. Communists are still engaged in agitation, propaganda and intrigue and do not need any cult. But it is interesting to see what kind of cult the followers of the so-called natural philosophical religion have created for themselves. In London you can see examples of their liturgical rites. There are deist circles in which a unique kind of worship has developed. It can be seen on Finsbury Street, in the so-called Fox Chapel. A certain Conway serves and preaches there on Sundays at 12 o'clock in the morning. He is considered in London the head of the so-called free society of deists. Of course, there is no decoration in the chapel: only benches and a pulpit, onto which the speaker ascends in an ordinary dress. He is also the author of the entire liturgical rite, from which everything resembling public prayer was carefully removed. At the beginning and at the end of the meeting, a hymn from a private collection is sung, not by all those present, but by a special choir of singers. Between the hymns there are three readings as assigned by the leader: from the Old Testament, from the New Testament and, in addition, from some literary and edifying work, for example from Parker 24, from Pilgrim's Progress 25; There are readings from new poets, from the works of Mazzini 26, Voltaire, and the like. Then there is not a sermon in the accepted sense, but a reading by the speaker on his chosen topic of philosophical content. So, on one Sunday they spoke about the significance of Voltaire (who is considered among deists to be the great genius of their faith), another time - about the significance of reason in disputes about faith; about the life and work of Mazzini. Sometimes the primate gives up the reading space to another - local or visiting - lecturer: so once Colonel Higginson, visiting from America, gave a lecture about Buddha 27 and about his teaching, which he enthusiastically put on a par with the teaching of Christ. This morning the readings were from the Gospel about the beatitudes, and from the Buddha about virtues. It would seem that there is not much difference between a deist and a Unitarian (who rejects the trinity of the Godhead), and yet the Unitarian recognizes the deist as a heretic and turns away from him. Unitarians have their own churches and their own worship, in which there is no unity, just like the deists: the primate of each Church serves according to his own example. In the most fashionable Church of this kind, the most frequented, in Little Portland Street, near Oxford Street, Mr. Martino preached last year; he added the clerical title Reverend to his name, wore church clothes during services, and used a missal with prayers (which deists do not have). This missal has been redone, with abbreviations for evening and morning prayers, from the general Anglican one, and all passages that have anything to do with the Trinity have been removed. Prayers and the singing of hymns are followed by a sermon, but the Unitarian sermon is difficult for the simple mind: it resembles a philosophical lecture or a poem. Sometimes visiting guests come to the Unitarian Church, each with their own special philosophical teaching. Here one could hear Athanasius Cockrel 28 from Paris. Here last year, the theologian-reformer Babu Keshub 29, visiting from India, preached a new doctrine about Brahma! Progressive representatives of Unitarianism are of the opinion that preaching should be a lyrical outpouring of the spirit and express the movements of the heart in an appeal to the Divine; that teaching or instruction in preaching is inappropriate; the preacher must be a prophet in the church, and not a priest of the old type. It is clear that under such conditions there are no places in the church for the people, for ordinary people, and visitors to Unitarian churches belong almost exclusively to the wealthy class of people with higher education. These are the religions that human wisdom invents for itself! The undersigned, representatives of various branches of the Evangelical Union, with a feeling of deepest respect turn to Your Imperial Majesty, placing the following request at your feet. It is well known to Your Majesty that one of the main goals of the Evangelical Union has always been to take care of the needs of Christians throughout the world, so that everyone has the opportunity to freely follow their religion according to the conscience of each and according to the rites of the Church to which everyone belongs. Since 1849, and more than once, the Evangelical Union has been an intercessor for freedom of conscience and worship before many governments and Sovereigns of Europe. By the grace of God, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, our efforts in Sweden, in Italy, in Tuscany, in Germany, in Spain, in Turkey and in Austria have served almost everywhere to extend the great principle of religious freedom to those who had not previously enjoyed it. The Evangelical Union was not denied the favor of the Emperors, Your Majesty's predecessors, both by the favorable reception at Berg Castle in 1857 and 1870, and by the statement of the former Chancellor of the Empire for Foreign Affairs, Prince Gorchakov, in 1871 at the reception in Friedrichsruhe on behalf of His Majesty Emperor Alexander II. This gives us hope that even now the All-Russian Emperor will not refuse to listen to us. In 1864, His Majesty Emperor Alexander II ordered a study into complaints about restrictions on religious freedom in the Baltic provinces. On the basis of it, Your Majesty’s Most August Parent abolished for these provinces the application of church law regarding prenuptial subscriptions in mixed marriages. The Governor-General of this region is entrusted with overseeing the implementation of the Highest Will and protecting Protestant pastors from any persecution. Since then, under the influence of circumstances, about which it is not the business of the Evangelical Union to judge and of which only the consequences for it are obvious, the ancient legislation regarding mixed marriages has come into force again, Lutheran pastors have been prevented from edifying their flocks, and finally, all those who, without sufficient testing, rejected the religion of their fathers in order to convert to the Orthodox confession, are deprived of the right to return to their former faith under pain of punishment on the basis of the criminal law, again restored in action. We beg Your Majesty to believe our decisive statement that we are far from any thought of any interference in matters relating to the reign or policy of Your Imperial Majesty. We know that in Russia there are laws prohibiting members of the Orthodox Church from converting to other confessions. But, daring to ask Your Majesty for the abolition of these laws, we, by this very request, think to give the highest praise to that sense of justice that animated the Most August Son of the liberator of 20 million from slavery, the Son of the monarch who allowed the free spread of the word of God throughout the Empire. By interceding for religious freedom, we do not at all think of violating the beginning of church authority and in no way express the idea that all opinions (in matters of faith) have the same value. Our cherished desire is that everyone who has the privilege of being a subject of Your Majesty can freely honor God according to his conscience and the command of God in His holy word, that each of your subjects can freely raise their children in the faith of their fathers, that the spiritual shepherds of Christian churches of the non-Orthodox confession can freely fulfill all the duties of their title in relation to their flock, and finally, that all those who do not realize the importance of the decision, enrolled in the lists of the Orthodox Church, they could without fear return to the bosom of their former Church if they expressed a free desire to do so. We are confident that the beginning of tolerance towards all religions, as well as the beginning of freedom of conscience, is firmly in the conviction of Your Imperial Majesty. Therefore, the Evangelical Union legitimately preserves the hope that the building, the foundations of which were so gloriously laid by the late Emperor Nicholas and His Most August Son, will be crowned by Your Majesty, and that you will be pleased to grant to your subjects the greatest of blessings - the opportunity to honor the Christian God according to the conscience of each and according to the rites of the Church to which each belongs, and not only in the Baltic region, but in all parts of the vast An Empire where the Name of Your Majesty is lovingly revered by millions of people who daily invoke in prayer the blessing of God on the Sacred Head of their Emperor and Father. Being members of various Churches, but united by one faith in Jesus Christ, our Savior, in the Holy Spirit, we pray to the Heavenly Father to incline Your Majesty’s heart to mercy, so that you deign to listen to our request and exercise once again the highest right of royal power, commanding that peace, truth and freedom reign in all families and in all tribes of the Empire. Your Imperial Majesty On behalf of the Swiss Section: G. Edouard Naville, President of the Swiss Central Committee; Evgeniy Mittendorf, secretary. On behalf of the Dutch Department: Baron de Wassener de Katvik, President; Count de Bylandt, secretary. On behalf of the Danish Division: Wahl, President; Olaf Hansen, secretary. On behalf of the English Department: Polwart, President; Field, secretary; Arnold, secretary. On behalf of the North American Division: Dodge, President; Philip Schaff, honorary secretary; I. Strong, general secretary. On behalf of the North German Department: Andrey Count Bernstorf, President, Eugene Waumann, Pastor, Secretary. On behalf of the East German Department: Fedor Christlieb, professor of theology, president; Dammon, pastor, secretary. (Address of the Evangelical Union to His Imperial Majesty Alexander III // Faith and Reason. – 1888. – No. 6. – P. 121–124). Bélé Charles Ernest (1826–1874) - French archaeologist, deputy of the National Assembly (from 1871), Minister of the Interior (from 1873), committed suicide as a result of the loss of his ministerial position and an unsuccessful game on the stock exchange. The text in italics was published in the “Moscow Collection” in the “Church” section. Westminster Abbey is the Collegiate Church of St. Peter in Westminster (London), located west of the Palace of Westminster. Designed in the Gothic style, it was built intermittently from 1245 to 1745. British monarchs are crowned in Westminster Abbey. Stanley Arthur (1815–1881) – Anglican theologian, Church historian, professor of church history (1856–1864), dean of Westminster Abbey, supporter of reconciliation between the High and Low Anglican Churches, in his research he paid a lot of attention to the Orthodox Church, the history of Judaism, author of a work on travel in the East (“Sinai and Palestine”), written in 1856 year. High Church - a movement in Anglicanism and Lutheranism that strives to preserve pre-Reformation traditional worship; The "Low Church" was characterized by its affinity with the Calvinists and supported the Whigs (Puritan political party) in politics; The "Broad Church" was a unifying movement. The Wesleyan Brethren are an Anglican society founded at Oxford University in 1729 and led by John Wesley, who later became a priest. The society included fifteen young people who pledged to strengthen each other in faith and piety through common prayer and edifying conversations, to help the sick and poor, for which they were nicknamed Methodists and the “club of saints.” Later, Wesley became imbued with Luther's ideas and, together with Whitfield, made missionary trips around England. Their preaching became very popular, and as a result, a decree was issued banning them from entering churches. Methodist chapels began to open, and laymen and women were allowed to preach. In 1744, the first Wesleyan conference was held to resolve dogmatic and hierarchical issues. The dogmatics contained the doctrine of justification by faith, the maintenance of which requires good works, and did not deviate significantly from Anglicanism. Wesley was convinced of the injustice of the excommunication of Methodists from the Church of England, calling for them to defend the teachings of the English Church, obey the bishops, and observe the canons. The conference established strict rules of conduct for Methodists with strict centralization of management, discipline of obedience and subordination of the individual to society. In 1784, Wesley consecrated one of his followers as a "superintendent" with the rights of a bishop, after the Church of England refused to appoint bishops for the Methodists. In 1785, the Church of England formally declared the Methodists a sect. Methodist communities in England and America preached the Gospel, polemicizing against rationalism, organized philanthropic institutions, and fought against the slave trade. Congregationalists, Independents - a branch of English Calvinism that arose in 1580 as a result of a schism with the Presbyterians, asserting the autonomy of each parish community, denying the need for a universal and national Church. The Independent movement, led by Oliver Cromwell, played a leading role in the English Revolution of 1640–1660. In No. 33 of the magazine “Citizen” on p. 93, in the footnote to the article “On the issue of the reunification of the Churches,” there is a typo: “for immaturity” should be read as “frozenness.” In this edition, the text is published in accordance with the indicated correction. In No. 33 of the magazine “Citizen”, on p. 893 in the footnote to the article “On the issue of the reunification of the Churches” there is a typo: “official forms” should be read as “conditional forms”. In this edition, the text is published in accordance with the indicated correction. Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich (1804–1860) - philosopher, theologian, publicist, poet, historian, writer, one of the ideologists of Slavophilism, who advocated the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, author of the article “On the Old and the New” (1839), candidate of mathematical sciences, artist, participant in the Russian-Turkish War of 1828–1829, member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1856); died after becoming infected during a cholera epidemic while treating peasants. E sempre bene is a traditional colloquial expression in Italian, meaning conditional, ironic, mocking approval. The Jesuit Order (Society of Jesus) was founded by Ignatius de Loyola (1491/1493–1556), and in 1548 Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises were approved by Pope Paul III. Yu. F. Samarin (1819–1876) devoted a lot of time to the study of Jesuit ideology and practice. According to the thinker, the Jesuits advised having two confessors: one for confessing mortal sins, the other for ordinary ones; They also advised not to carry out the murder of an unwanted person yourself, but to entrust it to someone else who would carry it out of love for one’s neighbor. (See: Samarin Yu. F. The Jesuits and their attitude towards Russia. - M., 1868. - 510 p.) Samarin's interest in the Jesuits was far from idle. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Jesuits successfully carried their views into the highest spheres of society, distant from Orthodoxy by the “Enlightenment” ideas of the 18th century. In 1801, the pope allowed the activities of the Jesuit Order in Russia, although it had been banned everywhere since 1773; in 1803, a Jesuit boarding house opened in St. Petersburg. Jesuit Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) in 1811 submitted to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the Chief Administrator of Foreign Confessions A.N. Golitsyn (1773–1844) a note, which was an excerpt from his treatise on Russia, which Alexander I later became familiar with, as a result of which the tsar signed a decree transforming the Jesuit Polotsk College into an Academy. De Maistre actively and successfully preached his views among the aristocracy, insisting on the need to hand over the education of the upper class to Latinism (in the Jesuit version), since he called Orthodox priests incapable, uninfluential and uneducated. At the same time, de Maistre opposed the abolition of serfdom and the education of the lower strata of society, apparently feeling the powerful intellectual and spiritual potential of the Orthodox population of clergy and peasant ranks, which could resist Jesuit ideas. “Will not a true friend of His Imperial Majesty find an opportunity to inform him that the glory and prosperity of the empire lies not so much in the liberation of the serf part of the people, but in the improvement of those who are free and, above all, noble... Do not carry out liberation from serfdom too widely, do not in any way contribute to it by adopting any law, because any law adopted in this direction would be simply fatal... Do not in any way encourage the spread of science in the lower strata of the people and even imperceptibly (my italics - O.S.) hinder an undertaking of this kind.” – De Maistre J. Four unpublished chapters about Russia // Works. - St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2007. - P. 43, 110, 111. Before the king, de Maistre presented himself and the Jesuits as the only defenders of the monarchy and the traditional foundations of society. Having delved into the essence of the activities of the Jesuits in the second half of the tenth years of the 19th century, Alexander I expelled them from both capitals, and then (in 1820) from Russia; the Jesuit boarding house was also closed. But the ideas sown by the Jesuits did not leave Russia with them. Yu. F. Samarin wrote: “In all societies in which the Jesuits ruled and ruled, they left behind a poison that was supposed to outlive all their interests and seep into the minds of their most distinct opponents, as well as into the minds of their incorrigible admirers. This poison is nothing more than a misunderstanding, but a tenacious misunderstanding, penetrating everywhere and almost invincible. It consists in identifying faith with slavery of thought, piety with free self-delusion or conscious pretense, the immutability of teaching with severe exclusivity, with the spirit of persecution, and vice versa: unbelief with free-thinking, and indifference with tolerance” (Samarin Yu. F. Op. cit. – pp. 257–259). Haydn Franz Joseph (1732–1809) was an Austrian composer who created a melody that became the basis for the anthems of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Mormons, “Latter Day Saints,” are a religious sect founded in the United States in the 1st half of the 19th century by Joseph Smith, who called himself God’s messenger and published the “Book of Mormon” in 1830, declared to be a translation of the secret writings of the prophet Mormon, who is allegedly one of the founders of the American Indians or American Israelites. The real author of the book was a Presbyterian, priest Spalding. The Mormon religion is pantheistic, they recognize the existence of many spirits and angels, the pre-existence of the souls of people who, having incarnated on earth, will receive the fullness of existence through this; hence the belief that the main purpose of man is to have wives and children in order to facilitate the incarnation of more spirits. The Mormon social system is a theocracy with a prophet at its head. Thiersch Friedrich-Wilhelm (1784–1860) – philologist, teacher, publicist, ardent supporter of the study of ancient languages ​​(Greek and Latin) and ancient writers in connection with the German language, history, philosophy, the Law of God and mathematics. Deists are a religious and philosophical doctrine, or an English sect, founded by Lord Herbert Cherbury (1583–1648), which reached its peak during the Enlightenment. The Masonic order of the Illuminati spread deism. Deism recognizes the existence of God, the divine creation of the world, denying Revelation, dogmas and supernatural phenomena. After the creation of the world, God, according to deists, either does not interfere in the life of His creation, or not everything is in His power. Deism sees the means of knowing God in reason and observation of nature. Deism does not recognize the priesthood of the church hierarchy, churches, church communities, but only secular associations of deists. Unitarians, anti-Trinitarians - a sect that does not accept the dogma of the Trinity, which was condemned as heresy at the Council of Nicaea in 325. During the Reformation, anti-Trinitarians called themselves Unitarians. Some of them taught that Christ is the “inner light” of the human heart (Sebastian Frank, d. 1543), others that Jesus was an ordinary man, but filled with the Spirit of God (Conrad, d. 1529 and Ludwig Getzer, d. 1528). One way or another, they denied the Savior’s merits on the cross and His God-manhood. Faraday Michael (1791 - 1867) - English physicist, chemist, founder of the study of the electromagnetic field, member of the Royal Society of London for the Advancement of Knowledge of Nature. The Glassites, Sandemanians, are a Protestant sect founded by the Scottish pastor John Glass in the first half of the 18th century. We are talking about the establishment of the cult of Reason by the authorities during the Great French Revolution. Parker Theodore (1810–1860) was an American politician, writer, preacher, founder of the Boston Congregational Society in 1845 (a sect that opposed American Unitarianism), a champion of socio-political changes, the abolition of slavery and the introduction of Prohibition. We are talking about the work of the English writer and Baptist preacher John Bunyan (1628–1688) “The Pilgrim’s Progress.” Mazzini Giuseppe (1805–1872) - Italian politician, philosopher, writer, champion of national liberation and liberal reforms. Buddha - according to Buddhist mythology - who has achieved enlightenment; founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha. Cockrel Athanas (1795–1868) - French statesman, moderate republican, Reformed pastor, preacher, theologian, critic of Calvinism. Babu Keshub, Keshub Chandler Sen (1838–1884) - Indian philosopher who tried to combine Christian theology with Indian religious thought, noting the presence of elements of Christianity in many teachings.